Land clearing in the coastal plain

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

LAND CLEARING IN THE COASTAL PLAIN

John R. Clark

Environmental Guidance Group'

Washington, D.C.

This work was performed for the North Carolina Office of Coastal Management under
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development contract
54 and was funded in part by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
TC -- NA-79-AA-H-CZ128.
345
.U55
C53
1981

October 9, 1981

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Land Clearing in the Coastal Plain

Two Hundred Years of Land Clearing 2

7@ Present Inventory of Cleared and Drained 4
Land

Future Prospects 11

Major Uses of Cleared Land 16

Agriculture 17

Technology of Land Clearing and Draining 19

Forest Industries 26

Technology of Land Drainage and Pine 28
Culture

Peat Mining 30

Technology of Strip Mining for Peat 34

36
Impacts of Clearing Coastal Land

Impacts on Land 36

Impacts on Water Resources 48

Fisheries and Estuarine Waters 58

Impacts on Air Quality 66

Impacts on Habitats and Natural Areas 67

Solutions 76

Exercise of Authority 77
The Leading I .ssues 78
I
Past Experience 87

Bibliography 89

INTRODUCTION

This report was commissioned by the Office of

Coastal Management of the North Carolina Department

of Natural Resources and Community Development in order

to get an independent opinion on the matter of land

conversion in the coastal lowlands by clearing and

draining. The Office of Coastal Management has numer-

ous responsibilities for resource conservation and

environmental protection in the coastal counties of

the state where land conversion has skyrocketed in

recent years. Some troublesome side effects have

been produced by conversion of land for farming, tree

harvest, and strip mining for peat.

One particularly damaging side effect of land

clearing and draining is the accelerated surge of storm

water runoff into shallow estuarine "nursery areas"

shallow sanctuaries where young fish and shellfish

find food and protection. The surges -- increased

fourfold over natural runoff -- push out vital brackish

water and substitute fresh water, an unsuitable medium

for propagation of estuarine fish. The surges

also bring down nutrients washed off croplands to

cause eutrophication of estuaries. Wetlands and

other types of essential wildlife habitat are rapidly

disappearing under the blade and the backhoe.

The purposes of this report are to provide a

background.of fact, to examine the impacts and to

consider remedies. It was prepared in tandem with a

slide show on the subject which is also available from

the sponsoring agency.

Several terms used herein need clarification.

"Lowlands" means land fringing the coast that is

especially low and subject to storm flooding. "Wetlands"

refers to areas with soils that are saturated or inundated

most of the year and have vegetation especially adapted

to wet soils (marshes, swamps). "Moistlands" are a

version of wetlands with soils that are inundated or

saturated seasonally and which are often dry at the

surface for a good part of the year (pocosins, bogs,

river bottomlands). "Land conversion" means the alter-

ation of land from one condition to another to facilitate

a particular use -- specifically clearing, draining,

and grading the wet lowlands of the North Carolina

coast.

The author is appreciative for the dedicated ef-

forts of his associate, Ms. Catherine Lochner and

for the close attention given to this project by

Kenneth Stewart, Director, and David Owens, Ralph

Cantral, and Steve Benton of the Office of Coastal

Management. We enjoyed the cooperation and dssis-

tance of so many people it is not possible to name

them all. The following colleagues were particularly

generous: Steve Benton, Charles Daniel, Linda Gantt,

Ralph Heath, Paul Lilly, Preston Pate, Don Philen,

Joseph Phillips, Jim Smith and Anne Taylor.

John R. Clark

Environmental Guidance Group

Washington, D.C.

October 9. 1981

Note: This work was performed under contract C-1254
North Carolina Department@of Natural Resources
and Community Development.

iii

LAND CLEARING IN THE COASTAL PLAIN

The conversion of swamp and bog lands to fertile

farmland goes back two centuries in North Carolina's

history. Why then should controversy over land clear-

ing and draining be high on the state's list of current

environmental concerns in the 1980s? One reason is the

very intensity of clearing activity that is now under-

way. Another reason is the p4sh to extend clearing

into the wetter lands which gives rise to greater

,environmental problems. A further reason is the

potential consequences of a new enterprise,

strip mining for peat to be marketed as

fuel or as biomass for fuel production (alcohol).

Also, the renewed land clearing program of the 1970s

and 1980s faces a public environmental awareness not

present in the clearing and draining campaigns of the

1950s. At stake are wildlife, fisheries, water supplies

and hurricane flooding.
Another important factor in the current controversy

over coastal land clearing is the shift in incentive

from income to investment. In the past, the main

purpose of buying and clearing lowlands was to generate

income from sales of farm and forest products. But

lately the purpose has shifted toward

land improvement for investment potential. Corporate
11 super farmsil are replacing smaller family farms.

Large scale land clearing activities, along with

wetlands drainage and peat mining, substantially alter

the coastal landscape, its water cycles, and the con-

dition of adjacent rivers and sounds. Therefore, the bene-

fits of clearing must be balanced-- against the resource

losses that inevitably follow. This section of the

report provides background for considering these

tradeoffs by examining the extent of land clearing

to date and projecting what may come in the future.

Two Hundred Years of Land Clearing

The clearing and drainage activities of today are

not taking place on virgin lands so much as on lands

that were cleared in earlier years for farming or
l/
drained to facilitate logging operations. As econ-

omic conditions became less favorable, these lands

were . idled and began a reversion back to their pre-

vious wetland state. In fact, most of the land now

involved in clearing was at one time part of a giant

bog and swamp complex that covered much.of the coastal

plain of North Carolina. This huge wetland has chal-

lenged land entrepreneurs since the time of our national

independence.

To quote J. Paul Lilly on the history of land

clearing and drainage:

Development of swamps in North Carolina has
occurred over a long period of time with
periods of enthusiasm alternating with
periods of inactivity .... Easily drained
land on the edges of swamps was being de-
veloped by the late 1600's, but the first
large scale drainage of deep organic soils
was in the 1790's north of Lake Phelps. J/

Development of North Carolina swamp lands began
as early as 1700, first for timber production and
later for agriculture. Swamp lands were con-
sidered more fertile than upland soils and ag-
ricultural successes at Lake Phelps and Lake
Mattamuskeet in the early 1800s caused the
state to drain swamp land to raise money for
public education. Canals were dug at consider-
able expense but little land was sold. The
Civil War halted swamp land development but,
by the late 1800s intense logging had begun and
timber companies were acquiring much land.
The 1909 drainage act enabled land owners to
fund area-wide drainage projects and greatly
accelerated development. In the 1930s paper
companies began buying timber company land,
Croatan National Forest and Hofmann Forest
were formed, and the remaining state owned
swamp lands were preserved for wildlife. 2/

Since World War II there has been steady develop-
ment of swamp lands for agriculture and forestry.
It was found that successful production of pine
trees on poorly drained soils required drainage,
and paper companies began extensive canaling and
ditching. By the 1960s most of the swamp land
not in public ownership belonged or had belonged
to paper companies. In recent years, pressure
forland has increased again and large acreages
are being developed for agriculture 2/

The area of most intense development is the
Albemarle peninsula, also the area with the
smallest proportion of land in public ownership.

Land clearing has not proceeded as rapidly as
Heath.'.. ''projected, but it is likely to
be as @xtensive eventually. It is quite
likely that the swamp lands in private owner-
hip will be cleared and drained for agricul-
ture and forestry as long as current investment
opportunities exist. 2/

Present Inventory of Cleared and Drained Land

One third of North Carolina's coastal land has been

drained (see Figure 1). It is technically possible for

another 45 percent of the land to be drained. The

remaining 25 percent is either dry or publicly owned

and therefore not subject to drainage. Altogether,

1.8 million acres has been drained in 17 coastal coun-
4/
ties according to a recent survey (Table 1.

The survey concludes that another

2.5 million acres are potentially drainable in the

following categories:

Lands Potentially Drainable Acres Percent of
Land in 17
Counties

1. Farmland 94,000 1.7
2. Forestland 2,197,000 39.4
3. Miscellaneous 183,000 3.3

294740000 44.4

potentially
drainable for
agriculture 45% 33%
and forestry drained for
agriculture
and forestry

15%
7%

naturally not drainable
well drained

Fig. 1. Extent of coastal land drainage based on 1978
survey. Total land area is 5.6 million acres.
(Source: Ref - 3

Table 1. Farmland and forestland drainage in 17
coastal counties. a (Source: Ref. .4.)

Land Use and Drainage Status Acres Percent of Land
Use

Farmland
1. Extensively drained b 513,000 33.2
2. Partially drained c - 541,000 35.1
subtotal 1,054,000 68.3
3. Potentially drainable 94,000 6.1
4. Well drained, no drainage
required 396,000 25.6

Total Farmland 1,544,000 100.0

Forestland
1. Partially drained .780,000 26.2
2. Not drained and suited
for drainage ?,1,97200Q 73.8
Total Forestland 2,977,000 100.0

a. The 17 counties are: Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick,
Camden, Carteret., Craven, Dare, Gates, Hertford,
Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank,
Pender'. Tyrrell and Washington counties.

b. Extensively drained is land with subsurface tile
drainage systems combined with surface drainage
measures and an adequate outlet.

c. Partially drained means the use of suiface drainage
measures such as bedding, mounding and ditching, or
land smoothing combined with drainage ditches.

d. All well drained land is assumed to be in farmland
for the purpose of this estimate. The actual pro-
portion of farmland that is naturally well drained
is smaller than this figure.

That suitable lands can be put into production

rapidly is shown by a doubling of acres in corn on

the Albemarle-Pamlico peninsula in the 1970s. This

trend reflects the extensive clearing and draining of

lowlands that occurred during the last decade. Similar

trends exist for land in soybeans and other crops and

for grazing and forestry lands.

