    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

            coastal resources collaborative,, ltd.

                              THE EWIIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY:

                               AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN OF PAMLICO COUNTY,

                                                  NORTH CAROLINA

                    HT
                    256
                     .E68
                     1984

                           6 12 Shadv Lawn Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 275 14 919-942-8937

                            THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY:

                            AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN OF PAMLICO COUNTY,

                                                 NORTH CAROLINA

                                                      1984

                                    Coastal Resources Collaborative, Ltd.

                  The preparation of this document was financed in part through a grant
                  provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds
                  provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is
                  administered by the Office.of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management,
                  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

                                                      Table of Contents

                                                                                                       Page

                    Introduction . . . . 0 0 0 0            . . . . . . .                                  1

                    Chapter 1    Pamlico County Profile     . * *  a *  . 9                                3

                                 1.1    Natural Setting     . * *  * *  * *                                3
                                 1.2    Population and Economy     . . . . .                               4
                                 1.3    Agriculture    . . . . .   6 0  0 0 #                              6
                                 1.4    Forestry  . . . . . . . .    0  . . . . . .                        7
                                 1.5    Commercial Fisheries     . . . .  0 . 0 .  .                       9

                    Chapter 2    Environmental Impacts of Agriculture       and  Forestry   . . . .      11

                                 2.1    Impac ts Associated with the Conversion of
                                           Natural Areas .                                               11
                                 2.2    Decline in Soil PrOL;tivit;                                      13
                                 2.3    Problems Related to Artificial Drainage        0  0 a . . .      15
                                 2.4    Inadequate Restocking of Forested Lands        *  0 9 0          17
                                 2.5    Freshwater Runoff to Estuaries                                   18
                                 2.6    Sedimentation    . . . . .                                       20
                                 2e7    Nutrients * v e o. 9 e *                                         21
                                 2.8    Pathogens    . . . . .   * *          . . .                      23
                                 2.9    Pesticides   . . . .  0  . . . . . . .                           24

                    Chapter 3    Current Approaches to Reducing Impa      cts               . . . .      28

                                 3.1    Technical Solutions and Ipediments      to
                                           their Adoption     . . . . . . . . . .                  0     28
                                 3.2    Soil Erosion Programs      . . . . . .                     *     30
                                 3.3    Water Quality Programs . . *      .                        9     34
                                 3.4    Drainage and Water Management     .'Programs               9     38
                                 3.5    Forest Management Programs                                 *     43

                    Chapter 4    Recommendations                                              . . .      47

                                 4.1    County Policy                                                    47
                                 4.2    Education, Technical.Assistance,      and
                                           Economic Incentives . . . . .      * . .         * . . .      48
                                 4.3    Support for the Bay River Soil and Water
                                           Conservation District     . . . .  a 0 0 a  a  a .      0     50
                                 4.4    Cross-Compliance    . . . . . . . . .   0 0  . . . . . . .       51
                                 4.5    Water Management .                                               53

                                                    INTRODUCTION

                       in Pamlico County, as in many other parts of the coastal plain,

                 agriculture and forestry are two of the area"s leading industries and together

                 account for the vast majority of land use. A substantial portion of the

                 county's population derives its livelihood either directly or indirectly from

                 this production of food and timber. Clearly, the long-term economic health

                 and social well-being of the county depend on maintenance of the natural

                 resource base that supports these and other commercial activities.

                       Unfortunately, not all agricultural and forestry operations in the county

                 are conducted in an environmentally sound manner. Certain practices have been

                 shown to have detrimental effects on the productivity of the land and on the

                 condition and enjoyment of neighboring lands and receiving waters. Such

                 impacts include accelerated erosion, the loss of natural areas and    wildlife

                 habitat, freshwater inflow to brackish nursery areas, and noxioius     inputs of

                 sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and bacteria to receiving waters.       Such

                 impacts have the potential for damaging the long-term productivity of

                 agriculture and forestry as well as the quality and productivity of estuarine

                 waters, upon which the county's other leading industry, fishing, depends.

                       Policy makers in the federal, state, and local governments have

                 recognized many of these problems and hav  e instituted programs to address

                 them. Some programs have been successful in,achieving their objectives.

                 Others have not, for reasons of underfunding, poor design, or other causes.

                 In most cases these environmental problems persist, though at levels that are

                 less severe than they would be in the absence of government intervention.

                       The purpose of this report is to examine the environmental impacts of

                 agriculture and forestry in Pamlico County, to review the major public

                 programs currently addressing these issues, and to make recommendations to the

                 Board of Commissioners, as appropriate, on measures to further reduce these

                 impacts. The report is divided into four chapters: a profile of the county

                 and its agriculture, forestry, and fisheries industries; a review of the

                 principal environmental impacts of agriculture and forestry in the county; a

                 review of existing federal, state, and county programs designed to reduce or

                 eliminate these problems, and a series of recommendations for the Board,

                 including an amendment to the county land use plan and various options

                 available to implement this policy.

                                                       2

                                                   Chapter One

                                             PAMLICO COUNTY PROFILE

                 1.1 Natural Setting

                      Pamlico County oc cupies the outer portion of the peninsula lying between

                 the embayed lower reaches of the Pamlico and Neuse Rivers in the North

                 Carolina coastal plain. The topography of the county was largely shaped

                 during periods of higher-sea level. The eastern   two-thirds are part of the

                 Pamlico marine terrace, a flat, low-lying surface ranging' from 0-20 feet above

                 sea level. This surface is separated from the higher Chowan terrace in the

                 county's western third by the Minnesott Ridge and Grantsboro Scarp, an ancient

                 shoreline feature running north-south through the county along highway 306.

                 The county's modern-day shoreline is dissected by a series of creeks and bays,
                 particularly along the Pamlico Sound shore.1

                      Extensive areas of both organic and mineral soils occur. Eighty percent

                 of the county's soils are classified as either poorly drained or very poorly

                 drainede As a result, most of the natural vegetation is hydrophytic

                 (water-loving), and most of the county could be classified as various types of

                 wetlands. Natural habitats in   the county once included brackish and fresh

                 marshes, wooded swamps, hardwood flats, pine flatwoods, upland pine stands,
                 and upland mixed pine-hardwood forests.2 While substantial portions of the

                 county have been cleared for agriculture or converted to pine plantations,

                 many natural areas remain, ranging in condition from virtually pristine to

                 highly disturbed. Abundant populations of many wildlife species'were noted by

                 Barick and Critcher, inc luding deer, small game (quail, rabbit, squirrel,

                                                        3

                 dove, woodcock, snipe, raccoon, opossum), furbearers (fox, bobcat, mink,
                 otter, muskrat, beaver, nutria), and waterfowl.3

                 1.2 Population and Economy

                       Pamlico County's population stood at 10,398 in 1980, an increase of 9.8%

                 over  1970. Population size has remained relatively stable over the years,

                 having fluctuated between 9,000 and 10,000 since the turn of the century.

                       The most recent county land use data were recorded in 1967 and are shown

                 in Table 1. Cropland expanded steadily in the 1970's and now can be found

                 throughout the county outside the large expanses of marshland along Pamlico

                 Sound and the pocosin bogs of the interior. Urban uses are concentrated for

                 the most part in the county's eight incorporated and several unincorporated

                 towns and in strip development along the major highways.

                       The economy is natural resource oriented and is dominated by agriculture,

                 fishing, and forestry (Table 2). These three industries accounted for 13% of

                 the county's employment in 1980 (compared with only 3% statewide), and if

                 agricultural services are included, generated an estimated 23% of all personal
                 income in the county in 1978.4 The contributions of these industries to the

                 county economy are in fact even larger than these figures would indicate.

                 Much of the manufacturing and wholesale-trade in the county is in locally

                 produced food and fiber; in 1977, for instance, 15 of the county's 18

                 manufacturing establishments involved food proces sing, and a 16th dealt with
                 wood products.5 In addition, many of the retail and service establishments

                 and a large part of government employment are supported indirectly by earnings

                 from agriculture, forestry, and fishing. Clearly, the county is heavily

                 dependent on the continued vitality of these industries.

                                                        4

                                              Table 1. Pamlico County Land Use Data

                                   Land.                         Area                     %   Land Area

                                   Forested                    157,000  acres                   74  %
                                   Cropland and pasture         33,500                          16
                                   Marshland                    192000                            9
                                   Urban                          2,900                           1

                                   Total  land area            213,400                        100 %
                                   Total  water area           151,000

                                   Total  county area          3649400

                     Source: N.C. State Univ. Dept. of          Economics, "North Carolina Land Use Data,"
                               1967, as cited in Pamlico        County 1980 Land Use Plan.

                          Table 2. Rece    ipts for Agricultural, Forestry and Fisheries Products,
                                                             Pamlico County

                                                      (in thousands    of dollars)
                               Year              Agriculturel              Forestry2              Fisheries3

                               1983                  N/A                      3$621                 7,135
                               1982                15,064                     3P395                 79688
                               1981                12,985                     3.9183                6,710
                               1980                132291                     39,012                9,737
                               1979                119-598                    3$260                 6,573

                     1. Cash receipts from farm marketings and government payments minus receipts
                        from farm forest, greenhouse, and nursery, from N.C. Farm Income, published
                        annually by the N.C. Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, N.C. Dept. of
                        Agriculture, Raleigh.
                     2. County extension agent estimates of receipts for timber sales; figures
                        listed are stumpage prices and therefore represent income minus cost of
                        harvest, unlike the other two columns.
                     3. Preliminary seafood landings, dockside value, from the N.C. Division of
                        Marine Fisheries.

                                                                     5

                  1.3 Agriculture

                        Agriculture is Pamlico County's leading industry and second largest 1     and

                  user. It employed 264 county residents in 1980, and farm receipts totalled

                  over $15 million in 1982.

                        Trends in farm numbers, size, and acreage harvested over the last thirty

                  years, as recorded by the federal Census of Agriculture, are shown in Table

                  3. The national trend toward fewer, larger farms       due largely to steady

                  advances in mechanization and worker productivity, is very evident locally.

                  Harvested acreage declined from 1950 to 1969, but increased steadily during

                  the boom years of the 1970's to reach a thirty-year high in 1982. Throughout

                  this period, however,. there has been a steady increase in the proportion of

                  farms in harvested cropland, from 41% in 1950 to 70% in 1982, reflecting in

                  part the effect of escalating farm costs.

                       Principal crops grown in the county,     in terms of harvested acreage and

                  income, are 'soybeans, corn, tobacco, potatoes, and wheat (Table 4). The

                  county has one of the lowest livestock populations of any county in t-he state;

                             Table 3. Trends in Pamlico County     Agriculture, 1950-1982.