It appears that 100,000 acres of wet, lowlying land

have been cleared and drained, or re-cleared and re-

drained in the last 10 to 12 years on the Albemarle-

Pamlico peninsula. The,U.S. Soil Conservation Service

can account for over 200 million feet of ditches and 80
5 /
million feet of tile drains in recent years. A

hydrologist's view of the peninsula today shows a criss-

cross web of interconnecting canals and ditches that
6/
looks like the street map of a Chicago suburb.

In 1979 the Soil Conservation Service determined

that only 39 percent of all the land drained for agri-

culture and forestry in the coastal area is adequately
7 /
engineered. But much of the inadequately drained

land is presently abandoned and lying fallow.

Much of the land clearing and draining has been

done in large-scale campaigns by well-funded investment

combines. The most ambitious is First Colony Farms

which purchased 372,000 acres on the Albemarle-Pamlico

peninsula in the early 1970s (see Figure 1). In 1974,

the 10-year plan released by First Colony called for

1-50,000 acres of row crops, 140,000 acres of pasture,

and 101000 acres of vegetables -- 300,000 acres in
8 /
all. By 1976, 55,000 acres bad been cleared and

only 65,000 acres more were planned, the remainder

having been designated as poor quality, low-yield,

forestland. Thus, First Colony abandoned 60 percent

of their program, apparently because the land was un-

suitable. They later sold offparcels to other invest-

ment combines,, most notably 83,000 acres in Dare County

to Prulean Joint Venture (Prudential Life Insurance

as major investor) and-began to concentrate on the peat

mining potential of their land. As of February, 1981, First Col-
9/
onY_ had sold all but 163,000 acres. (See Table 2).

Another large venture is the 35,000 acre Matta-

muskeet Farms, owned by the John Hancock Mutual Life

Insurance Co. and American Cyanamid in Hyde County (Fig. 2).

In Carteret County, Italian investors are developing the

45,000 acre Open Ground Farms around the South River.

The remaining farms.are mostly 10,000 acres or less.

Table 2. Current large land holdings, Albemarle-
Pamlico region. (Source: Ref. 9.)

NAME ACRES

First Colony Farms 163$000

Mattamuskeet Farms 35,000

Prulean Partnership 83,000

Tyson Carolina 11$000

Winslow 10$000*

Georgia Timberlands 102000*

Rich Farms 13,0001,

SJE Investments 14,000'-

Timberlake Columbia Farms 10,000*

Buckeridge 17@000*

*The source listed the last six as holding "more than"
the numbers shown.

5 0 U 0

A- I LIW

T Y R R E L L
4,
WASHINGTON
R

B E A U F 0 R T

H Y D E

EXPLANATION
I irst Coloriv
Forms
Moiijmuskeet
Forms
EH Shimo-AmericGn
Forms

20 50 M-LES

Fig. 2. Land owned by First Colony Farms and other large corporate farms
as of 1974. (Source: Ref.10.)

Future Prospects

No authority has been willing to predict the future

extent of land clearing and draining in the coastal

plain. While 44.4 percent of the land 2.5 million

acres -- in the 17 coastal counties was listed in

the 1978 survey as "potentially drainable,' much

of this may have poor to marginal potential for agri-

culture. Economic and environmental considerations

will substantially govern clearing and draining enter-

prises in the future.

The 1978 survey showed that the trend is toward

"more coastal land drainage for agriculture and forestry"
7/
and continued as follows:

The rate at which new lands are drained and
brought into production during the 1980s will
vary according to commodity prices and export
policies, but generally is expected to be
slower than in the 1970s.

Future crop land drainage is also influenced
by the kinds of crops grown. The dominant
Coastal Zone crops grown on'-soils needing
drainage are cash grain corn and soybeans.
Cash grain operations have historically in-
creased in size to reduce costs and to main-
tain profitability. For Coastal North Caro-
lina this increase in size can occur 1) by
purchasing new land or 2) bringing into pro-
duction land not currently used for crops.

But big investors may play a stronger role than

farm prices and the driving force may be inflation con-

ditioned by the recent attractiveness of the money market.

The principal commodity in coastal
Carolina may become the land itself, not the pro-

ducts the land produces. Quoting J. Paul Lilly, "Farm

land is seen as a desirable investment and it is likely

that land clearing will continue at a'rapid rate so
l/
long as 'the current economic .... conditions exist.'F_

The benefit of holding coastal farmland as a hedge against

inflation is clear -- the average value of an acre of

land in a 12-county area around Albemarle and Pamlico
ll/
sounds increased 824 percent between 1959 and 1978.

If inflation continues at a high rate, one would expect

U.S. and foreign investors to continue purchasing blocks

of land and developing the more suitable areas.

Heath determined that 100,000 acres of the Albe-

marle-Pamlico peninsula were cultivated in 1956 and
12/
270.,000 acres in 1973. He also projected that over

640,000 acres would be cleared by 1980 , a considerable

overeFftimate as it turns out. However, the-areas identified

by Heath (Figure-3) are a good indication of future possibilities

(except for southern Dare County, recently purchased by the

military for an air target range).

The promise of fortunes to be made at peat mining

has also encouraged coastal land investment and conversion

through clearing and draining. As long as this promise

remains, investment pressure will continue.

A L L S 0 U 0

F 0 1b

WASHINGTON

Pat,*#

T Y R R E LL 0 A R E
P'.00 Lot#

18 E A U F 0 R T L60f

H Y D E

top#

gig

"w"Co

16-

10 W-LES

Fig. 3A. cultivated land, 1956. (Source: Ref. 12

s 0 U

WASMIN(i,rf-

T Y R R EL L

BEAUFORT

H Y D E

Lot# awroffe
L10

"'0"1 lb

30 WILLS
I @O I

Fig. 3B. Cultivated land projected to 1980. .(Source: Ref. 12,)

By Septe mber 1981, five mining permits for peat had

been granted for tracts totalling over 16,000 acres a 'nd
13/
two more permits for over 10,000 acres were pending.

Trial mining is underway on some of these tracts with

production approaching 2,000 tons per week (of 30%
13/
moisture peat) by August, 1981. Market demand and

profitability for full scale operations are unknown,

but it appears that the most promising market is for
13
methanol produced from peat by gasification. What-

ever the future may hold, the peat potential is buoying

the present value of lands that are poorly suited for

agriculture.

Current trends suggest that coastal forest indus-

tries of the future may be based on cultivation of

loblolly pine. Native pines are more of a nuisance

than a resource in modern land clearing and they are

typically piled and burned rather than harvested when

land is cleared. A Weyerhauser representative is quoted

as saying recently they "would not log the area if the
3/
timber were given ... free.... Ir- However, harvesting and

culturing of pine trees can be profitable as a single

purpose activity in which all factors are maximized for

the one purpose -- e.g., the areas for harvest are

drained up to two years in advance so that the soils
3/
are dry enough to support heavy machinery.

One would expect'to,see the continued advance of

higher technology, single-purpose pine culturing and

harvesting. From Table 2, one can see that the major

holdings -- 2.2 million acres -- of undrained.coastal

land are in forest and only 780,000 acres have been

drained at some time in the past. If some favorable

change in technology or market demand occurs, hundreds

of thousands more acres could be drained and prepared
5
for loblolly pine tree farms in the near future.

There appears to be a dimmer future for white

cedar (juniper) and cypress -- the prime forest

species of the past. Available stands are nearly gone

and it seems not to be practicable to culture them at

the current state of the art of silviculture. However,

a technological breakthrough could change the picture.

MAJOR USES OF CLEARED LAND

The coastal plain of North Carolina is a rural

area with a predominance of farming, forest industries,

and fishing. There is tourist recreation development

along the ocean beaches and shipping connected industry

in the ports. The fortunes of farmers, foresters, and

fishermen have a major effect on the economic life of the

coastal Communities. The trend toward corporate

farms adds a new factor. W[iil'e the 1o-n'g term employment

benefits of both super farm and tree farm operations are

minimal, the indirect and short-term benefits to the

local economy -- including employment in land clear-

ing-- are significant. Major shifts in land use are

of great importance to coastal communities. Their

economy, environment and life style are keyed to the

use of land. In this section we review the major po-

tential uses of cleared land in the coastal plain

of North Carolina -- agriculture, forestry , and peat

mining. The emphasis is on the Albemarle-Pamlico

peninsula.

Agriculture

Lowlands converted for agriculture -- that is,

cleared and drained are used primarily to produce

corn and soybeans along with wheat and sorghum. Some

of this land is used for vegetables and some for

pasture. Very little tobacco is grown. The past 10

years has witnessed a great increase in land conversion.

For example, Tyrell County had-only a few thousand acres

of cultivated land in the early 1960s but 27,000 acres

were conver-ted for row crops in the 1970s.

Accelerated lowland conversion has been associated with a

marked increase in the total amount of agricultural

land in production. For example, in Table 3, Donald

Philen shows trends in harvested acreage of corn for

12 coastal counties. (Corn, traditionally the major

crop of coastal plain farms, is now second to soybeans.)

A general slump in the 1960s was followed by an increase

in the 1970s as land was put back into production.

The increases were particularly striking for Hyde,

Tyrell, and Washington counties in the Albemarle-Pam-

lico, peninsula. These were the only counties which

gained significantly over 1959 acreages -- from 35

Table 3. Acres of corn harvested in various years
for all purposes. (Source: Ref. 11)

COUNTY
1959 1964 196q69 1973 1978
BEAUFORT 47,223 28..50q06 24,177 41,820 47,65qcq;
BERTIE 34.,004 25,o56qO0qO q/26q8,,747 35,350 4L.,225
CARTERET 2,,691 4qL446 1.,616 3,060 5,918
CRAVEN 24.,589 4qJq'q)
1-,,875 14q1,,o557 16,,q126q0 22.,4qrj'9
DARE 7 8
HYDE q1.q),,0q883 12,472 0qA-004 25..920 23,962
JONES 24.4q36q68 14.o0q899 15..850q6 18,130 2-7,272"
MARTIN 32,o183 22,,2-30 22,-424 28.,352q0 32,485
PAMLICO 9.,802 6,8q328 4,,o545 6,620 2q8.,738
PITT 76j384 51,,600 55,759 62,o6q19q0 68..046
TYRRELL 7j6q018 4.,'931 3,890 7,309 14,140,
WASHINGTON 13,o931 8.,979 13,o819 28,710 30,686

Data not available.

to 69 thousand acres overall. Carteret also doubled

its considerably smaller total acreage. On the penin-

sula, 142,000 acres -- 8 percent of the state total
14
were in corn by the end of the 1970s.