                                     Number       Average size        Land in          Harvested
                                    of  farms        of farms          farms            cropland

                    1982                136          324 acres      44PO45 acres     30,718  acres
                    1978                174          245            42,597           28,129
                    1974                225          205            46,130           24*132
                    1969                286          159            45,466           20,533
                    1964                330          172            56,789           22,458
                    1959                466          133            61,781           23,699
                    1954                738            93           68,547           269393
                    1950                789            89           66,022           279080

                  Source: U.S. Censuses of Agriculture, 1950-1982.

                                                           6

                                 Tab le 4. Crops Harvested in Pamlico County, 1982.

                          Crop                       Acreage                   Value
                                                                      (thousands of  dollars)

                          Tobacco                        720                   2,632
                          Corn for grain              99400                    2,652
                          Soybeans for beans          24,000                   31888
                          Sweet potatoes                  30                       24
                          Irish potatoes              2,550                    2,106
                          Wheat for grain             7$400                       876
                          Oats for grain                 180                       14
                          Sorghum grain               1,170                        80

                  Source: North Carolina Crop and Livestock Re   porting Service, North Carolina
                          Agricultural Statistics   (Raleigh: N.C. Dept. of Agriculture and U.S.
                          Dept. of AgricultuTe-,1983).

                  the 1982 Census  of Agriculture recorded only 550 cattle, 1800 hogs, and 85

                  chickens.

                       One of the distinguishing features of agriculture in Pamlico County is

                  its dependence on art ificial drainage. As mentioned earlier, most county

                  soils have high water tables. In 1967 the Soil Conservation Service

                  classified 92% of the county's cropland and 95% of all county land in land

                  capability subclasses marked "w," indicating wetness limitations for
                  agricultural production.7 Drainage is necessary to farm most of these soils,

                  and an extensive surface drainage network of canals and ditches exists

                  throughout the county.

                  1.4 Forestry

                       Forestry is the largest land user in Pamlico County     but ranks behind

                  agriculture and fisheries in income generated. Loblolly pine is the principal

                  species harvested and virtually the only one planted; the rest of the harvest

                  consists of long,leaf and pond pines and oak, sweetgum, tupelo, blackgum, and

                  other hardwoods. In 1983 the timber harvest, as estimated by the county

                                                           7

                  extension agent, amounted to 296,500 cords of pulpwood-and 5.48 million board

                  feet of sawtimber...

                       Estimates of commercial forest land   ownership in Pamlico County were made

                  by the U.S. Forest Service in 1974 and are shown in Table 5. Major industrial

                  owners include Weyerhauser, Texasgulf, Georgia-Pacific, and Taylor. On these

                  lands, typical management is for a 25-35   year pine rotation that includes one

                  or more thinnings, application of phosphate fertilizer, an optional pruning,
                  and periodic controlled burns of the forest floor.8 On small, private

                  holdings, management intensity varies widely with landowner objectives,

                  interest, and availability of funds, and ranges from management as intense as

                  that of the forest industry to no management at all.

                       The harvests on.both industrial and small private holdings are typically

                  done by contract loggers, and most of the harvest is taken to pulp or saw

                  mills in New Bern and Plymouth. Regeneration is accomplished by planting

                  (particularly on industrial holdings) or by natural seeding from seed trees or

                  neighboring tracts.

                       Table 5. Commercial Forest Land Ownership in Pamlico County, 1974.

                                                             Area             Percentage

                           Forest industry                35,956 acres            24%
                           Farm                                                   22
                           Miscellaneous corporate        19,664                  13
                           Miscellaneous individual       579,939                 39
                           State                           1,000                   1

                           Total                         147,115                  99

                  Source: Richard L. Welch and Herbert A. Knight, Forest Statistics for the
                          Northern Coastal Plain of North   Carolina, 1974, USDA Forest Service
                          Resource Bulletin SE-30 (Asheville, N.C.: Southeastern Forest
                          Experiment Station, 1974), p. 14.

                                                          8

                  1.5 Commercial Fisheries

                        commercial fishing was Pamlico County's second leading industry in 1983,

                  generating over $7 million in dockside earnings and substantially more in the

                  processing, wholesale, and retail trade of fish products. County landings, in

                  weight and value, for the last six years are shown in Table 6. Throughout

                  this period, the county has consistently ranked third in value landed among

                  coastal counties, after Dare and Carteret. Principal species landed are

                  shrimp, flounder, blue crab, grey sea trout, croaker, and spot.

                       Major fishing ports in the county are Lowland, Hobucken, Vandemere,

                  Bayboro, Pamlico, and Oriental. A total of 848 commercial vessel licenses

                  were purchased in 1983, consisting of 272 full-time licenses, 188 part-time,

                  and 388 pleasure. (The figure of 272 full-time licenses is misleading, as it

                  is doubtful that all of these vessels were used by bona fide full-time

                  fishermen. Only 108 of these vessels were over 25 feet in length and 111 were

                  under 21 feet, and many of the latter were probably not used full-time.) The

                  county had 58 licensed seafood dealers.in 1983, with the greatest
                  concentrations in Lowland, Bayboro, and Oriental.9

                               Table 6. Seafood Landings, Pamlico County, 1978-1983.

                           Year                   Landings                 Dockside Value
                                           (thousands of   pounds)     (thousands of  dollars)

                           1983                    14%022                       7,135
                           1982                    14*020                       7,688
                           1981                    179329                       6,710
                           1980                    21,381                       9,737
                           1979                    19,524                       6,573
                           1978                    15,412                       4,317

                  Source:  Preliminary seafood landings,.N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries,
                           Morehead City, N.C.

                                                            9

                                                 ..FOOTNOTES

                 1.   S. Lance Peacock and J. Merrill Lynch, Natural Areas Inventory of Pamlico
                      County, North Carolina, CEIP Report No. 29 (Raleigh: N.C. Dept. of
                      Natural Resources and Community Development, 1982), pp. 1-3.

                 2.   Ibid., ps' 5.

                 3.   Frank B. Barick and T. Stuart Critcher, Wildlife and Land Use Planning
                      With Particular Reference to Coastal Counties (Raleigh: N.C. Wildlife
                      Resources Commission, 1975).

                 4.   Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population, Vol. 1, Characteristics
                      of the Population, Chapter C,_ General Social and Economic
                      Characteristics, Part 35, North Carolina TW-ashington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of
                      Commerce,,1983), pp. 64, 443; U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
                      Analysis, Regional Economic Analysis Division, data supplied by N.C.
                      Office of State Budget and Management, Raleigh.

                 5.   Bureau of the Census, 1977 Census of Manufacturers, Vol. III, Geographic
                      Area Statistics, Ch. 34, North Carolina (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of
                      Commerce, 1980), p. 34-38.

                 6.   Bureau of the Census, 1982 Census of Agriculture Preliminary Report,
                      Pamlico County, N.C.,   shington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1984).

                 7.   Soil Conservation Service, North Carolina Conservation Needs Inventory
                      (Raleigh: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1971).

                 8.   Andrew N. Ash, Charles B. McDonald, Emilie S. Kane, and Carolyn A.
                      Pories, Natural and Modified Pocosins: Literature Synthesis and
                      Management Options, FWS/OBS-83/04 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and
                      Wildlife Service, 1983), p. 45.

                 9.   N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, N.C.

                                                       10

                                                  Chapter Two

                               ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

                      The environmental impacts of agriculture and forestry in Pamlico County

                 can be divided into those whose principal impact is at the site of the

                 activity, and those whose principal impact is off-site. By legal tradition,

                 the focus of environmen tal protection efforts has always been on off-site

                 impacts where injury to others could be clearly shown. In recent years,

                 however, there has been growing interest in on-site impacts as well, and a

                 tempering of private property rights with the notion that society has a

                 legitimate interest in maintaining a productive land base for future

                 generations and that private landowners have an obligation to practice good

                 land stewardship. In particular,- these latter views have received increasing

                 support as the implications of the country's alarming rates of soil erosion

                 have received greater attention. It is argued  that Pamlico County not only

                 can but must be concerned with on-site environmental impacts, particularly

                 those that threaten long-term land productivity, if the economic future of the

                 county it to be assured.

                                                On-Site Impacts

                 2.1 Impacts Associated With the Conversion of Natural Areas

                     The conversion of natural areas to agricultural use and forest

                 plantations was widespread in Pamlico County and the rest of the coastal plain

                 during the 19701s, but in the last several years has dropped off dramatically.

                 Such conversions may have several adverse impacts on the areas involved:

                      (1). Loss of natural ecosystems* In its natural state, the county

                 contained a diverse array of natural ecosystems, including various wetland

                 types and upland forest communities. With development, some of this diversity

                 has been lost.. The area of many habitat types has been reduced, and much of

                 the rest has@been subject to some disturbance, though a number of high quality
                 natural areas remain.1 Further conversion of natural areas to agriculture and

                 intensive forestry will result in further losses of this natural diversity and

                 of the countyts natural heritage.

                      Agriculture and forestry are not the sole casues of this decline.

                 Residential and other types of urban development are responsible for some

                 losses, and future large-scale mining of peat and phosphate deposits may

                 significantly reduce the natural acreage that remains.

                      (2) Loss of wildlife habitat. While the conversion of natural areas

                 will mean some loss of wildlife habitat and productivity, the extent of this

                 loss will depend on the extent to which wildlife conerns are incorporated into

                 agricultural and forestry management. Barick and Critcher identify several

                 agriculture and forestry management practices in the coastal plain that are

                 particularly detrimental to wildlife, including the creation of large,

                 everr-aged pine plantations, the widespread use of pesticides, the

                 channelization of streams and destruction of bottomland hardwoods, the

                 consolidation of small fields and elimination of shrubby fence rows, and
                 uncontrolled erosion and concomitant stream sedimentation.2 Many of these

                 practices can be minimized or eliminated with little impact on farm and forest

                 income, but with large positive benefits for wildlife productivity. Monschein

                 notes that there are a number of measures that farmers and foresters can take

                 to maintain wildlife.populations and, in certain situations, even to increase
                 wildlife productivity over that of the natural system.3

                                                       12

                      (3) Decline in aesthetic quality.   Personal tastes vary, of course, but

                 for many the conversion of natural areas to managed forests and farmland

                 entails some loss of aesthetic quality.  This will be particularly true in

                 recently logged areas and where wildlife populations are substantially

                 reduced.

                 2.2 Decline in Soil Productivity

                      Certain agricultural and forestry practices may cause soil productivity

                 to decline, for several reasons.