On the peninsula, 193,000 acres 10

percent of the state total -- were in soybeans by the

end of the 1970s . The growing world demand for soybeans

has caus'ed both 'a shift from corn and an increase in

the rate of land conversion.

Regarding livestock, at the end of the 1970s,

the peninsula had 180,000 hogs and 25,000 cattle,

respectively 6.8 and 2.3 percent of the state total.

Technology of Land Clearing and Draining

Because the Albemarle-Pamlico peninsula -- and

much of the rest of coastal North Carolina -- is a

giant bog of organic (peat) soils, it was not char-

acterized by much in the way of natural streams and

swales to drain the land. Rainfall drained off the

surface as a flowing sheet of water moving slowly

toward the sounds. To drain this bog meant cutting

a complete system of artificial drainageways and

outlets to the sea not too difficult technologically

in an area where the land runs flat and uninterrupted

for miles. However, since the slope falls from'only

20 feet to zero elevation over distances of 15 to 50

miles, a major problem is to get the drainage water to

flow. Giant electric pumps are coming into common

use to aid the flow, to reversle it, or to pump out areas

of falling land surface.

Water penetrates the peaty bog soils very poorly,

tending to stand on the surface in shallow puddles and

ponds. Therefore, it is important to shape the fields

so that water runs off the surface as well as drains

from underneath. The capacity of the ditches and

canals must be adequate to handle major downpours as

well as regular rains. Even with the best drainage,

there are many crops that the peninsula's organic

soils cannot support.
4
According to Doucette and Phillips:

The majority of field crops and plantation grown
trees require an unsaturated root zone for op-
timal growth. When the root zone is saturated
either by a rising water table or the infiltra-
tion of ponded rainwater, the roots are deprived
of oxygen and suffocate (drown!). Some field

crops can withstand temporary wetness longer
than others. Soybeans, for example, can
withstand wet conditions longer than corn.
TobaccD will be hurt with short periods
of wetness while wetland rice is planted
and grown almost under water. Drowning
can stunt the growth of a plant and severe-
ly reduce grain yields or eventually kill it.

In the simplest view, agricultural drainage involves

lowering the water table to below the root zone and in-

creasing the rate of surface water removal to prevent

ponding.

The technology of clearing and draining of coastal

lowlands by the open ditch method has become rather
12 /
standardized. According to Heath the ideal drainage

system consists of three different types of drainage

channels (see'Figure 4). The first is the main canal

which extends into the interior from the coast or from

major natural streams like the Scuppernong River....

The material removed from these canals forms the

principal highways and roads in the area. The second

type is the collector ditch, generally spaced about

half a mile apart along each side of the main canals.

Width and depth depends primarily on the amount of

material needed for field roads. The third type is

the field ditch which runs parallel to the collector

ditch and provides the direct conveyance of water from

the field.

d@_

IQ.Sl V_

6 off '01

Note: Sketch not to scale

Fig. 4. Typical artificial drainage system of the
Albemarle-Pamlico peninsula. (Source:
Ref. 12.)

22,

Upon completion of the drainage channels, each

square mile is drained through 16 to 20 miles of

field ditches and three miles of collector ditches.

The average for the area under cultivation is about

20 miles of channel per square mile. The U.S. Soil

Conservation Service has assisted property owners to

install 208 million feet of open ditches affecting

about 4.2 million acres of land in coastal North Caro-
5
lina.

Most large-scale clearing and draining enterprises

conform generally to the following steps of construction
12/
outlined by Heath:

1. Construction of drainage canals - In areas
not previously drained, major canals are spaced
about a mile apart. Depending on the terrain,
they are dug 10 to 15 feet deep and 15 to 25
feet wide at the top. All dirt is piled on one
side where it serves as a road foundation and,
where additional material is needed for the road
bed, the canal may be dug both wider and deeper
than normal. In low-lying areas, collector
ditches and field ditches are also constructed
at this time. (Note: Where there are natural
drainageways, these may be "channelized" and
used in place of the straight canals.)

2. Removal of pulpwood and saw timber - This step
is facilitated by the roads built along the major
drainage canals and by the somewhat dryer condi-
tions provided by the canals.

3. Clearing of remaining vegetation - Bulldozers
and other power equipment are used to uproot the
rematning vegetation and pile it in windrows which

are burned as soon as wind and moisture condi-
tions permit.' Because large amounts of soil
are removed with the roots only the outer part
of the windrow burns at this stage.

4. Construction of field ditches - If not dug
earlier, power shovels equipped with a triangular
shaped bucket are used to dig field ditches (or
"V ditches) parallel to and midway between the
windrows. The field ditches are five feet wide
at the top and one foot wide at the bottom. They
are spaced from 260 to 330 feet apart. (Note:
Subsurface drain tiles are sometimes used in place
of field ditches.)

5. Preparation of fields for crops - This step in-
cludes further burning of the windrows, and "shap-
ing 11 the fields so that they slope towards the
field ditches at a rate of about 0.5 percent.
Thus, where field ditches are 330 feet apart the
center of the field is about 10 inches higher
than the edges. The fields are shaped to avoid
ponding of water on the surface. During this
step 5 to 6 tons of limestone are added per acre
to the soil to neutralize the strongly acid con-
dition of the swamp soils.

The more advanced method of field drainage is the

installation of subsurface tile drain systems. While

initially more expensive, subsurface drains leave the

fields clear of ditches and make them easier to plow.

Tiles are placed four to eight feet deep, spaced the

same as ditches or somewhat closer, and pitched to

flow into collector ditches. In the"past few years"

the U.S. Soil Conservation Service has "...assisted in

the total installation of approximately 82 million feet

of tile affecting almost one-half million acres..." in
5
the North Carolina coastal plain.

There may be a fourth level of drainage involving

"hoe drains". small, shallow ditches running at right

angles to the field drains, dug each year by small

tractors as part of field preparation. Hoe drains are

particularly needed where the individual rows are bedded

that is, raised from the general surface of the field

to drain the water from the furrows.

Much of the recently converted land is too low to

drain by gravity flow, requiring that the water be

pumped up into the canals. Land less than four feet above

sea level is particularly difficult to drain and on

the Albemarle-PamliCD peninsula draihage may be CDMpli-
12 /
cated by storms and tides. According to Heath: "De-

velDpment plans for these areas involve the construction

of protective dikes to avoid storm flooding from the

sounds and the Alligator River and the installation

of pumping stations for water level control. In the

lowest areas, canal levels may be maintained below

sea level during the growing season as is now done in

the Gum Neck area."

Excess water is not the only problem facing lowland

farmers, drought is still another. Plant roots do

not penetrate deeply in the "blacklands" of the coast.

The water table lies 1-ow in dry weather. Subsurface

soils remain acidic even while the surface 6 to 8

inches is neutralized with lime.

Nor does water easily move upward through the peaty
1
organic soils to reach the shallow plant roots.

Consequently, there may be serious drought losses of

crops in the cleared and drained lands unless efforts

are made to maintain the water table during dry periods.

This can be done by constructing ditches or tile

drains at the right level to make it feasible to

reverse the drainage process when necessary and to

feed water back into the soil. Pumps may be needed

to accomplish this reversal of flow along with water

level weirs to impound water. In this system, the

ditches may require considerably more maintenance to

remove sediment and vegetation and the additional

construction and operation costs may bring profits

down to the marginal range unless the result is extreme-

ly productive-land.

Forest Industries

In the North Carolina coastal plain there are

several categories of land harvested for wood products:

1) pinelands owned and harvested by wood products

manufacturers (often converted to agriculture after

harvest); 2) plantations where loblolly pines are cul-

tured for maximum production; 3) natural swampland

forests of cypress and white cedar (juniper); and

4) miscellaneous holdings of woodlands by investors,

farmers and others. The first and second categories

are the ones of primary economic importance. Most

of the 2.2 million acres of forest land of the 17

coastal counties that have conomic potential have

been logged at least once in the past. Much of it is

of marginal value for agriculture, having deep

organic soils and severe drainage problems. Never-

theless, if the investment potential of improved

land continues to increase, many thousand additional

acres may be cleared and drained.

In general, coastal lowland forests run about
1432@ cords of merchantable wood per acre of pine, gum,

other hardwoods, some white cedar. Another 30 tons

per acre of biomass is windrowed and burned when land
31
is cleared for farming.

Major companies, such as Weyerhauser, have in-

vested extensively in pine culture. Authorities

consider these ventures an economic success and

5/
expect to see them expanded in the future. If loblolly

tree farms do succeed., one would expect to find them

on land of low value for agriculture

Forestry expert J.D. Gregory

claims that "Loblolly pine makes its best long term

growth on poorly drained soils high in clay," but

that drainage and "extensive site preparation" are

needed for "vigorous stands" of loblolly in pocosin
.5

areas.

Technology of Land Drainage and Pine Culture

Gregory notes two major objectives for drainage
5/
of forest lands in the coastal area:

The objective of the earliest forest land
drainage in eastern North Carolina was to
facilitate logging. Lowering of water tables
and reduction of the water content of surface
soils improved trafficability for heavy equip-
ment. Soil from the drainage ditches was used
to build access roads for logging trucks and
for use in subsequent management activities.
Forest fire control was especially enhanced
by the system of roads that provided access to
.formerly remote forested areas and served as
firebreaks.

The second objective of land drainage is to im-
prove the potential productivity for pine.
Many poorly drained organic soils are much
more suited for the growth of pines after water
tables are lowered. Loblolly pine is the species
of choice for the forest industry, not only
because of the market requirement for pine
pulpwood, but because of the demonstrated growth
potential on lower coastal plain sites.

In relation to drainage techniques, Gregory
5
states:

Drainage systems being installed on previously
undrained forest lands in eastern North Carolina
are carefully designed to conform with the
natural drainage pattern as much as possible
and to provide adequate soil drainage through-
out the area to be planted .... Common site pre-
paration practices include shearing and piling
of large residual material when necessary, drum-
chopping, burning, and finally, bedding. Experi-
ence has shown that providing raised beds for the
seedlings is needed to produce a well-aerated
rooting zone even on drained land. Fertilization
with phosphorus or nitrogen plus phosphorus has
become a common practice because most poorly
drained soils of the lower coastal plain are
highly acid and low in available nutrients.

Experience shows that 80-foot loblollies can be

grown in 25 years under culture, versus only 45-foot
15 /
trees in nature. The total productivity per acre

may be two to three times the rate of non-cultured
3/
stands. However, the costs for complete clearing,

drainage and field preparation can run to $1,000 per

acre for loblolly farms. Also, fertilizer and herbi-

cides must be applied at intervals and the ditches

must be maintained. Strategic water management may

also be required, according to Gregory, because

loblollies do best if started in relatively dry soil

and finished in relatively wet soil.

Peat Mining

For all the publicity about peat mining in

coastal North Carolina,, full scale mining lies in the

future. Surveys have been made, harvesting machines tested,

products analyzed, markets reviewed and trial production

commenced. Four state permits are active
13/
16,600 acres) and two more are pending (10,600 acres).-

Clearly, Carolina peat can be mined and the product

would be salable. The question is whether peat

mining can show a profit within today's costs and

sales parameters.

The projections for the peat market do look

promising. According to a recent state task force
16
report:

There is not yet an established market for North
Carolina peat, but a major market is expected to
develop within five years as proposed methanol
plants and peat-fired generating plants are built.
The first peat sold, perhaps within six months
(from March, 1981) will probably be bought by
Weyerhauser to fuel its new boiler at Plymouth.

The state has about 1,000 square miles of peatland

(640,000 acres) containing 600 million dry tons of

peat. Three hundred sixty square miles, with 210

million tons, are on the Albemarle-Pamlico peninsula.
17/
(See Figures 5 and 6.) The peat lies in deposits

averaging about 4k feet deep but it canIrange from a

I A
1A

------------

B
I.B
&

< C
C

IC
dP

I H
'IG

A IJ

I I.E

T.A DISMAL SWAMP
Ib 1.13 PAMLIMARLE PENINSULA
I.C GULL ROCK GAMELAND
I.D GUM SWAMP- BAY CITY POCOSIN
jjK I.E LIGHT GROUND POCOSIN
I.F CROATAN NATIONAL FOREST
I.G OPEN GROUNDS POCOSIN
I.H HOFMA14N FOREST
2.1 HOLLY SHELTER SWAMP
I.J ANGOLA SWAMP
LK GREEN SWAMP

11.A CHOWAN RIVER
11.13 ROANOKE RIVER
II.C TAR RIVER
II.D NEUSE RIVER
II.E CAPE FEAR-NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVERS

11I.A CAROLINA BAYS

Fig. 5. Map showing location of North Carolina peat
deposits. (Source: Ref. 17.)

?b 1 11 71' 1. .11 1 R'
SOUND

"IN j t......I OURAN? ISI 4';D
Or
040.
L
% M.0

L.4
C. a-
17,

I.-dr
.0,
An
t
x.
.7
4r@
ItK
,xj

Phelps L AT
N-1

9A PtSEP ATI
it
@T_
(NO eft Colz
D L7
-7

j .4@
NO,, LOA -

All

LA
r ',11,1 TTA MUSKErT
_v@j. 3
j. 3^
-43
A
71 USKIE ATIONAL WILDLIFE
A

-A:

'k, AI.I.J IT
0
Z

Fig. 6. Peat deposits of the Albemarle-Pamlico peninsula. (Sourc(
@ @` VI_

thin slice to over 16 feet deep (over relict stream
13,
beds). Mining of deposits as shallow as 2 feet has been proposed.

The quality of the peat is adequate for use as

an industrial fuel. Sulphur content is low, ash is

around 5 percent While peat is far bulkier than

coal, its BTU output, pound-for-pound is comparable to

eastern bituminous coal -- peat rates from 10,000 to

10,500 BTU/lb (dry weight) while coal contains 101000

to 131000/lb. It is wet and heavy as it comes out of

the ground and drying it is a big job since it must

be reduced from around 90% moisture to about 30-50%
18/
in order to burn right7- or to 0-3% moisture for gasi-
U/
fication (in a methanol plant). Because of its bulk

(four times that of coal) transport is expensive and

stockpiling and handling at the use point is somewhat

cumbersome. A severe problem is that much of the peat contains.

masses of logs that remain undecomposed at depths of

2 to 3 feet beneath the surface. European peat harvest-

ing equipment is not designed to work in such fields

but modified asphalt paving equipment appears to be

working in North Carolina for peat mining. Equipment

has been the major deterrent to profitable mining.

The peat is usually deepest in bog areas where it

restricts growth of plants and trees Thus, peat is

often located in pocosin bogs associated with a dense

shrub thicket and stunted pond pines. These deep peat

soils are marginal to unsuitable for row crops, even

at the state-of the art of drainage engineering and

pH manipulation. But-with all but 10-14 inches of the

peat removed, the underlying mineral soil base can be

very productive. Consequently a major incentive to

strip mining of peat is to improve the land for crop pro-

duction. If the peat mining operation only breaks even,.

the value added to the deep peat land may turn a good

investment profit. In considering the economics of

land clearing and drainage, one must realize that the

large corporations operating in coastal North Carolina

are ultimately concerned with land values from an in-

vestment standpoint more than they are with revenue

generation.

Technology-of Strip Mining for Peat: The technology

for clearing and draining peat lands in preparation

for strip mining is similar to that for agriculture.

According to one source, the field ditches may be

spaced more closely than for crops (e.g. 165 feet com-

pared to 300 feet) and the field is sloped to an even

0.5 to 1.0 percent, grading toward the drainage ditches.

Harvesting methods tested are: 1) "milling,11

whereby the top 4 to 10 inches are disturbed, left

to dry a few days, and recovered with a vacuum or

conveyor harvester 1 to 2 inches at a time, 2) "sod

cutting,11 whereby a wheel cutter removes chunks and ex-

trudes them through an auger back onto the,field for

drying and recovery, and 3) modified asphalt paving

removal equipment which can cut through the buried

logs (too recent to evaluate). Ideally, the processes

would continue through many cuts until mineral soils are

approached.

In many cases, stripping the peat will create

shallow pits.@ These will often lie below the existing water

table, causing the ground to become inundated much of

the year. The remedy -- especially needed after mining

deep peat deposits -- is the continual pumping of water

up to higher level canals where it can flow away by

gravity. This need for perpetual pumped drainage

increases the costs of farming the land after stripping

is finished (variously $10-15 per acre or 3-5 percent of

costs) and intensifies the hazards (2-3 days of
18/
water logging can cause extreme crop damage). However,

these drawbacks may often be offset by the general high

productivity of mineral soils exposed by stripping.

IMPACTS OF CLEARING COASTAL LAND

The consequences of coastal land conversion have

been studies by state agencies, engineers, scientists

and others since 1974. Great progress has been made

in understanding the effects of clearing and draining

and their impacts on the economy, environment, resources

and the quality of life of coastal North Carolina. These

studies have identified the following as the probable

major impacts: 1) substantial loss to fisheries by
disruption of the sounds and bays; 2) much increased

hazard of hurricane flooding as the land surface drops

lower; 3) dramatic loss of habitat of bears and other

key species; 4) severe reduction in wetlands -- swamps,

marshes, and pocosin bogs; 5) increased threat of salt

water pollution of groundwater; and 6) general deterior-

ation of coastal environmental quality by smoke, dust,

and loss of natural amenities.

Impacts on Land

The character of the coastal landscape is drama-

tically changed by land clearing and draining. While

the fact of change is obvious to the eye, the effects

of change are not so easy to see. Our knowledge of

major changes to the land is reviewed below.

Land Surface: It is known around the world that

when peaty wetlands are cleared and drained for con-

version to farmlands, the land surface begins to fall

North Carolina is no exception. The causes are shrinkage

and consolidation of the soil, compaction from tractor

operation, oxidation of the peat., wind erosion and wild-

fires. The land has only one way to go, down. It is

only a question of how far, how fast. Equilibrium comes

only when all the peat is gone and the mineral soil

level is reached. Once peat soil has subsided, it does

not rise again Subsidence is a real threat to large

areas of coastal land that lie close to sea level.

For example, most of Tyrell, Dare, and Hyde Counties are

less than 5 feet above sea level. Any further subsidence

could subject such areas to extreme hurricane damage

and pose further difficulties in land drainage (Figure 7).

Because much of the lowlands of coastal North

Carolina were drained for forestry or agriculture years

ago, much of the dramatic initial shrinkage, consolidation,

and subsidence of the land occurred in the past. Con-

sequently, the initial subsidence of such land now re-

converted may be on the order of inches rather than feet.