                      (1) Erosion. Accelerated erosion is a likely consequence whenever soil

                 is left exposed to the erosive power of water and wind. Major causes of

                 farmland erosion are deep plowing, the cultivation of row crops (whose acreage

                 has expanded statewide by almost 50% in the last 15 years, and which occupy

                 the vast majority of harvested cropland in Pamlico County), and exposed ditch

                 and canal banks. On forest land, most erosion occurs during and immediately

                 after harvest and site preparation and is concentrated at forest roads and

                 skid trails.

                      As topsoil is lost to erosion, the water storage capacity of the soil

                 decreases, more energy is required for tillage, greater applications of lime

                 and fertilizers are needed, and yields decline. Erosion is a long-term

                 problem; its effects appear only gradually, and restoratioa of eroded soils

                 may take decades and even centuries.

                      As in most counties of the outer coastal plain, accelerated erosion from

                 agricultural and forestry activities on the level soils of Pamlico County is

                 not a widespread problem and does not.approach the magnitude it does in the

                 Piedmont. The county's district conservationist estimates that most of the

                 -farmland in the county erodes,at a rate of less than 5 tons of soil per acre

                                                       13

                 per year, the  maximum rate at which erosion can occur without a long-term

                 decline in productivity. (This figure, known at the tolerance level or

                 T-value, represents the rate at which new soil can be built from subsoil.)

                 Most of the county's remaining farmland is thought to erode at approximately

                 this rate. By comparison, the average rate for all North Carolina farmland in
                 1977 was 7.6 tons/acre/year.4

                      However, there are some lands, particula  rly in the western part of the

                 county where relief is greater, that do have ersoion problems. In 1967 the

                 Soil Conservation Service identified 2484 acres,   or 8% of the cropland in the

                 County, as "e" cropland, indicating that it possessed an erosion hazard. The

                 actual erosion rate of this cropland is not known, but the acreage in each of

                 the three "e" land capability subclasses in the county, together with aver   age

                 statewide erosion rates for land in these subclasses in 1977, are:

                                       Acreage of Cropland          Average Sheet and Rill
                     Subclass           in Pamlico County5      Erosion Rate for N.C.  Cr2pjand6

                        2e                   1863 acres               11.8 tons/acre/year
                        3e                    414                     16.2
                        4e                    207                     17.7

                 While these figures do not indicate  how fast these Pamlico County soils are

                 eroding, they do indicate the erosion potential of these lands. Other land

                 capability classes of cropland in the county Qw, 3w, 4w, 7w), constituting

                 the remaining 92%, had average statewide erosion rates in 1977 of 3
                 tons/acre/year or less.7

                      Forest land, by comparison, had an average statewide sheet and rill
                 erosion rate (comparable to the above figures) of only 0.14 tons/acre/year.8

                 Erosion rates in coastal plain forests are even lower.

                      The general conclusion to be drawn  from this information is that, while

                 most forest and agricultural lands in the county do not have erosion problems

                                                          14

                 that threaten long-term soil productivity, some county soils do have an

                 erosion potential: that warrants concern and attention. Furthermore, it should

                 be kept in mind that erosion at rates well under the tolerance level may still

                 cause sedimentation problems in receiving waters (see the discussion of

                 sedimentation later in th is chapter)..

                      (2) Other impacts on soil productivity. Careless forestry practices may

                 result in a more immediate decline in soil productivity. Part of the reason

                 why such practices are more common in forestry operations is that, unlike

                 agriculture, forest operators are paid on a cash basis and have no stake or

                 interest in the yield of the next "crop," providing them with less incentive

                 to protect the soil.  These practices include: (A) Soil disturbance when wet,

                 particularly by heavy logging equipment* Such disturbance compacts the soil

                 and destroys its structure, reducing tree growth rates. Without assistance,

                 such soils may take a century to regain-their original productivity. (B)

                 Careless destruction of natural drainage during logging, particularly by road

                 construction across small or intermittent stream channels. The result is

                 poorer drainage and reduced yields. (C) Improper site preparation. There

                 have been instances of K-G operations that scraped off too much soil and piled

                 it in windrows, resulting in alternating rows of rich and poor soil.

                 2.3 Problems Related to Ar tificial Drainage

                      (1) land subsidence. Subsidence occurs on deep organic soils when the

                 land is drained and converted to other uses. It is caused by oxidation of

                 organic material, either by biochemical action and/or by fire, and by the

                 irreversible drying and shrinkage of the soil. If subsidence continues over

                 time, additional investments in drainage become necessary, the area's

                                                       15

                  hydrology Is further altered, and the susceptibility of the area to flooding

                  is-,increased.

                      Research results on subsidence rates present a complex and sometimes

                  contradictory picture. Heath cites studies by Dolman and Buol on land west of

                  Lake Phelps that indicated subsidence in organic soils of 2 feet due to

                  drainage alone, and of 3 to 6 feet due to compaction, fires, and slow
                  oxidation.9 The N.C. Soil and Water Conservation Commission, on the other

                  hand, cites Pther research showing that subsidence elsewhere did not occur
                  beyond the curing of a thin (8-10") surface layer.10 Skaggs and co-workers

                  found that subsidence of organic soils on the Hyde County pasture they studied

                  was greatest directly after development, but quickly declined to less than 1
                  mm per year.11 On the other hand, studies in the Florida Everglades found

                  rates of subsidence varying from 0.6 to 2.3 inches per year, depending on the

                                           12
                  depth to the water table.

                       (2) Salt water encroachment. Artificial drainage for agriculture and

                  forestry may result in the encroachment of salt water into previously fresh

                  water areas via several means. By lowering the height of the water table,

                  drainage reduces the hydraulic head maintaining the deep, fresh water aquifers

                  and allows salt water to rise into previously fresh zones. (In fact, salt

                  water was probably rising as a result of sea level rise before man even
                  entered the area, but drainage will tend to increase the rate of advance.)13

                  Drainage canals also provide conduits for salt water encroachment   from the

                  sounds into the shallow, ground water table aquifer during high wind tides

                  when flow in the canals is reversed, and at other times where the bottom of

                  the drainage canal is below sea level. Drainage-induced subsidence also

                  increases the area and depth of storm floods. The result is salt

                  contamination both of the soil, which will reduce yields during the 2 to 3

                                                         16

                 years needed to flush the salt out, and of the shallow aquifer. While salt

                 contamination of the root zone is a familiar problem to county farmers,

                 relatively little is known about the impacts of drainage on salt water

                 encroachment in Pamlico County aquifers.

                 2.4 Inadequate Restocking of Forested Lands

                      A substantial portion of the woodland in Pamlico County is not adequately

                 restocked following harvest. The county forester has estimated that only

                 about one third of the harvested acreage is.replanted. On some of the
                 remaining acreage.naturai seeding produces adequately stocked timber stands,

                 but on other parcels where the seed supply is insufficient or conditions do

                 not favor seed germination and seedling survival, regrowth is to hardwood

                 brush of little or no economic value. The result is that thirty or forty

                 years later there will be no trees available for harvest on those parcels to

                 meet growing timber demand, and the economic base of the county will have been

                 depleted.

                      There are several causes for landowners' failure to restock, but the most

                 important is that people are reluctant to make sizable investments ($50 to

                 $250 per acre for replanting) in practices,that won't provide a return for

                 thirty or forty years. Partly as a result, in 1974 the U.S. Forest Service

                 found approximately 25% of the commercial forest land in the county, or 37,000
                 acres, poorly stocked.14 In 197    the N.C. Forest Service estimated that an

                 equal percentage, 25% or 27,540 acres,.of the county's private nonindustrial
                 forest land was in need of forest regeneration.15

                                                       17

                                                Off-Site Impacts

                 Neighboring lands will be subjecied to some smoke and dust from land clearing

                 activities, prescribed burning on forest lands, and wind erosion and field

                 operations on agricultural lands. Most off-site impacts, however, will be

                 caused by freshwater runoff from these land s and the pollutants it carries:

                 sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and pathogens. Unfortunately relatively

                 little is known about the concentrations and impacts of these pollutants in

                 the receiving waters of Pamlico County, and one must rely heavily on research

                 elsewhere in the coastal plain to help construct a realistic, if

                 probabilistic, picture of current conditions.

                 2.5 Freshwater Runoff to@Estuaries

                      The estuarine waters bordering Pamlico County are highly productive and

                 support a large fishing industry. Of particular importance in maintaining

                 this resource are the so-called primary nursery areas, where the initial

                 post-larval development of many commercially important finfish and shellfish

                 takes place. Located in the upper reaches of tidal creeks and bays, these

                 areas typically are surrounded by regularly or irregularly flooded marshes and

                 have soft mud sediments and salinities in the 5 to 15 parts per thousand

                 range. State statutes and regulations protect these areas from certain

                 commercial fishing activities and from dredging and filling operations that
                 might impair their producivity.16

                     Pamlico County contains one of the largest concentrations of primary

                 nursery areas of any coastal county. Sixty-one different areas are designated
                 by state fisheries regulations,17 scattered along the east and northeast shore

                 of the county from Oriental to Goose Creek.

                                                       18

                      Unfortunately,,many drainage canals empty into these nursery areas or

                 into creeks leading into them. This drainage network is designed to remove

                 water  rapidly from inland areas, and   does so by providing efficient short-cuts

                 past the bogs, swamps, marshes, and other   areas that once temporarily retained

                 water and regulated surface  runoff. The result   is peak runoff rates in
                 drained areas that occur sooner and are higher 0 to 4 times in one studyl8)

                 than in undrained areas. These pulses of freshwater discharge may affect

                 juvenile fish inhabiting nursery areas by creating salinity conditions that

                 stress the fish or the food organisms they rely on, and possibly by disrupting

                 the currents these juveniles use to reach these areas.

                      In the most significant research yet on this subject in North Carolina,

                 researchers comparing altered and natural nursery areas in and near Rose Bay

                 in Hyde County came to several conclusions:

                      (1) Nursery areas appear to have the capacity to absorb some "man-made"

                 drainage without large fluctuations in salinity.

                      (2) Extensive drainage into nursery areas reduces their value as

                 estuarine habitat by reducing average salinities and by making salinity more

                 sensitive to the effects of rainfall in the drainage basin.

                      (3) Most importantly, the juvenile forms of all five species examined

                 (brown shrimp, spot, croaker, southern flounder, and blue crab) were found in

                 greater abundance  in nursery areas with no man-made drainage and with stable
                 salinity patterns.19

                      Many questions about the effects of freshwater inflow remain unanswered.

                 The studies at Rose Bay have continued, and a new research program is planned

                 for Broad Creek in Hyde County that will permit the experimental manipulation

                 of freshwater inputs and will provide data under more controlled conditions.