760 30 76000
36000 - A L 8 E A 4 R IL E 0 U N 0
48qU
10 10

1q0

W A S H 1q1*3 N G T
8qI-8qS

q'YRRELL
Phelps
Lake qD A R E
/f 15
/0
Pungo Lake

BE UFORT

ew
D 15
In to A 1q5 Lake

W A-40
0 10 H Y D E

35030' q- Lake
qmatlamusfreef 0

0 5 10 2qP q10 MILES
EXPLANATION
5 TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR- Contour interval, 5 feet. Five-foot contour not shown
where it would merge with the 10-foot contour at this scale. Datum is mean sea level
(National Geodetic Verticol Datum of 1929

Fig. 7. 0qC4qe0qnerqaqtqized position of the 5 foot contour on the Al2qbemqar
peninsula shown by heavy line: most land east of the l1ne
then 5 feet above mean sea level (base map from Ref- 0q0q-

After the initial period the rate of subsidence may

fall to less than k inch per year, according to some

studies. This is attributable to oxidation prin-

cipally, the natural decay of organic soils when

dried and exposed to air. From the studies done in

North Carolina recently (e.g. See Ref.19), it appears

that the rate of persistent oxidation is low and does

not cause the extent of subsidence that it does in

other areas. Based upon information available, it would

be appropriate to say that oxidation.alone would,not

be expected to lower the land surface more than two

or three feet in a hundred years in the typical peat

soils of the coast.

However, when adding up all causes, the potential

for reduction may be greater than two or three feet

per hundred years.' For example, Figure 8 illustrates

subsidence up to six feet in one location on the

Albemarle peninsula. Wildfire in the peat soils may

be responsible for much of the effect in such areas of

severe subsidence. Once started, peat fires burn down

to the level of water saturation. Fire threat is seriously
increased by clearing, draining, and working the land.

Peat fires are difficult to stop because water to inun-

date the burn areas is not easy to come by in dry

nqjc deqpOsqits
20 oqk
-12q0

qW 16-

ORGANI EPOSITS
.14-

12-
MINERAL DEPOSITS

10-

q6 .
0 2 Miles
L-- - I I
Datum qjs mean sea level
Vert Ica I scale greatly exaggerated

Fig. 8. Subsidence of the peat surface caused by
drainage in an area west of Lake Phelps
(after Dolman and Buol).q' (Source: Ref. 12

periods. Nevertheless, removal by fire may be con-

sidered advantageous in areas of deep organic soil

where crop production is enhanced by removal of peat

down to the mineral soils. In past.yjears, peatlands

were burned intentionally, after drainage, to g*et

at the mineral soils.

If the potential for peat mining is realized in

coastal North Carolina, land lowering will be greatly

accelerated in the areas stripped. This will often

create a need for pumping and deepening of canals as

well as an increase in the hazards to crops of water-

logging when equipment fails (operators are required

to re6laim-stripped land --- for agriculture or

other purpose.) The question also arises as to who will

.maintain the pumps and canals if the owner cbooses to

abandon the mine site after it has been stripped.

Flood Ha zards: The problem of subsidence is es-

pecially serious in the lowland areas subject to severe

flooding by hurricanes. For example, Figure 9 shows

that large parts of the Albemarle-Pamlico peninsula

would lie below sea level if stripped of their

peat. Such areas would have to be surrounded by high

dikes for protection from storm tides and would have

76- 30' 76000'
3600d - I I

L
ig E M AR L E 0 VIV 0 7. -7

Y RR L L

Phelps
WASHINGTO Lake

ZO*eT----
-U AR E

H T 0 E
8 AU F 0 R.

L oke
35030,-
M0110MUSkeel

0 5 00 20 30 MILES
t
EXPLANATION
SOIL TYPES
MINERAL SHALLOW ORGANICI DEEP ORGANIC CONTACT
Less than 5 feet deep More than 5 feet deep

Fig. 9. Potential peat mining areas that will fall to elevations below sea
level with all peat removed include: all of A and the eastern third
of B according to a recent study. (Data from Ref.18 ; base map from
Ref. 6

to be furnished with large, powerful pumps to routine-

ly discharge rainwater and prevent damaging floods.

A large hurricane which breached or overflowed the dikes

would cause extensive flood damage and pollute croplands

with salt water making them unusable for several years

.to follow.

That hurricanes are a real threat to coastal North

Carolina is shown by the extensive areas flooded when

'!Hazel" hit in 1954 (see Figure 10). A still larger (giant)

hurricane would have done considerably more damage.

Hurricanes in 1955 caused damages of $131 million

to coastal agriculture. Losses today would be

much higher because of the extent of new farmland

created by clearing and draining coastal lowlands,

and the.extensive clearing of forests which are a

natural buffer against hurricane surges and waves.

The coast immediately east of the Albemarle-Pamlico

peninsula has a one-in-ten chance of a hurricane strike

every year.

In the future, hurricane damage could be astro-

nomical if coastal lands are lowered further., allowing

storm driven salt water to sweep over hundreds of square

miles. The public liability for disaster assistance

and rehabilitation of services would be extremely high.

76030' 76000'
OF A L 9 E M A R L L' 5 0 U N 0 1
10 00

/0
W A S H N G T

PAelps T
V Lake D A R E

pungo to4e LO

BE UFORT
ewl
10 Lake

r,40
10
35030'- Lake 0 ID
Maff0MVS*eef 0

r1l
'F

0 to 20 10 MILtS
t
EXPLANATION
- 5 TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR -- Contour interval 5 feet, Five-foot contour not shown
where it would merle with the 10-foot contour of this scale. Datum is mean sea level
(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 ).

Figure 10. Areas of the Albemarle Pamlico peninsula that were f looded
with salt water during hurricanes of 1954 and 1955. (Data
from Ref . 20 ; base map from Ref 6..)

To add to the hazards, sea level is relentlessly

rising and increasing the height of tides; someday

the sea will cover all the lowest of coastal lands

(several hundred to one thousand years) as this trend

.continues.

Examples from the West: In California, 700,000

acres of peat moistlands were drained and diked in

the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area in the 1800's

and 1900's. While the peat soils were deeper --

one-third of the area had peat depths of 20 feet or

greater -- the Delta is of some interest here. A

study by the state Department of Water Resources

shows subsidence of 12 to 20 feet for the tracts
21/
with deeper peat deposits. Over the period 1911-

1952, a rate of subsidence of about three inches

per year was measured for 17 large tracts that had

been draiAed.

Fortunately, 3 inches per year (10 feet in 40

years),is a greater rate of subsidence than one

would expect for North Carolina lawlands, because

this has led to severe economic problems in California.

In the last five or ten years there has been continuing

failure of the drainage works in the Delta, particularly

the dikes that come under increasing hydraulic

pressure as the land level falls. The cost to

the government for disaster aid payments was $45

million for just one year (September 1980 to Sep-
22/
tember 1981). But it is doubtful that the Federal

government will continue to pay the tab. Many huge

.farms remain flooded under many feet of water today

because the repairs are just too expensive. One

effect is that sales of Delta farm land to foreign

investors have dropped from a previous high of $22

million per year to a recent low of $3.7 million per

year.
23/
Other states, such as Minnesota and Florida

have had considerable experience with draining of

peat bogs that can benefit North Carolina in preparing

to manage its lowland resources.

Indus@rialization: One must always look to the

full range of effects of any major development to fully

assess its effects. For example, it appears that

there will be very little peat mining in the lowlands

without industrial growth. The reason is that peat

is too bulky to ship any distance and therefore must

be used near where it is mined, An existing Weyerhauser

plant appears to be the only customer at present.

Consequently, sustained peat mining would be accom-

panied by a large power plant, a large methanol

plant, or both. If these or similar industries do

not locate in the lowlands vicinity, there may be

too low a demand for peat to sustain substantial

production.

It is clear, therefore, that any consideration

of approval for peat mining must also consider the

effects of industrial growth: traffic, noise, smoke,

water pollution, heavy demand for ground water, and

so forth. Moreover, industrial growth in rural areas

is usually accompanied by major social changes as

farmers become millhands, rural institutions become

urbanized, and local tradition and political style

shift to the mode of the industrial community.

Impacts on Water Resources

Coastal land conversion by clearing and draining

has pronounced effects upon surface and ground waters.

In fact, the main purpose of drainage is to alter the

existing water balance. The major effects on water to

be considered in this section are pollution, alteration

of basic hydrology and salt water intrusion into fresh

water systems. How the adjacent estuaries are impacted

by these effects is discussed in a later section.

Surface Water Pollution: Clearing and draining

cause pollution of surface waters in ditches, canals

and natural waterways. Because of the extreme varia-

tion in conditions, it is difficult to make general

statements about the severity of pollution effects.

It is probably safe to say that the short-term pollution

problems from clearing and ditch construction are not

nearly as severe as the continuing pollution from

agricultural operations.

A variety of pollutants issue from farmlands and,

to a lesser extent, from tree farms, forest harvest

operations, and peat mine sites. The following are

considered to be damaging to aquatic (fresh water)

and estuarine systems:

a Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorus (P): Released from

drained farmlands in significant amounts (N loadings were

increased by 3 to 8 times normal in one test!). Both

N and P have a high potential for eutrophication (over-

fertilization of surface waters. The worst for aquatic

systems is P (in the inorganic form) which tends to
19/
attach to sediments. (N may be the worst for es-

tuaries.) Major sources of N and P are fertilizers and

soil contents.

e Pathogens: Fecal coliform enter surface waters
19/
from pasture lands,in high concentration and consti-

tute a major pollution problem.

9 PpAticides: Pollution of surface waters by

pesticides (e.g. alachlor) is partially attributed

to careless spraying; i.e. over ditches or too close
19/
to them. (In a 1979 study scientists estimated that

25-50% of the alachlor applied to one field "reached
24/
the surface of the water

A number of other pollutants which are generally

regarded as potentially damaging have not been shown con-

vincingly to have degraded coastal aquatic systems in

North Carolina.

9 Heavy Metals: While copper is applied heavily

to newly converted lands, it appears to be held tightly

by the organic soils and -- along with other heavy metals

does not appear in the surface waters in high concentra-
19/
tions.

* Sediment and Turbiditv: Soil erosion, sedimen-

tation and water turbidity are not reported to have
19/
created severe problems.

@ Other Substances: There seems to be little

problem with acidity or B.O.D., or with calcium,

sodium, potassium, etc.

Some pollutants, like pesticides and heavy metals,

can do extensive damage without visible sign or obvious

effect. Consequently, an aquatic ecosystem can become

gradually unprodudtive and depleted*of bene-

ficial life without the appearance of any dramatic

event. This type of invisible pollution is probably

well advanced in certain of the coastal canals, streams.

and lakes. For example, the fish resources of the

Scuppernong River (Tyrell) are greatly degraded,
16/
probably by agricultural runoff.

More obvious and dramatic is the effect of ex-

cessive phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) nutrients

on aquatic systems. Therefore, one can look to

eutrophication caused by excess P and N for a more

obvious signal of pollution damage to aquatic systems.

The reports are ominous. Many coastal rivers are

already eutrophic because of N and P (e.g., the Chowan

and the Neuse). Outbreaks of nuisance algae are

prevalent with resulting surface scums, fish kills,
9/ 25/ 26/
and ecologic deterioration.

While the devastating effects of P and N pollution

are obvious when the blooms suddenly strike, the spe-

cific combination of chemical factors precipitating

a bloom may be puzzling but warm, calm days are the

trigger. Researcher Hans W. Paerl explains the effects

as they apply to Pamlico Sound and the Neuse River as
27/
follows:

Recent (1978 and onwards) nuisance algal
blooms, dominated by blue-green algal genera
have been a particularly troublesome symptom
of accelerated eutrophication of the river.
Blooms have been found to be c- on on a 60
mile section between Kinston and New Bern,

where the river empties into the Pamlico
Sound. July and August 1980, yielded the
worst blooms on record in the river... Blooms
were most often present as surface scums,
effectively restricting algal growth (0
evolution) in underlying waters .... anoxic
conditions were promoted in the bottom
sediments and extremely low dissolved 02
content of waters overlying sediments
resulted.... A general comparison of cur-
rent vs. past chemical and biological data
indicate that the Neuse River is at the
threshold of experiencing serious water
quality deterioration.

A particularly troubling aspect of the
river's accelerated eutrophication problems
is the fact that algal blooms are dominated
by nuisance blue-green algal genera .... In
addition to deoxygenation of underlying and
bottom waters and the promotion of fish kills,
scums can cause toxicity, foul odors and tastes
chemical and physical/chemical alteration Of.
sediments as a substrate and nutrient source/
sink. Invariably rapid deterioration of water
quality (in terms of the onset of undesirable
plant and animal species as well as lower
aesthetic values of affected waters) will result.

A report on the Chowan River provides the following
25/
general account:

For the last decade, the blooms have depressed
waterbased recreation activities, caused odor
problems, fouled swimming beaches with ... deep
piles of decaying algae, caused tourism to
slacken, and are suspected of being linked to
the drastic decline in fishing success. In
addition to the fish kills, the important com-
mercial herring fishery in the river is down
6*0 percent over normal catches, stripped (sic)
bass catches are down 80 percent, and catfish
catches are down 50 percent according to
studies by the North Carolina Division of
Marine Fisheries ...

Moreover, the eutrophication problem in
the Chowan River is only part of the overall
decline in water quality that is apparent in
the entire Chowan River-Albemarle Sound area.
In addition to the algal blooms, epidemics of
red sore disease have devastated fish popula-
tions in the Area in 1976 and 1979. Cpused
by a bacterial infection, the disease causes
lesions to develop on the fish and commonly
results in death. During the epidemics, many
commercial and game fish catches had to be
discarded due to 70-100 percent contamination
with the disease In 1976, the death of over
95 percent of one commercially important species
yellow perch - in the sound was attributed to
the disease....

Clearly, centers of intensive agriculture in

the coastal lowlands are potential sources of damaging

N and P pollution and their runoff into canals, streams,

and estuaries must be carefully controlled.

Hydrologic Balance: The natural water cycle of
the coastal area is severely altered by clearing and

draining. Instead of slow release of rainwater from

the land to the receiving watercourses via sheet-runoff

and numerous small drainageways, the water flow is

sbortcircuited by tile drains., ditches and collectors,

and is quickly flushed off the land. This water

then moves directly and rapidly through canals to bays

and sounds with a peak rate of discharge up to four

times greater than would be the case under natural

conditions (that is, without clearing and artificial

drainage).

The total runoff to the estuary may increase because the
water
moves off so fast that less of it is evaporated or

transpired away. Also, less water may be intercepted

by seasonal crops on farmlands than by the original

perennial vegetation.allowing more to run off
:L8/
the land.

The ecological effect of these hydrologic changes

is to create a stressful aquatic ecosystem, one

that changes too fast to accomodate abundant life.

This, coupled with degraded water quality, substantially

reduces aquatic productivity.

A contributing problem is the channelizing of

natural, stream*courses to increase their flow capacity

and to lower water levels in adjacent bottomlands.

This is ecologically unwise for many reasons including

the acceleration of fresh water discharge and

diminished water quality. A stream that winds

slowly through the lowlands tends to release water

more slowly and to sequester more of its pollutants

(in adjacent wetlands, for example) than a straightened

and channelized one.

Groundwater Effects: The North Carolina coast

is dependent on ground water aquifers for its water

supply. Groundwater aquifers can be over-pumped or

polluted leading to serious problems. At the coast,

intrusion of salt water into groundwater aquifers

can render them brackish.and unusable (Figure 11).

Heath summarizes the situation as follows: "Condi-

tions in the Albemarle-Pamlico region, both natural

and manmade, are such that salty water will inevitably

move into zones now containing fresh water. Whether

this movement poses a problem in a hundred years or
12/
in a decade cannot now be determined'.lr-

On the Albemarle-Pamlico peninsula, deep ground-

water supplies are not now being overpumped (less than

2 million gallons/day are used) but the situation

could be reversed if large scale crop irrigation

were begun or if heavy demands were made by new industry

ElOne or more aquifers of the Cretaceous Aquifer system
contain water in which dissolved solids are in excess of 1000
mgq/q1.
qEql All or most aquifers of the Cretaceous Aquifer system qE0q@ Area in which all or most aquifers in the Cretaceous and
contain water in which dissolved solids are in excess of 1000 Tertiary Limestone Aquifer systems contain water in which
mgq/ql. dissolved solids are in excess of 1000 mg/ql.

fall line
Outer Banks

-I qiritqiry*Limeq;toq@qi
CretaCeou$*Aqquifer 5 Aq@uifer System
ystem
-Ci@qiqnqllirqfe- ent'rocks"

Fig. 11. Approximate extent of brackish groundwater
in the coastal plain. (Source: Ref . 29
basem

such as proposed methanol factories, electric power

generation plants, or phosphate mining operations.

This could cause municipal or private wells to become

defunct. The state has recognized the problem and is

considering extension of groundwater controls to the

peninsula and other parts of the coast.

Some experts fear that the freshwater lakes in

the coastal lowlands will fall and become diminished

and poor in quality if the groundwater table is
16/
lowered too far. A recent state report" poses the

question: "What will be the effects of lowered

water tables ... on the water levels of nearby natural

bay lakes."
Another concern is that stripping of peat in the

low lying eastern areas of the peninsula will lower

the surface water table and reduce the head pressure

that keeps salt water from penetrating up toward the

land surface. This could result in salinification

of shallow groundwater and the soils in a wide band

around the edge of the peninsula. Other routes for

salt water penetration deeper inland are found in

the drainage discharge canals that may be cut to

depths as deep as 4 to 6 feet below sea level in the

lowest areas (prevalent in Dare and Hyde Counties).

However, the biggest threat is salt water inundation

of hundreds of square miles of low country by a large

hurricane surgeas previously mentioned.

Fisheries and Estuarine Waters

The economic vitality of the commercial fisheries

of North Carolina is said to be seriously jeopardized

by conversion of coastallowlands. The loss to the

fisheries may already figure well into the millions of

dollars per year for both commercial and recreational

fisheries. Fish populations go up and down for mapy

reasons, making it hard to pin changes on any one factor.

But, no impact of land conversion has been more convincingly

and incontestably proven than the depletion of fisheries

caused by surges of fresh water into primary nursery

grounds of the estuary.

The whole of Pamlico Sound and its salty tributary

bays and rivers is an estuary (an enclosed coastal

water body with salinity intermediate between fresh

and ocean waters). The eastern part of Albemarle Sound

is also an estuary as is the Cape Fear River and other

smaller lagoons and tidal rivers of the North Carolina

coast. Estuaries are recognized universally as being

the most productive of water types throughout the

world. As critically valuable resources, their

conservation is a public matter of the highest con-

cern wherever they occur.

Tide, salinity, shallownesst and abundant

flats and salt marshes, combine to give estuaries

their high potential. If healthy, they support an

extraordinarily rich community of life from micro-

scopic algae and plankton to the largest of game

fish., The forms of life are closely related and

highly dependent upon each other through the natural

food chain and in other ways. There is within the

estuary a critical zone of intermediate salinity
(about k to 1/10 ocean strength) which serves as the

primary sanctuary and feeding area for the young stages

of fish and shellfish -- this zone is called the

estuarine "nursery area." (See Figure 12). If it

is not maintained in productive condition, fishery

stocks will be severely depleted. Conservation of

these areas requires protection of such key elements

as water quality, tideflats, marshes, water circulation,

grassbeds and, particularly, the salinity balance. The

state's Coastal Management office has identified the

most critical breeding areas as "primary nursery areas."

Salinity imbalance: The salinity balance can be

upset by either too much salty sea water or too much

fresh water from land runoff In North Carolina

sounds, considerable damage is being done by rapid
surges of farmland runoff water which changes the

11 L I 1 5 0

IN A S H I N G T 0 N T Y R R E L L t

D A R E

q8 E A U F 0 R T

H Y D E

E `4q@4qMb

0 30 WLES
.0
EXPLANATION
Submerged gross beds j Regularly and Stole oyster management areas and
irregularly flooded marshes. natural populations of oysters; clams; scallops.
Shrimp, crab, and fish nursery areas. Primary onadromous fish spawning areas.