                 But there is little question that artific  ial drainage networks do have

                                                         19

                 detrimental effects on nursery areas.   The issue has created a great deal of

                 interest and is currently one of the most pressing environmental problems in

                 the coastal region, particularly in counties  like Pamlico where concentrations

                 of nursery areas occur and where both agriculture and fisheries are major

                 segments of the local economy.

                 2.6 Sedimentation

                      High sediment inputs,to streams  and estuarine waters can have several

                 adverse effects. Of greatest concern are the physical and chemical changes in

                 bottom sediments and the destruction of benthic organisms, which together may

                 result in long-term changes in the ecology and productivity of the area.

                 Siltation of shellfish (primarily oyster) beds, burial of fish spawning beds,

                 and reduced light transmission and pho tosynthesis from high turbidities may

                 also occur.

                      In the coastal plain sedimentation tends to be greatest during land

                 clearing and shaping operations and during the digging and maintenance of

                 drainage ditches. Significant damage to oyster beds has resulted from such

                 operations in the past  and now settling basins and other measures are often

                 used to reduce such impacts.

                      Once such operations are complete, sediment inputs drop off

                 significantly. Some sedimentation continues, though, primarily as a result of

                 eroding fields and unprotected ditch banks. Studies in other coastal plain

                 counties have found rates of sediment input from agricultural lands 3 to 30
                 times higher than those from forested watersheds.20 Streams channelized for

                 drainage improvement also have higher turbidities and sediment loads than

                 unchannelized ones, presumably because the faster flow provides more energy

                 for transport and because the filtering effect of adjacent wetlands is
                 eliminated.21

                                                        20

                      Some researchers and policy makers have suggested that because of the low

                 erosion potential of flat coastal plain soils, agricultural operations are

                 unlikely to create sediment water quality problems, particularly in relation

                 to the much greater rates of sedimentation in Piedmont watersheds. Others

                 have pointed out that while erosion and sedimentation may be much lower than

                 in the Piedmont, (1) Piedmont inputs to estuaries are much reduced by.

                 distance, (2) many coastal plain canals and-streams empty directly into

                 sensitive estuarine habitats, and,(3) outer coastal plain sediments tend to be

                 more organic and colloidal than those of the Piedmont, are more easily

                 suspended and transported, and change the physcial bottom conditions more

                 drastically when they settle. Pamlico County fishermen, for instance, have

                 complained of the dark, organic muck that seems to clog many creek bottoms.

                 While sedimentation is perhaps not the severe problem it is in other

                 watersheds in the state, it does occur and should be of concern to those

                 interested in maintaining the productivity of the county's streams and

                 estuarine waters.

                 2.7 Nutrients

                     Nitrogen and  phosphorus are the principal elements implicated in the

                 eutrophication of water bodies. Nonpoint inputs from agricultural runoff,

                 derived largely from fertilizers and animal wastes, are among the major

                 sources of these elements. In the' Chowan River, for instance, 79% of the

                 nitrogen input and 23% of the phosphorus are estimated to originate from

                 agricultural sources.

                     Nutrient yields from specific watersheds depend on many factors,

                 including land use, agricultural practices, topography, soil type, drainage,

                                                       2.I

                 stream channel conditions, and'rainfall. Examples of how these factors may
                 influence nutrient yields in coastal plain watershed .s include:22

                      (1) Nitrogen and phosphorus losses from agricultural watersheds are

                 consistently higher than those from forested ones; in the coastal plain they

                 average roughly 4-5 times higher.

                      (2) Phosphate tends to bind tightly to sediment, while nitrate is much

                 more readily leached from@the soil and transported in solution. As a result,

                 erosion control is also effective in reducing phosphorus inputs, but far less

                 so with nitrogen. In organic soils, however, phosphorus   has'nothing to bind

                 to and is readily lost.in solution.

                      (3) Under anaerobic,  or deoxygenated, conditions, which readily occur in

                 flooded soils, nitrate is broken down by denitrifying bacteria and the

                 nitrogen is released to the atmosphere. As a result, poorly drained soils

                 generally lose less nitrogen in runoff waters than do well-drained soils.

                      (4) Kuenzler And others found higher nitrogen and phosphorus loads in

                 their channelized streams than in unchannelized ones. This is partly due to

                 the fact that the channelized streams they studied received more agricultural

                 runoff and.livestock and sewage wastes than unchannelized ones, but also to

                 absence in the former of functioning swamp floodplain systems to strip the

                 nitrogen and.phosphorus from the water.

                      (5) Most of the nitrogen and phosphorus lost a  nnually is lost in a few

                 large storms.

                      In Pamlico County nuisance blooms have.occurred in drainage canals and in

                 the creeks at Oriental, but none yet in the brackish waters along the coast,

                 including nursery areas. In part, this is due to the fact that most nuisance

                 species, particularly the blue-green algae, are freshwater species and cannot

                 tolerate brackish conditions.  In addition, blooms generally require long

                                                        22

                 periods of relatively stagnant water to develop. The coastal waters of

                 Pamlico County have a high energy level, with wind generated mixing and

                 flushing by wind tides, producing physical conditions less suitable for bloom

                 development.

                      This is not to say that nuisance blooms in coastal waters, and

                 particularly the sheltered creeks and bays that serve as nursery areas, could

                 not occur-. The bloom would be made up of different species of algae, but in

                 disrupting the phytoplankton population it could still have major effects on

                 zooplankton and other groups further up the food chain, including commercially

                 important finfish and shellfish. The situation warrants continuing attention.

                 Reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus inputs, while apparently not immediately

                 necessary, would nonetheless be welcome, particularly to prevent greater

                 problems from developing.

                 2.8 Pathogens

                      A variety of pathog enic bacteria in human sewage and animal wastes, if

                 released to shellfi sh waters, may be taken up by shellfish and passed on to

                 humans when the shellfish is eaten. The pathogens most frequently transmitted

                 through water are those that cause typhoid and paratyphoid fevers, dysentery,

                 and cholera. Fecal coliform bacteria, while not themselves dangerous, are

                 used as an indicator of the presence of these organisms, and the FDA has

                 promulgated fecal coliform. standards for closing shellfish waters that are

                 applied and enforced by the state's Shellfish Sanitation section in the

                 Division of Health Services. While the correlation between fecal coliform

                 levels and health risks continue to be debated, high coliform. levels do result

                 in.the closing of  shellfish waters and a potential loss of fishing income.

                 Thus high fecal coliform levels are of concern to the county on two counts: as

                                                        23

                 indicative of potential health risks, and as the immediate cause of shellfish

                 water closings.

                      The principal sources of fecal coliform in Pamlico County are improperly

                 functioning septic tanks and livestock wastes. No assessment is available of

                 the relative contribution of each. But the effect is clear: in June of 1984,

                 16,075 acres, or 12% of the 134,450,acres in the county classified as

                 potential shellfish waters, were closed to commercial harvest. Elsewhere in

                 the coastal plain, elevated fecal coliform levels have been found in canals

                 draining pastures. This increase from grazed lands is common throughout the

                 U.S. and apparently causes few problems, as a marked reduction in

                 concentration occurs within 5 km. downstream. but where grazed lands or
                 feedlots occur close to shellfish waters, the potential for trouble exists.23

                 While the county s low livestock population results in a relatively small

                 amount of waste generatedt the county also has a large proportion of its land

                 in close proximity to shellfish waters.

                 2.9 Pesticides

                     Pesticides include such a wide variety of chemicals that it is difficult

                 to generalize about the impacts of their use. Their pollution potential will

                 depend on their toxicity, persistence, ease of transport, and other

                 factors. Some persist in the environment for years or even decades, while

                 others break down into nontoxic forms within days of their application. Most

                 bind readily to so il particles so that pesticide losses are correlated to

                 soil erosion, and control of the latter will reduce the former. others,

                 including many herbicides, are transported mainly in solution. Summarizing a

                 number of studies, the Agricultural Research Service concluded that "except

                 when heavy rainfall occurs shortly after treatment, concentrations are low and

                                                      24

                 the total amount of pesticide that runs off the land during the crop year is
                 less, often mu ch less, than 5% of the applicatioa."24

                      One of the most easily manipulated factors controlling the pollution

                 potential of pesticides is the care with which they are applied. The direct

                 spraying of or drift into water bodies results in much larger inputs of

                 pesticides into these systems. Skaggs and co-workers found that

                 concentrations of the herbicide alachlor in the drainage water from their

                 study area in Hyde County suggested that some applicators were careful to

                 avoid spraying the V-ditches in the fields and others were not, resulting in
                 excessively high concentrations in drainage water after some applications.25

                 Even these concentrations, though, were reduced by dilution to nontoxic levels

                 by the time the runoff reached biologically productive receiving waters.

                      The Division of Environmental Management has no records of fish kills or

                 complaints of overspraying in Pamlico County. As long as toxic chemicals are

                 used, though,*the potential for pesticide pollution exists. The magnitude of

                 this potential will continue to depend on how well a series of people, ranging

                 from the state Pesticide Control Board to local dealers and applicators, do

                 their jobs correctly.

                                                       25

                                                    FOOTNOTES

                  1.   See S. Lance Peacock and J. Merrill Lynch, Natural Areas Inventory of
                       Pamlico County, North Carolina, CEIP Report No. 29 (Raleigh: N.C. Dept.
                       of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1982).

                  2.   Frank B. Barick and T. Stuart Critcher, Wildlife and Land Use Planning
                       With Particular Reference to Coastal Counties (Raleigh: N.C. Wildlife
                       Resources Commission, 1975@-.

                  3.   Tom Monschein, "Values of Pocosins to Game and Fish Species in North
                       Carolina," pp. 155-170 in: Curtis J. Richardson, ed., Pocosin Wetlands
                       (Stroudsburg, Pa.: Hutchinson Ross, 1981).

                  4.   U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) and the N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources
                       and Community Development (NRCD), Phase I National Resources Inventory --
                       North Carolina, as cited in: Division of Soil and Water Conservation,
                       NRCD, A Long   nge Plan for Soil, Water and Related Resource Conservation
                       in North Carolina, 1981-1986 (Raleigh: Div. of Soil and Water
                       Conservation, n*d.)*

                  5.   Soil Conservation Service, North Carolina Conservation Needs Inventory
                       (Raleigh: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1971).

                  6..  USDA and NRCD, Phase I National Resources Inventory, cited above.

                  7.   Ibid.

                  8.   Ibid.

                  9.   Ralph C. Heath, Hydrology of the Albemarle-Pamlico Region, NoEth
                       Carolina, U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations 9-75
                       TIEW1-eigh: USGS, 1975), p. 86.

                  10.  N.C. Soil and Water Conservation Commission and the 208 Agricultural Task
                       Force, Water Quality and Agriculture, A Management Plan (Raleigh: N.C.
                       Soil and Water Conservation Section, Div. of Land,Resources, NRCD, 1979),
                       P* 19.

                  11.  R.W. Skaggs, J.W. Gilliam, T.J. Sheets*, and J.S. Barnes,.Effect of
                       Agricultural Land Development on Drainage Waters in the North Carolina
                       Tidewater Region, WRRI Report No. 159 (Raleigh: Water Resources Research
                       Institute, 1980), p. xviii,

                  12.  Heath, Hydrology of the Albemarle-Pamlico Region, cited above, p. 86.

                  13.  Ibid., pp. 45-47, 88-93.

                                                        26

                 14. Richard L. Welch and   Herbert A. Knight, Forest Statistics for the
                      Northern Coastal Plain of North Carolinat 1974,, USDA Forest Service
                      Resource Bulletin SE-30 (Asheville, N.C.: Southeastern Forest Experiment
                      Station, 1974), p. 17.

                 15.  Bay River Soil and Water Conservation District, Long Range Plan
                      1983-1988, pe 31*

                 16.  See the state's Dredge and Fill Act (N.C.G.S. 5113-229), Coastal Area
                      Management Act (N.C.G.S. �113A-100 et seq.), and coastal fishing
                      regulations (15 NCAC 3B .1400).

                 17.  15 NCAC 3B .1405.

                 18.  Skaggs and others, Effect of Agricultural Land Development., cited above,
                      pp. 37-39.

                 19.  Preston P. Pate, Jr. and Robert Jones, Effects of Upland Drainage on
                      Estuarine Nursery Areas of Pamlico Sound, North Carolina, UNC Sea Grant
                      Working Paper 81-10, UNC Sea Grant College Program, Raleigh.

                 20.  Skaggs and others, Effectof Agricultural Land Development, cited above;
                      Frank J. Humenik, Beverly A. Young, and Fred A. Koehler, "Agricultural
                      Nonpoint Source Control: Case Studies in North Carolina, III. Chowan
                      River Priority Watershed," N.C. Division of Environmental Management,
                      Raleigh, 1983.

                 21.  Edward J. Kuenzler, Patrick J. Mulholland, Laura Anne Ruley, Robert P.
                      Sniffen, Water Quality of North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams and
                      Effects of Channelization, WRRI Report No. 127 (Raleigh: Water Resources
                      Research Institute, 1977).

                 22.  See Skaggs and others, Effect of Agricultural Land Development, Humenik
                      and others, "Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control," Kuenzler and others,
                      Water quality of North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams, all cited above;
                      and Andrew N. Ash, Charles B. McDonald, Emilie S. Kane, and Carolyn A.
                      Pories, Natural and Modified Pocosins: Literature Synthesis and
                      Management Options, FWS/OBS-83/04 (WasEngton, D.C.: U.S. Fish and
                      Wildlife Service, 1983).

                 230  Skaggs and others, Effect of Agricultur'al Land Development., cited above.

                 24.  U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Control of
                      Water Pollution from Cropland, V21. II: An Overview, Report ARS-H-5-2
                      (Washington, D.C.: Agricultural Research Service, USDA, and Office of
                      Research and Development, USEPA, 1976).

                 25.  Skaggs and others, Effect of Agricultural Land Development,, cited above.

                                                        27

                                                   Chapter Three

                                      CURRENT APPROACHES TO REDUCING IMPACTS

                  3.1 Technical Solutions and Impediments to Their Adoption

                       In most cases, solutions to the problems identified in Chapter Two exist

                  that are technically feasible and that can be applied by individual landowners

                  and operators or by management agencies. Erosion and seimeatation from

                  cultivated fields, for instance, can be reduced through the us  e of

                  conservation tillage, cover crops, grassed waterways, field borders,

                  windbreaks, stripcropping, and a variety of other practices. The U.S. Soil

                  Conservation Service has decades of experience in developing and testing

                  erosion control practices-and can provide detailed specifications to farmers

                  on the installation of these measures. As part of the state's water quality

                  management planning process, SCS published in 1978 an extensive compilation of

                  best management practices for controlling sediment inputs from agricultural

                  lands in the state.1

                       Experience and research with forestry practices throughout the country

                  have built up an extensive body of knowledge on the control of water pollution

                  from silvicultural activities. This material also has been compiled and
                  published for use in North Carolina.2 Recommended practices include the use

                  of filter strips and culverts, the proper location and construction of access

                  roads, skid trails, landi ngs, and decks, and the proper conduct of site

                  preparation, fertilizing, and pesticide spraying  operations.

                       Even for such recently identified problems as the large pulses of

                  freshwater input to nursery areas, a range of potential solutions exists,

                  though more research and testing are needed. These approaches include

                                                         28

                 detention ponds, diversion of freshwater runoff from nursery areas to open

                 shoreline, use of sheetflow through swamps and marshes, And use of companion

                 Areas of cropland, pasture, and forest (the latter two, having less demanding

                 drainage needs than cropland, are used for temporary storage of cropland

                 drainage).

                      Research continues to refine these management practices and develop

                 others. A great deal of research is still needed on the relative

                 cost-effectiveness of different practices and on the development of systems of

                 best management practices suited to the conditions of specific regions. The

                 point to be made, though, is that technical solutions to most of the problems

                 identified in Chapter Two are readily available. If this is the case, the

                 next question is: why do these problems persist?

                      There appear to be a variety of reasons. Cost is a major one. The

                 return from investments in soil conservation are often very low, and there may

                 be no return from best management practices for pollution control. Many

                 farmers and forest owners cannot afford the high costs of some management

                 practices, particularly those requiring large initial investments in

                 construction or equipment. A second, related reason is.risk: the danger that

                 an installed practice will not produce the expected return, or even worse,

                 result in lower yields.

                      Tradition and social pressures play major roles in rural communities and

                 sometimes work against the adoption of environmentally sound management

                 practices. Conservation tillage is a good case in point. Many farmers pride

                 themselves on the neat, clean-tilled appearance of their corn and bean fields.

                 Their reluctance to suddenly adopt a practice that entails leaving crop

                 residues on the surface is understandable.

                                                       29

                       Ignorance of the impacts of poor management practices is also common.

                  The effects of.-erosion are sometimes difficult to discern, and farmers and

                  forest owners may be completely unaware of their contributions to water

                  quality problems in drainage waters far downstream. Indifference and careless

                  ness also play a role: in a survey of county forest rangers in North Carolina,

                  42% cited these causes as the principal reasons for less-than-good forestry
                  operations in their counties.3

                       Tenure arrangements are frequently cited as a reason why best management

                  practices are not adopted. Short-term contracts remove the incentive for farm

                  tenants and renters to invest in erosion control practices. Such problems

                  have been cited in Pamlico County, where 49% of the 44,000 acres in farms in

                  1982 was rented.4

                       For these and other reasons, many farmers and forest owners have not

                  voluntarily and spontaneously adopted adequate soil and water conservation

                  measures. It has been to address this failure that a variety of government

                  programs and institutions have been established.

                       Though many of the programs described below have multiple objectives and

                  broad responsibilities, for ease of discussion they have been classified under

                  the heading where their principal objectives with regard to agriculture and

                  forestry, and often their historical roots, lie.

                  3.2 Soil  Erosion Programs

                       Many of the public programs and institutions dealing with soil erosion

                  date to the 1930's and owe their existence to the impetus the Dust Bowl gave

                  to soil conservation efforts. These include the two principal federal soil

                  conservation programs today, the Conservation Operations Program of the Soil

                  Conservation Service, and the Agricultural Conservation Program of the

                                                        30

                 Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, both in the U.S.

                 Department of Agriculture (USDA).

                      The Conservation Operations Program was authorized by the 1935 Soil
                 Conservation Act5 that created the Soil Conservation Service (9CS) in USDA to

                 develop and maintain a continuing federal program of soil and water

                 conservation. Under Conservation Operations, SCS, working in cooperation with

                 the nation's 3000 soil and water conservation districts, provides technical

                 assistance to agencies and individual landowners to "reduce soil losses from

                 erosion, help solve soil, water, and agricultural waste management problems,

                 bring about adjustments in land use as needed, and reduce damage caused.by
                 excess water and sedimentation."6 SCS maintains a state office in Raleigh and

                 area and county offices throughout North Carolina, including one in Pamlico

                 County staffed by a district conservationist. This conservationist provides

                ,technical assistance to landowners through the local soil and water

                 conservation district, as specified in a memorandum of understanding; most of

                 this assistance in Pamlico County is directed at soil erosion and drainage

                 problems.

                      The Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) was authorized by the Soil
                 Erosion and Domestic Allotment Act of 19367 and is administered by the

                 Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) in USDA. The

                 program provides cost-sharing assistance to farmers for carrying out enduring

                 conservation and environmental protection measures, including erosion control

                 practices (stripcropping, grassed waterways, conservation tillage, and

                 others), water conservation, and forest and wildlife management. Practices

                 that are primarily production oriented or have little or no conservation or

                 pollution abatement benefits are no longer eligible for funding; this change,

                                                       31

                   made several years ago, removed drainage improvements from the list of

                   eligible. practices..

                        In Pamlico County the program is     administered by the elected county ASC

                   Committee based on national and state     directives and the advice of other

                   resource specialists in the county. The SCS conservationist provides

                   technical assistance on the practices employed, and must certify that the

                   practice was installed to the required specifications before any cost-share

                   payment is made, Landowners must also agree to maintain cost-shared

                   improvements. Currently the cost-share rate for most practices is 60%, with

                   an annual  limit of $3500 per individual. ACP funds expended in Pamlico County

                   in recent years are:

                                      1984 allotment              $111-258
                                      1983 expenditure             141100
                                      1982                          6P374
                                      1981.                        179562

                        In February   of 1937, President Roosevelt submitted "A Standard Soil

                   Conservation Districts Law" to the states. North Caroli'na became the second

                   state to adopt a law based on that model by enacting the Soil Conservation
                   Districts Law8 later that year. The act contains enabling legislation for the

                   establishment of soil and water conservation districts as distinct units of

                   local government, governed by a board of supervisors, to provide for the

                   conservation of soil, water, and related resources. Districts are given the

                   authority to develop comprehensive plans for soil and water conservation

                   within the district, to conduct water resources conservation and development

                   projects, to cooperate with and furnish aid to agencies and landowners, to buy

                   and sell property, and to adopt land,use regulations.