Fig. 12. Fish nursery areas and other critical areas
determined by-the Department of Natural Re-
sources and Economic Development to be so-
important f0qor seafood production that there
is a high priority for their protection.
(Source: Ref. 12

brackish waters of nursery areas to fresh water,

driving some tiny young fish and shrimp out of their

sanctuaries, immobilizing some and killing others.

When the young of the species do not survive well,

the fishable stocks are gradually depleted.

Oysters, too, have been depleted by increased

fresh water inflow and by pollution. They need

intermediate salinities and are most sensitive to

conditions in the estuarine shallows. Repeated
heavy surges of polluted runoff water prevent them

from surviving and reproducing. For example, the rich

oyster fisheries of the southern peninsula around

Rose Bay and Swansboro have been nearly eliminated and

the dealers must import Chesapeake oysters. A recent
9/
report notes the following:

Rose Bay, Swan Quarter Bay, lower Pamlico River
and Pungo River were well known for their oysters
prior to the 1960s. Production from these areas
is negligible today.

Aquatic scientists who have studied North Carolina

estuarine nursery areas can now report in detail on the

problems with fresh water runoff. On shrimp nurseries,

for example, biologist James Brown reports:

Rapid freshwater run-off into a primary shrimp
nursery changes the hydrological characteristics
and can adversely affect shrimp in one or more
of at least three ways: (1) Larval shrimp utilize
the transport flow characteristics of certain incom-
ing currents to reach essential nursery areas.
This inward flow is usually a bottom current
having greater specific gravities and salt con-
centrations and as these currents are sometimes
drastically changed by heavy rainfall and
run-off, the larval shrimp may be carried
away rather than into the nursery area:
(2) The corresponding drop in salinity can
prevent successful establishment of larvae
that have already reached the area, and (3)
If heavy rainfalls occur after larval shrimp
have established in an area, these larvae may
be killed by sudden metabolic change or pre-
maturely forced into secondary nur *sery areas
where less of the needed nutrients are available
and predation is greater. Either way, the
production of commercial shrimp is reduced.

From the most intensive research on the nursery

area situation, biologists R.A. Jones and T.M. Sholar

reached the following detailed conclusions:

1. Drainage of surface water from upland areas
into primary estuarine nursery areas through man-
made ditches and canals creates unstable salinity
conditions in the nursery areas. The unaltered
nursery areas showed much more stable salinity
patterns. Following heavy rainfall, altered areas
experienced wide fluctuations in salinity while
the unaltered systems remained quite stable.
2. Extensive drainage into a single nursery area
reduces its value as nursery habitat by reducing
average salinities and making it more sensitive
to the effects of rainfall within the drainage
basin.

3. Relative productivity of economically important
estuarine organisms was lower each year in nursery
areas receiving extensive drainage compared to
natural areas.

4. The data did not show any mass or complete
movements of juvenile shrimp from the nursery
areas as a response to rapid changes in salinity.
The most serious effects of drainage into
nursery areas appear to be the degree of altera-
tion and that alterations will be severe enough
to create an unsuitable habitat even during
periods of low or normal rainfall.

5. Salinity alterations appear to affect food
organisms important in the production of econ-
omically important species.

Economics: The fisheries of North Carolina are valued
29/
at $150 to $250 million. with the catch hitting

over 100 million pounds. The catch in the estuary

(bays and sounds) around the Albemarle-Pamlico penin-

sula -- the part most threatened by land conversion

sometimes reaches half of the total for the state.

The most recent summary statistics show the state

total to be 136 million pounds (1979) and the es-
31/
tuary total to be 56 million (1980). (Catches

of fish for fish meal, oil and other "industrial"

purposes are excluded in the above.)

There are 23,600 licensed commercial fishing

boats in North Carolina according to the most recent

count, an imposing investment of capital and a

strong commitment to individual enterprise which

keeps 50,000 North Carolinians off the unemployment lines

for part of the year.

Sport fishing is also big business with boat,

bait and tackle sales an important component of the

coastal counties. It is surprising to find that more

than one million North Carolinians sport fish each

year in coastal waters. In addition, there are

numerous out-of-state visitors who come to fish at

the coast and add a much needed spring and fall boost

to the tourist industries.

Clearly, industry of this magnitude should not

be jeopardized by careless development of coastal low-

lands or shortsighted planning. Fisheries are con-

ducted in a "commons, it that is, in public waters.

Since the public, not private individuals, owns the

estuaries, the public must take action to conserve

their resources.

Pollution: When freshwater runoff surges into

the estuarine nursery areas it brings with it much of

the farmland pollution that enters the ditches and

canals (see previous section). Some of the chemicals

remain behind in the bottom of the ditches and canals

but a high proportion are carried into the

estuaries along with silt and debris. This results in

several types of pollution problems:

*-Eutrophication (over-enrichment), caused by

excess phosphorus or nitrogen in the water which

leads to de-oxygenation and to algae blooms that

have plagued the state's tidal rivers lately.

Toxification, caused by heavy metals and pesti-

cides dissolved in the water which degrade the life

support capacity of the nurseries.

Siltation, caused by sediment carried into the

nurseries with runoff which can degrade estuary

bottoms and 'Make the water excessively turbid.

Pathogens, originating with fecal matter from

livestock which cause oyster beds to be closed.

No one is certain how much damage any one of these

pollutants has done. According to a recent report,

"An accurate assessment of the effect of continued

clearing and development in the area between the Albe-

marle and Pamlico estuaries will have upon.. phosphorus

reaching the estuaries cannot be made." However, the

report adds the ominous note, "There is no question

that fertilized organic soils will lose high amounts

of phosphorus.11 Pollution may be responsible for much

of the depletion of North Carolina's estuarine fisheries

and shellfisheries.

Impacts on Air Quality

The major concerns for air quality are dust and

smoke. Dust is a condition of life that rural com-

munities don't welcome but must tolerate. It is

doubtful that further land clearing and draining would

create unacceptably worse dust conditions,although

during dry times the converted lands of the coast are

impressive dust producers.

Conversely, smoke,pollution from debris burning

during land clearing has caused intolerable air

conditions including reduced visibility and multiple

auto accidents. The problem was summarized recently in

the following unofficial statement of the state task

force on land clearing:

The problem is caused by smoke created in the
piling and burning of timber and other vegeta-
tion and peat in windrows. Since peat burns
for extremely long periods (sometimes months)
of time, weather conditions at the time of
ignition have little effect on the creation of
smoke. The smoke has caused the closing@of
schools, automobile accidents and other dis-
ruptions of normal operations in the area.
Numerous complaints have been received from
citizens in the area.

Impacts on Habitats and Natural Areas

The very wetness of the low country of the coast

has created special types of natural areas and wild-

life habitats that are highly valued by the people of

North Carolina. Until recently, this wetness also

discouraged large-scale development in

much of this area and kept it from being permanently

altered. And while there was considerable drainage

for forest harvest, the areas gradually reverted to

semi-natural between cuttings and many of them ac-

quired a feeling of wilderness. The lowlands converted

permanently to agriculture were a small enough pro-

portion to leave large areas in forest, swamp, marsh,

or pocosin. But the present and projected rates of

accelerated conversion to agriculture threaten the

whole natural system of the coast with dire conse-

quences for wildlife, ecosystem integrity, and the

quality of the coastal landscape. No public manage-

ment system presently exists to comprehensively handle

this whole situation, but the prospects are too grim

to ignore.

Wetlands: The category of natural system called

wetlands includes the pocosin bogs, white cedar cypress

swamps, salt marshes, river bottomlands and fresh water

marshes of the North Carolina coast. Wetlands'are

characterized by high water tables and special vegeta-

tion adapted to live in saturated soil conditions.

They are quite clearly distinct from other natural

areas and have unique and highly valuable functions

to perform in hydrology, natural stability, biotic

diversity, wildlife productivity and landscape integrity.

For these reasons, wetlands conservation became

a goal of most states and the federal system in the

1970s. Wetlands conversion was sharply curtailed

through regulatory programs. But these were aimed

more at the wettest categories -- swamps and marshes

than at the moistlands of bogs and river bottomlands.

As it now stands, one must accept that all swamps and

marshes should be fully preserved while development

of all bogs and bottomlands should be controlled so

as to prevent major reduction of their beneficial

functions.

Any drainage, diking, filling or general clearing

of swamps and marshes constitutes an unwise change in

these vital natural areas. Such changes vastly

diminish their capacity: 1) to store and hold back

st.orm water discharge,; 2) to purify agricultural

runoff; 3) to furnish vital wildlife habitat; and

4) to provide amenities.

Any alteration of pocosin bogs and river bottom-

lands which conflicts with their primary natural func-

tions constitutes a major adverse impact and a dubious

use of these wetlands. A principal function of bogs

and bottomlands is to store and hold back stormwaters

to preserve the quality of surface waters and to pro-

tect the estuaries against massive surges of fresh

water. A second function is to hold the water table

high enough to keep salt water from intruding into the

surface soils. A third function is to provide for

natural productivity, diversity and special habitats

for wild species. A fourth function is to slow the

rush of hurricane surges over the low country. Those

who would alter bogs and bottomlands should make pro-

visions to maintain these functions through state-of-

the-art mitigation methods.

River bottom wetlands and pocosins have been

heavily depleted in the past, leaving these resources

in critical scarcity today. For example, Figure 13

sho*s that most pocosins of North Carolina are

either totally developed or in development transi-

tion. The same could be shown for river bottoms.

The vital swamp and marsh resources of the coastal

area are also in need of protection.. Therefore, a

strong thrust toward conservation in the.North

Carolina coastal area seems appropriate, with

emphasis on restoration of the natural functions of

as much area as possible.

A survey of 17 coastal counties identified 1,800,000

acres of wetlands, 32 percent of the total land surface.