                        Pamlico County was originally part of the five-county Lower Neuse

                   Conservation District organized in 1944. In 1972 the district split into

                                                             32

                 single-county districts, and the Bay River Soil and Water Conservation

                 District was organized in Pamlico County. It is governed by a board of five

                 supervisors, three elected in general county elections and two appointed by

                 the state Soil and Water Conservation Commission from nominations made by the

                 elected supervisors. The District's principal activities are the provision of

                 technical assistance to agencies and private landowners on matters of soil and

                 water conservation, primarily through services of the SCS district

                 conservationist provided under a Memorandum of Understanding, and the

                 promotion of soil and water conservation through various educational

                 and informational programs, including publications, meetings, school contests,

                 and other activities. The district's only staff is a part-time secretary.

                 Funding levels in the 1982-83 year were $2275 from Pamlico County and $2014

                 from the state.

                      Districts are assisted and directed in their operations by the North

                 Carolina Soil and Water Conservation Commission and the Division of Soil and

                 Water Conservation in the Department of Natural Resources and Community

                 Development. Such assistance takes a variety of forms: information on

                 conservation practices, materials for education programs, training for

                 district supervisors, etc. The Commission and Division are responsible for

                 the state's overall soil conservation program, which emphasizes voluntary

                 landowner action encouraged by a combination of education, technical

                 assistance, and economic incentives.

                      Two other programs that touch on soil erosion problems in Pamlico County

                 are:

                        The Watershed or P.L. 566 Program, authorized by the Watershed
                 Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954.9 This program provides financial

                 and technical assistance to local organizations (including county governments

                                                       33

                  and soil and water conservation districts) for projects dealing with flood

                  prevention, the conservation, utiliz ation, or disposal of water, or the

                  conservation and proper utilization of land. Projects are limited to

                  watersheds less than 250,000 Acres in size and must meet certain other

                  restrictions. Through 1982, 110 applications for projects in North Carolina

                  had been filed, of which 26 have been completed and 17 are awaiting or are

                  under construction. Two projects were applied for in Pamlico County involving

                  the construction of channels and dikes to promote better drainage. Both were

                  approved for construction but later terminated before construction began.

                        Federal low interest loans. Farmers Home Administration provides low

                  interest loans to farmers, some of which (soil and water loans, farm operating

                  loans, and farm ownership loans) can be used for installation of best

                  management practices. The Small Business Administration provides some

                  low-interest loans for soil and water conservation measures to qualifying

                  farmers.

                  3.3 Water Quality Programs

                      Most current water quality management efforts originated with the Federal

                  Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, which completely rewrote the

                  federal law on water pollution control. Three provisions are of particular

                  interest to agriculture and forestry: Title III, Section 208, and Section 404

                  (discussed later in this chapter).

                      Title III of the act authorized establishment of the National Pollutant

                  Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, program to regulate the discharges of

                  most point sources of pollutants, including animal feedlots. EPA's feedlot

                  regulations prohibit the discharge of process waste water pollutants, but the

                                                        34

                  size exemption is such that none of Pamlico County's livestock operations are

                  subject to the law.

                       Of far greater importance is Section 208, which requires that all areas

                  of a state be covered by an areawide waste treatment management plan that,

                  among other things, includes

                       a process to (i) identify, if appropriate, agriculturally and
                       silviculturally related non-point sources of pollution, including return
                       flows from irrigated agriculture, and their cumulative effects, runoff
                       from manure disposal areas, and from land used for livestock and crop
                       production, and (ii) set forth procedures and methods (including land use
                       requirements) to control to the extent feasible such sources.**"10

                  EPA, for its part, provided grants to state and areawide waste treatment

                  management agencies to conduct these studies and published a series of reports

                  providing guidance to these agencies. In the last several years, however,

                  funding for 208 activities has been severely curtailed and the 208 program has

                  languished. In response to prodding from states and to studies underscoring

                  the importance of nonpoint sources, EPA is again showing interest in the 208

                  program, and there is  sentiment in Congress, in connection with

                  reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, to provide additional funds for 208

                  and possibly to give the program some teeth by setting implementation

                  deadlines for states.

                       In response to the requirements of Section 208, the state completed its

                  comprehensive water quality management plan in 1979. The plan is divided into

                  subject areas; the agricultural portion was delegated to the Soil and Water

                  Conservation Commission, which assembled a group called the 208 Agricultural

                  Task Force to assist it, and the forestry portion was written by the Divisions

                  of Environmental Management and Forest Resources*

                       Both plans examined a number of options for achieving water quality

                  goals, and both selected a voluntary approach stressing education, technical

                  assistance, and economic incentives to encourage the adoption of best

                                                         35

                  management practices, Since then a number of studies have been -onducted in

                  North Carolina to provide better water quality data and information on the

                  effectiveness of best management  practices. Implementation efforts have

                  focused'on improvements in the state's educational and technical assistance

                  programs,- but progress has been hampered by limited funding from both EPA and

                  the General Assembly. The Department of Natural Resources and Community

                  Development's budget request to the 1984 Short Session contains a

                  comprehensive program for reducing nonpoint source pollution to nutrient

                  sensitive waters that contains many of the elements that have been rejected on

                  a statewide basis in previous years. These include additional funds for

                  education and technical assistance, including two positions in the Division of

                  Forest Resources that would concentrate solely on water quality concerns, and

                  the state's first cost-sharing program for agricultural conservation

                  practices. While these measures would not immediately benefit Pamlico County,

                  the office.s..involved hope these programs will be expanded statewide in the

                  future.

                       Two other programs have an impact on pollut ion from agricultural and

                  forestry activities in Pamlico County. N.C. General Statutes �143-214.1

                  authorizes the Environmental Management Commission to classify the waters of

                  the state and to adopt a series of water quality standards   for each class.

                  Four classes of fresh water-and three classes of salt water have been

                  established, each with standards for maximum concentrations of a variety of

                  substances, including chlorophyll a (a measure of eutrophication), turbidity,

                  coliform bacteria, and various pesticides. The standards have no regulatory

                  enforcement effect themselves, but they do serve as a basis for,other water

                  quality control measures. Two of particular interest to agriculture and

                  forestry are that (1) one'of the standards for approval of CAMA permits in

                                                         36

                 estuarine areas of environmental concern is that the development will not

                 violate any air and water quality standards, and (2) Section 401 of the
                 Federal Water Pollution Control Act" requires that any applicant for a

                 federal license or permit (such as a Section 10 or 404 permit) that may result

                 in a discharge of pollutants into U.S. waters obtain a certification form the

                 state water quality management agency stating that the discharge will comply

                 with applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. Thus those

                 drainage projects requiring any of these permits must demonstrate that the

                 discharge will not violate state water quality standards.

                      The Commission has also created a special class of "nu.trient-sensitive"

                 waters, with standards governing the discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus. At

                 present only the Chowan River and Jordan and Falls Lakes are classified

                 nutrient-sensitive, but the classification is available for application to

                 other waters, including those in Pamlico County, if nutrient problems develop

                 further. Of even greater interest, the Division of Environmental Management

                 is now developing salinity standards for primary nursery areas. The proposed

                 standards will identify an optimum salinity range, and later standards may

                 address the rate of salinity change. The development of salinity standards

                 for nursery areas presents serious difficulties because of the natural

                 variability of such systems, and a great deal of-work remains to be done on

                 the te chnical application and enforcement options for such standards.

                      Also related to water quality is the program established under the N.C.
                 Pesticide Law of 197112 to regulate the use, application, sale, and disposal

                 of pesticides. The N.C. Pesticide Board is charged with administering the ,

                 program, including the registration of pesticides and the annual licensing of

                'pesticide dealers and applicators. Among other things, the law requires that

                                                        37

                  the Board's regulations must include all reasonable precautions to prevent

                  injury by drift or misapplication to noatarget species and ecosystems.

                  3.4 Drainage and   Water  Management Programs

                       There are a number   of programs at the federal, state, and local level

                  concerned with specific   drainage and water management needs, particularly in

                  the outer coastal plain where high water tables are a major limitation on land

                  use. Unlike soil erosion and water quality, however, there are no programs or

                  institutions concerned with multi-purpose water management, and the current

                  situation in Pamlico County is best described as-benign anarchy. Drainage has

                  been an integral part of the land development process in the county for two

                  centuries, and an extensive drainage network of hundreds-of miles of ditches

                  and canals exists. But no agency or authority is responsible for ensuring

                  that the network functions well as a system; landowners are free to tie into

                  whatever drainage canals they have access to, and are individually

                  reponsible for maintaining the canals on their property. This approach has

                  worked well and has met the needs of county landowners for many years, but

                  recently problems have begun to be identified (such as freshwater and

                  pollutant inputs to nursery areas) whose solutions are beyond the capability

                  of individual landowners.

                       -The programs and institutions that have helped to shape the existing

                  drainage network are:

                       (1) The Drainage Acts. Chapter 156 of the North Carolina General

                  Statutes provides a framework for establishing and maintaining drainage ca     nals

                  by individuals, corporations, and drainage districts. No drainage

                  corporations or  districts have been organized in the county, and as mentioned

                  above, all canals and ditches are the responsibility of individual landowners.

                                                           38

                      (2) The Role of the Soil Conservation Service and the Agricultural

                 Stabilization and Conservation Service.. One of the major roles of SCS in

                 Pamlico County over the years has been to provide technical assistance in the

                 design of farmland drainage systems. The district conservationist assisted in

                 the installation of roughly 60,000 feet of ditches in 1983 and almost 80,000

                 feet during the first half of 1984. Annual workloads during the boom years of

                 the 1970's reached 200,000 feet. This assistance is not available throughout

                 the county, however, as SCS, at the national level, eliminated the

                 availability of technical assistance in draining many wetland types in the

                 mid-1970's in response to growing concerns about wetland destruction.

                      For many years Agricultural Conservation Program cost-sharing funds were

                 available for drainage improvements. In the late 1970's, however, ACP drew

                 increasing criticism for funding practices that are primarily production

                 oriented, and with the emphasis that the federal Soil and Water Resources

                 Conservation Act of 1977 placed on priority conservation problems, the

                 eligibility of drainage under ACP was eliminated.

                      Watershed (P.L. 566) funds are still available for drainage-related

                 projects. As noted earlier, two such projects were approved for the county

                 but were never constructed.

                      (3) Mosquito Control Program. Under the Authority of N.C. General

                 Statutes �130A-346 and �130A-347, the state has provided matching funds to

                 local governments for mosquito control. The  major portion of Pamlico County's

                 program over the years has focused on drainage improvements to eliminate the

                 temporary pools where mosquitos breed, and many of the major canals in the

                 county were constructed using program funds. During the early stages of the

                 program some 430 miles of ditches in the county's coastal marshes were

                 installed. As  state and federal regulatory programs increasingly restricted

                                                       39

                 marah operations in recent years, the program',s focus shifted to upland

                 drainage. 'The county'-s current contract with the state calls for

                 approximately $60,000 worth of upland ditching and snagging, as well as some

                 spraying and surveillance.

                      The mosquito control program ahs been a controversial one, not only in

                 Pamlico County but throughout the state, with charges that funds have been

                 used for projects providing agricultural drainage but little mosquito control,

                 and that the selection of projects has been politically and personally

                 motivated. Partly due to this controversy, and partly due to the realization

                 that most of the upland water management projects with mosquito control

                 benefits have been completed, the county has chosen not to renew its contract

                 with the state for upland water management, and this part of the program will

                 end in 1984.

                      (4) Coastal/Wetland Regulatory Programs. Four regulatory programs, two

                 state and two federal, influence the location and construction of drainage
                 ditches and canals. Uner the state's Dredge and Fill Act,13 a permit is

                 required for any dredging or filling in estuarine waters, tidelands,

                 marshlands, or state-owned lakes. Under the Coastal Area Management Act
                 (CAMA),14 a permit is needed before undertaking any development (including

                 dredging and filling) in any Area of Environmental Concern, including coastal

                 wetlands and estuarine waters. Both programs are administered by the state's

                 Office of Coastal Management. Jurisdiction under the two programs is

                 essentially limited to proposals to construct of enlarge those portions of

                 drainage canals passing through coastal wetlands or connecting  with estuarine

                 waters. Ditches emptying into other ditches are out of the programs'

                 jurisdiction, unless the receiving ditch itself has become fish and wildlife

                                                        40

                  habitat with fringing wetlands (which is true of a few large canals in Hyde

                  County).

                       General standards for the issuance of these  permits require consideration

                  of the project's impact on air and water quality, fish and wildlife, other

                  estuarine resources, archaeological and historic resources, water supplies,

                  and riparian owners. Specific CAMA use standards for drainage ditches cover

                  spoil placement, the location of outlets, the size of ditches, and measures to

                  reduce harmful inputs of fresh water, sediment, and nutrients. It has become

                  state policy to deny permits for new outlets in primary nursery areas*

                       The two federal permit programs are those required by Section 10 of the
                  Rivers.and Harbors Act of 189915 and Section 404 of the Federal Water
                  Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 16 both administered by the Army

                  Corps of Engineers. Under Section 10, a permit is needed for the connection

                  of any drainage canal to navigable waters. Jurisdiction does not extend up

                  the canal, but only to that portion connecting  to navigable waters and passing

                  through adjacent wetlands. Under Section 404, a permit is required for the

                  discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters. The Corps

                  interprets this jurisdiction as all waters and associated wetlands where the
                  discharge is at least 5 ft3/second, regardless of whether the drainage channel

                  is natural or artifical. The program applies only to discharges, though, so

                  if the dredged material is deposited on an upland site, no permit is needed.

                  The statute also exempts normal farming and forestry activities, including

                  minor drainage, that are part of established operations, and ditch

                  maintenance, but not drainage associated with the conversion of wetlands to

                  agricultural and forestry use. Standards for the issuance of both permits

                  require consideration of the public interest, wetlands, fish and wildlife,

                  water quality, historic, cultural, scenic, and recreational values, and

                                                         41

                  neighboring properties and water resources projects. Administration of the

                  404 program with respect to drainage has been plagued by long delays and a

                  lack of predictability in the handling of permits. To a large extent these
                  problems have been cleared up, but a few issues remain unresolved.17

                       Two other state statutes deal with water management concerns: the Stream
                  Obstruction Act,18 which prohibits the felling of trees or depositing of
                  debris in streams so as to obstruct draina ge, and the Water Use Act of 1967,-19

                  which requires water withdrawals in excess of 100,000 gallons per day

                  (including pumped drainage) within an existing capacity use area to be
                  permitted by the Division of Environmental Management. No pumped drainage

                  facilities of this size currently exist in Pamlico County.

                       It should be evident from Chapter Two and the discussion here that there

                  are a variety of interests, including agriculture, forestry, wildlife,

                  fisheries, mining, and mosquito control, that have a stake in how and when

                  drainage occurs. Not surprisingly, these interests are sometimes in conflict.

                  Recognizing that this was a growing problem, Governor Hunt appointed a Coastal

                  Water Management Task Force in 1981 that brought the different interests

                  together to reach a mutual understanding of the problems faced by each group

                  and to formulate a balanced approach that would allow different sectors to

                  develop in a mutually acceptable manner. The Task Force issued a final report

                  in December, 1982, that included ten recommendations covering data needs,

                  regulatory policies, water management planning and research, and education,

                  technical assistance, and economic assistance for the adoption of best

                  management practices. A committee was organized to oversee implementation of

                  the recommendations, and an implementation status report was issued in

                  February 1984.

                                                         42

                 3.5 Forest Management Programs

                      Several public programs have been established to improve forest

                 management, particularly by small landowners. Their main purpose is to ensure

                 an adequate supply of merchantable timber to meet the nation's needs, but they

                 have also adopted a number of secondary objectives, including reduction of

                 silvicultural sources of pollution and improved wildlife management.

                      Under the federal Forestry Incentives Program (FIP), authorized by the
                 Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 19 789 20 cost-sharing assistance is

                 available to small landowners for tree planting, site preparation for natural

                 regeneration, and timber stand improvement (thinning, pruning, and release of

                 seedlings and young trees from shade). Like ACP, the program is administered

                 by-the county ASC committee. Cost-share agreements between the landowner and

                 USDA are based on a forest management plan developed by the landowner in

                 cooperation with and approved by the N.C. Forest Service. Cost-share

                 payments, now at 60%, will drop to 50% on July 1, and are limited to an annual

                 maximum of $10,1000 per individual. FIP payments in Pamlico County in recent

                 years have been:

                                           1983           $ 350
                                           1982            49698
                                           1981            9,561

                 The Agricultural Conservation Program also provides cost-sharing for the same

                 forestry practices and serves as a supplement to FIP, particularly for

                 landowners who don't meet the ten acre minimum for FIP eligibility.

                      Substantial federal tax incentives for reforestation were created by P.L.

                 96-451 in 1981. Under this statute, the first $10,000 of reforestation

                 expenses in any year are eligible for a 10% investment tax credit and 7-year

                 amortization.

                                                       43

                      Two important programs exist at the state level. Landowners may acquire

                 technical assistance in forestry management through the Landowners Assistance
                 Program*21 N.C. Forest Service employees in county and area offices

                 throughout the state are available to provide free advice on reforestation,

                 timber stand improvement, harvesting, and management to meet other landowner

                 objectives, such as wildlife production. When requested, a forest management

                 plan is provided to the landowner and may include recommendations for

                 maintaining or improving water quality. The Forest Service's Pamlico County

                 office, which employs a county forest ranger, an equipment operator, and one

                 or more part-time fire watchers, is supported jointly by state and county

                 funds.

                      Under the Forest Development Program, 22 state cost-sharing assistance is

                 available for reforestation and release of seedling and sprouts. Work must

                 conform to a management plan approved (and usually written) by the N.C. Forest

                 Service* The cost-share rate, now 50%, will drop to 40% on July 1, and

                 payments are limited to 100 acres per year. Federal and state cost-share

                 payments cannot be applied to the same acreage.

                      The Forestry Extension division of the Agricultural Extension Service

                 employ s several forestry extension specialists who conduct meetings and

                 demonstrations, help disseminate research results, and in other ways work to

                 improve forest management in the state.

                      Finally, some wood products corporations such as Weyerhauser provide

                 technical assistance and even seedlings to small landowners, in return for

                 preferential rights to purchase the timber or land if the owner ever offers

                 either for sale.

                                                       44

                                                    FOOTNOTES

                 1.   Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Potential Best
                      Management Practices To Control Sediment Non-Point Source Pollution From
                      Agricultural Land in North Carolina (R-aleigh: SCS, T9-78).

                 2.   Division of Forest Resources, N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and
                      Community Development, Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water
                      Quality (Raleigh: Division of Forest Resources, n.d.)*

                 3.   Division of Environmental Management, N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and
                      Community Development, Water Quality and Forestry, A Management Plan
                      (Raleigh: Division of Environmental Management, 1979), p. 24.

                 4.   Bureau of the Census, 1982 Census of Agriculture, Preliminary Report,
                      Pamlico County, N.C.,(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1984).

                 5.   P.L. 74-46, 16 U.S.C. ��590a-f.

                 6.   7 CFR 610.2.

                 7.   P.L. 74-461, 16 U.S.C. ��590g-q.

                 8.   N.C.Gen. Stat. Ch. 139.

                 9.   P.L. 83-566, 16 U.S.C. ��1001-1009.

                 10.  P.L. 92-500, Section 208, 33 U.S.C. �1288.

                 11.  33 U.S.C. �1341.

                 12.  N.C.Gen. Stat. �143-434 to �143-470.

                 13.  N.C. Gen. Stat. �113-229.

                 14.  N.C. Gen. Stat. �113A-100 et seq.

                 15.  33 U.S.C. �403.

                 16.  33 U.S.C. � 1344.

                 17.  See the Governor's Coastal Water Manageme2t  Task Force Report, 1984, pp.
                      4-5.

                 18.  N.C. Gen. Stat. ��77-13,14.

                 19.  N.C. Gen. StcIt. �143-215.11 et seq.

                 20.  P.L. 95-313, 16 U.S.C. �2103.

                                                       45

                 21. N.C. Gen. Stat. �113-81.2; 15 NCAC 9C .0900.

                 22. N.C. Gen. Stat. �113A-176 to �113A-183; 15 NCAC 9C .0900.

                                                      46

                                                  Chapter Four

                                                RECOMMENDATIONS

                 4.1 County Policy

                      Agriculture and forestry are two of the leading industries in Pamlico

                 County and together, directly and indirectly, account for a substantial

                 portion of the county's employment and income. As discussed above, however,

                 certain agricultural and forestry practices may have various adverse

                 environmental impacts on the county, including excessive soil erosion,

                 increased saltwater encroachment, reductions in the supply of wildlife  and

                 natural areas, reduction in forest growing stock, freshwater inflow to  primary

                 nursery areas, and increased inputs of sediment, nutrients, bacteria, and

                 pesticides to estuaries. These impacts, in turn, can reduce the long-term

                 productivity of the agricultural, forestry, and fisheries sectors upon which

                 the county's ec onomy depends, and also cause a deterioration in environmental

                 quality that will make the county a less satisfying place to live. While the

                 state and federal governments have instituted programs to address many of

                 these concerns, the county cannot rely solely on such programs to fully

                 protect its environment. It is important that the county take reasonable and

                 appropriate steps on its own initiative to help reduce or eliminate these

                 harmful practices.

                 Recommendation: Pamlico County should adopt the following policy for

                 inclusion in its land use plan: The County recognizes the importance of

                 agriculture, forestry, and fisheries in the economy and life of the county and

                 the importance of a high quality natu ral environment to county residents.

                 Certain agricultural and forestry practices may have adverse impacts on the

                                                       47

                 long-term productivity of the land, on the productivity of estuarine waters,

                 and on the environmental health of the county. It is County policy to support

                 the modification or elimination of these deleterious practices, so as to

                 ensure the long-term producivity of the county's resource base and to protect

                 the quality of life of county residents.

                 4.2 Education, Technical Assistance, and Economic Incentives

                      Education, technical assistance, and economic incentives are the

                 cornerstones of the voluntary approach the state has taken to deal with

                 agricultural and forestry erosion and nonpoint pollution. More could be done

                 in each of these areas, particularly at a time when inflation@-adjusted funding

                 levels for federal conservation programs have been steadily declining and when

                 the current administration is seeking further major cuts (the President's

                 fiscal year 1985 budget proposes a 63% cut in ACP funding alone).

                      An increased level of county funding support for these efforts could take

                 several forms:

                      (1) Additional manpower beyond the two full-time resource conservation

                 personnel currently employed in the county (the SCS district conservationist

                 and county forest ranger). Both of these people expressed a need for more

                 help in education and technical assistance work, particularly to reach out to

                 people not aware of or for other reasons not making use of available

                 conservation services. An additional position could be added to county staff,

                 could be "lent" to the conservation district or Forest Service under a

                 memorandum of understanding, or could be added directly by one of the latter

                 two agencies using county appropriations. There are also possibilities for

                                                        48

                 sharing a position or for part-time assignment of an otherwise unrelated

                 position.

                      (2) Additional funds for specific projects, undertaken by the county,

                 the conservation district, or the Forest Service. For instance, there is a

                 pressing need for demonstration farms and forests in the county to illustrate

                 the feasibility and benefits of best management practices.

                      (3) Financial incentives for the adoption of best management practices.

                 There are three basic types of financial incentives: tax incentives, cost

                 sharing, and low interest loans. The county has no authority to offer tax

                 incentives, as the power to create special classes of property eligible for

                 reduced assessment rates rests solely with the General Assembly. Cost sharing

                 and low interest loans could be provided through the county or conservation

                 district. Any incentives program should be highly focused or "targeted." It

                 should be limited to the one or two practices the county considers most

                 effective in reducing impacts, or only to practices in certain areas, such as

                 those adjacent to primary nursery areas. Sedimentation ponds on drainage

                 canals and pumped drainage through wetland areas are examples.

                     No attempt has been made to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these

                 different options or to identify specific ones to recommend for funding. That

                 would require a level of effort and detail that is beyond the scope of this

                 study. Nor is this a recommendation for a diffuse, throw-money-at-the-problem

                 approach; the county does not have the tax base to spare. What is recommended

                 is a willingness to fund requests for highly specific, highly targeted

                 conservation programs and measures that offer a good chance of success.

                 Recommendation: The County should consider additional funding for specific

                 projects and manpower needs in resource conservation that have a strongly

                 demonstrated need and a high probability of success.

                                                      49

                 4.3 Support for the Bay River Soil and Water Conservation District

                     The Bay River Soil and Water Conservation District is an underutilized

                 resource. Soil and water conservation districts in North Carolina have the

                 status of distinct units of local government, with substantial authority and a

                 single charge: to promote and improve the conservation of soil, water, and

                 related resources within their jurisdictions. They are the only units of

                 local government with major, explicit environmental responsibilities. They

                 have the potential to provide leadership on a full range of issues of concern

                 to county residents. Pamlico County, through consultation, joint program

                 sponsorships, shared resources, and other forms of assistance, can help the

                 Bay River District to realize this potential.

                     The county should encourage the district to become more agressive, both

                 in seeking additional sources of funding (county expertise would be helpful

                 here), and in developing additional expertise and programs for both the

                 agricultural community and other interests. Twenty-five districts in Ohio,

                 for instance, currently have grants from federal and state environmental

                 protection agencies. Additional funds would permit the district to hire its

                 own professional staff, which would further help the district in establishing

                 a strong identity.

                     The county should also encourage the district to reach out and broaden

                 its base of support, and to evolve from an agency that speaks primarily for

                 the agricultural community to one that is more representative of the full

                 range of interests in the county, including those of the fishing and

                 residential development sectors. Such a change would help build public

                 support for its programs and would probably enhance its effectiveness in

                 dealing with conflicting interests and in obtaining additional funding.

                                                       50

                      The county should seek a closer working relationship with the district.

                 This would'help build a base of mutual trust and responsibility that would

                 eventually allow the county and district to work cooperatively on a full range

                 of conservation issues. It is in the county's interest to help build a strong

                 district, one that in some ways can be more effective than the county in

                 maintaining a high quality natural environment*

                 Recommendation: The County should develop a closer working relationship with

                 the Bay River Soil and Water Conservation District, and should encourage and

                 assist the District in expanding its scope and funding support and in becoming

                 a more agressive advocate of resource conservation.

                 4.4 Cross-Compliance

                      The term "cross-compliance" refers to the notion that landowners and

                 operators who receive the benefit of government subsidies, particularly USDA's

                 commodity programs, should be required to comply with soil and water

                 conservation standards. Cross-compliance is currently a popular idea among

                 policy makers. An excellent example is the so-called Sodbuster Bill currently

                 in Congress. If enacted, this bill would eliminate federal price supports,

                 loans, and crop insurance for farmers who "sodbust," or convert fragile and

                 highly erodible grassland to row crop cultivation. Examples at the state

                 level include several states that require conservation elements in state land

                 leases.

                      The best opportunity to apply this approach in North Carolina is in

                 conection with use-value property tax assessment. N.C. Gen. Stat. �105-277.2

                 to �105-277.7 provides for property tax assessment at use-value, rather than

                 market value, for qualifying agricultural, horticultural, and forest land-.

                 Similar provisions have been enacted in many other states. Their purpose is

                                                       51

                 to prevent high property taxes from forcing landowners to sell their

                 agricultural or forest land or forcing them to convert it to other uses,

                 particularly urban development.

                      In 1983 several thousand acres were enrolled in the use-value program in

                 Pamlico County, resulting in a reduction in assessment value of $3,098,681,

                 and (at a 744 tax rate) a revenue loss to the county of $22,900. The county

                 might legitimately expect that, in return for helping landowners preserve

                 their agricultural and forest land, landowners should use proper conservation

                 practices to assure the continued productivity and value of this land.

                      There are several forms such cross-compliance could take. At a minimum,

                 landowners enrolled in the use-value'program could be required to obtain a

                 conservation plan from the SCS or a forest management plan from the Forest

                 Service. This amounts to "mandatory education." A stricter form requires

                 that the conservation plan or forest management plan be adhered to. While

                 certainly more effective, this approach also creates monitoring and

                 enforcement problems.

                     Rhode Island and several counties in Washington now require the

                 development of conservation plans before individual farmers are eligible for

                 use-value property tax assessment. Pamlico County should request the General

                 Assembly to provide enabling legislation for counties to impose similar

                 restrictions.

                 Recommendation: The County should request the General Assembly to provide

                 counties with the ability to require conservation plans or the installation of

                 appropriate conservation treatments as a condition of eligibility for

                 use-value property tax assessmente

                                                       52

                 4.5 Water Management

                      As noted before, there is a great diversity of interests in water

                 management. Farmers are anxious to remove water rapidly most of the year, but

                 there is also some exciting research being conducted in Pamlico County and

                 other coastal plain counties on the maintenance of high water tables in summer

                 for subsurface irrigation. Foresters need good drainage for harvest and

                 seedling establishment and moderate drainage at other times, but are also-

                 interested in using high water tables during forest fire seasons to reduce

                 fire hazard. Drainage may affect saltwater encroachment into freshwater

                 aquifers. Research has been conducted on the use of maintaining high water

                 tables in winter to promote denitrification and reduce nitrate losses.

                 Fishermen are concerned about freshwater inflow to nursery areas, and hunters

                 about the lo ss of wetland habitat. Peat miners and health officials concerned

                 with mosquito control have their own drainage.Interests.

                      Conflicts between these interests are becoming more common. State

                 government has responded, most notably with the effort of the Governor's

                 Coastal Water Management Task Force. There is  currently a great deal of

                 interest among state agencies in innovative water management schemes that help

                 resolve these growing conflicts, and funding is or may be available from a

                 variety of sources for research and for demonstration projects.

                     What is lacking is a single person or agency at the local level that is

                 responsible for working with these different interests, who can work to

                 construct compromises and to fashion the kinds of multi-purpose water

                 management projects that will point the way to long-term solutions. What is

                 needed is some one or group to help pull together existing knowledge and apply

                 it to Pamlico County, to take advantage of the variety of funding sources

                                                       53

                 available, and in general to focus some of the energy and resources generated

                 at the state level on specific water management issues in the county.

                      It is recommended that the County propose the formation of an ad hoc

                 county water management task force. Membership would include the various

                 groups with water management concernst the soil and water conservation

                 district, SCS,"county forest ranger, county health department, the Farm

                 Bureau, the Fisheries Association, etc. The county should pro vide a chairman

                 and some staff time. The task force would follow developments in the field,

                 interact with the state, provide a forum for resolving conflicts, help plan

                 projects, and in general promote integrated water management in the county.

                 The different interest groups have been interacting at the state level for

                 several years, and the time would seem to be right for bringing together local

                 interests to deal with the problem. Preparation and implementation of a

                 comprehensive water management plan for the county should be the group's long-

                 term goal, and it is not too soon to begin fashioning the consensus and

                 building up the knowledge and expertise that this project will require.

                 Recommendation: The County should initiate formation of an ad hoc county

                 water management task force to bring together the disparate local interests in

                 water management and to begin work towards a comprehensive water management

                 plan for the county.

                                                       54

                                                                                                         I

                                                                                                         F

                                                                                                         r

                                                                                                         F

                                                                                                         r

                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                         I
                                                                                           -             I
                                                                        3 6668 14101 2353                1