Figure 14 shows that about 1/3 of these wetlands

have been drained and that another 1/3 are subject

to drainage in the future (although little of this

could be considered wilderness).

Ve
OU
f -1 1 0 40

cs"

fe
40'. 0
0 W@*
P
10P
41
Alf 19
1, - lip

yo,
O'T rlti -@'

Total Developed
E31n Transition
Natural

Fig. 13. Status of pocosin and
wetlands in North Car

Wetland

1,789,000 acreS

-------------

0 20 @O @O SO
Percentage

Drained Potentially Not
I.'
(Converted)
Drained Drainable

Fig 14. The percentage of wettland drained potentially
0
draliable, and not drairiable for agriculture
and (Source: Ref.

Wildlife Habitat: The rapidity Of clearing and

draining coastal lowlands is progressively eliminating

vital habitat for game species, endangered species

and other valuable species. Stuart Critcher recently
16/
summarized the game species problem as follows:

The impacts of land clearing operations which
are required for peat mining and for large-
scale agricultural production (soybeans for
export) are similar and cumulative. Further,
these impacts are a certainty, and cannot be
considered a "potential problem." The process
involves the complete removal of all existing
forest and shrub vegetation, thereby eliminating
the habitat for-certain wildlife species, includ-
ing the black bear, cougar, bobcat, deer and
other forest-dwelling species. In turn, these
species are iMminated or so reduced in num-
bers as to render these populations unsuitable
for recreational hunting. *

The situation regarding the black bear is critical.

Black bear are particularly prone to inhabit pocosin

bogs and -the disappearance of these wetlands is

threatening the very existance of huntable stocks.

The coastal area in general, and the Albemarle-

Pamlico peninsula in particular, are important to

the state as habitat for many game species. For ex-

ample, coastal counties support much of the deer

population of the state (Figure 15). It should not

be surprising that many of the officially endangered

*Note: There is some disagreement over the existence
of cougar in the lowlands.

glen

owmrs

-:v
Rom'
be
... it
.12

Men
)OCks top
TOM ""On-
lend
lenbu w
X ....

.. ......
Pnion

..Vow

.4
HIGH

--1 ri
(D MODERATE

LOW
0 FEW

Fig. 13@ North Car,)11--ia deer dLstribution inap, July, 1979. (So
Caroliqa Department of Natural Resources and Community

species of the state are critically dependent upon the

wetland and moistland habitats of the coastal area.

The alligator, for one, has its northernmost habitat

in the Alligator River on the Albemarle-Pamlico

peninsula and could easily be extirpated there if

the swamps are depleted or the aquatic areas highly

disturbed. Other species recognized as needing pro-

tection throughout the state, and critically dependent

upon the conservation of lowland habitats are bobcat,

cougar, osprey and otter.

It should be noted that there are a number of

other terrestrial species that could either lose or

gain on clearing and draining of coastal, depending

on the outcome: dove, quail and wild turkey.

.SOLUTIONS

Conversion of hundreds of thousands of acres of

watery lowlands in coastal North Carolina has created

a most complex environmental situation. It has brought

fishermen into conflict with farmers; hunters with

foresters; and environmentalists with strip miners.

The impacts on natural systems and the human environ-

ment are widespread and serious. Some impacts, like

heavy smoke, are obvious to the man in the street.

Others, like pollution of bays and sounds, are difficult

even for scientists to trace. Moreover, what may be

acceptable for 10,000 acres may be unacceptable when

100,000 acres are involved. Who should decide how much

is too much? Certainly not the individual land owner

whose motive is to maximize profit and not to look after

the public's interest or to protect the fisherman's

livelihood. Clearly, if the problems are to be solved,

public agencies must intercede. State agencies will

need to be involved because the problems are too com-

plex for local government.

Exercise of Authority

The chance of finding a miracle solution in which

everyone wins is nil. The chance of finding a reasonable

accomodation between conflicting interests is very good.

Landowners will have to give up some short term profit

for long term protection of resources and environment,

setting aside land for buffer strips and wildlife

sanctuaries. Fishermen will have to accept some fur-

ther risk to future stocks of fish and shellfish.

Farm drainage districts may have to expand their func-

tions to include flood protection. Many adjustments

will have to be made to ensure that continuing land

conversion does not exceed the threshold of good sense.

Beyond that threshold lies a nightmare of species ob-

literation, hurricane holocaust and ruined fisheries.

The complexity of the problem is such as to stretch

the concept of coordination and cooperation among agencies.

First, the Governor may have to focus state efforts

through establishment of a more centralized review

authority. Second, the area itself should be designated as

a 1.1 critical area" with unique circumstances and strong

threats. Thirdly, funds must be provided to support

the needed technical studies and monitoring actions

(funds could be obtained from severance tax on peat or

other special levy). Experience from the many states

that have"criti(cal area" "programs suggests that, if

done right, they can indeed solve difficult problems

(e.g. see Jon Kusler's "Regulating Sensitive Lands",

Ref. 33) just as North Carolina's areas of environmental

c mcern mechanism has aided coastal management.

A special critical area authority for land con-

version would organize technical studies, consolidate

the review processes for permits and approvals, establish

criteria and performance standards, coordinate state

and federal agency interests, help opposing interests

find common ground, facilitate public education on the

issues and guide public works projects. It would have

to approve all land conversion projects (subject to

appeal) in the critical area of coastal lowlands in

accordance with an appropriate balance of interests.

The Leading Issues

There is a well publicized set of conservation and

environmental issues to be resolved before the present

controversy over coastal land conversion dies down.

It is good that a state task force is now in a position

to give them more concentrated attention. Issues of

greatest concern are briefly reviewed in this con-

cluding section.

1. How can runoff be controlled so as not to disable

estuarine nursery areas with surges of storm water?

This is a matter of restoration as well as pre-

vention of future damage -- some way of controlling the

runoff surges that now disrupt the estuary must be imple-

mented. Drainage enterprises should be delayed until

solutions are found. Two main approaches have been

advanced: 1) increase water storage capacity, and 2)

route the runoff to discharge at the least vulnerable

estuarine shoreline locations. To measurably increase

storage will require a centralized plan for use of

storm water routing into fallow areas, strip mine pits,

and so forth (probably including many pumps and water

level weirs). Such a system should be capable of storing

the average highest yearly rainfall. Relocation of

discharge points requires reworking the existing

networks of canals according to a central strategy

(beyond the ability of local drainage districts to

accomplish). Optimum would be a combination of the

two approaches . that is, increase water retention through

storage and discharge if in the safest -manner possible.

2. how far can the land surface subside without

creating maior hazards?

As it now stands, any further lowering of the land

surface in certain floodable areas does threaten life

and property. There are insufficient dikes, pumps

and such,to prevent massive salt-water flooding in a

major hurricane. In spite of the huge damage brought

by hurricanes of the 1950's. little has been done to

protect the coastal lowlands. Damage in the hundreds

of millions is expected from the next large hurricane

to hit coastal North Carolina.

Any activity which would measurably lower the

land surface in hurricane threatened areas (see

Figure 10) should be delayed until a central plan is

created. The plan would specify the type, size and

location of hurricane dikes, outlet structures, and

pumps. It might also limit the amount and type of

drainage entering the system.

The end result (particularly after another 2 or

3 feet of sea-level rise) is a coastal zone, which)

like Holland's, lies behind dikes and where rain water

must be pumped out. The intensity of need and value

.of land in Holland make it possible to create a huge

acreage of these "polders," or diked lands. But in

Holland the national goverment owns the land, builds

the polders, maintains the canals and operates the

pumps. Also, Holland does not get hurricanes.

The key point here is that hundreds of thousands

of acres of coastal lowlands are going toward gradual

submergence. This trend is now being counteracted by

uncoordinated and totally inadequate building of weirs,

pump-stations and dikes by private interests and drain-

age districts. None of this protects against large

hurricanes. North Carolina is already in a countdown

to disaster and further land lowering will add to the

damage. One solution is a comprehensive state hurricane

protection project for the lowlands.

3. How can wildlife be protected without undue inter-

vention in private property rights?

People own land but not wildlife. The species of

wildlife are common property and free to move about on

private lands. Property owners have no greater right

to hunt or capture species than anyone. Nor are they

under obligation to enhance wildlife on their property.

Unless an endangered species is invIolved, owners may

strip their property of wildlife habitat whenever

they wish to. Wildlife interests depend to great

extent upon the voluntary efforts of property owners

to maintain wildlife and to allow access to the

public. Unfortunately, this voluntary system is

seriously threatened in the coastal lowlands by

large scale corporate land conversion. Many species,

including bear, are seriously in danger of losing

most of their habitat.

The main solutions are: 1) public acquisition of

key parcels of habitat (such as pocosins for bears)

and 2) requirement by law that some natural habitat

be spared in the conversion process. Both should be

employed in a comprehensive wildlife plan for the

coastal lowlands.

State natural resource agencies have re commended

that a minimum 10 percent of land be left in natural

area in the clearing and draining process. The plan

would create a 300-foot-wide natural area buffer

around each mile-square block of cleared land, pro-

viding both habitat and migration pathways for wild-

life. One major problem is: How do you keep the

buffer strip protected over the years?

The gridwork of buffers would secure some much

needed habitat but would not solve the whole problem.

Public acquisition of larger blocks of habitat will

be needed for some species, like the black bear. A

comprehensive wildlife plan can.identify the areas to

b e acquired. An agressive acquisition program -- of

state-Fe-deral purchase, of securing land gifts, of

obtaining easements and leases -- can put it together.

4. How much of the coastal lowlands should be protected

as bonafide wetlands?

Wetlands are highly regarded resources and given

considerable protection by federal and state law. Re-

strictions apply to privately owned wetlands much to

the chagrin of some owners who are told they cannot fill,

dredge, or build there. The restrictions are upheld

in court, usually,to prevent public harm to water and

water-dependent resources from private actions. As a

rule, the wetter the wetlands are, the tighter the

protection. For example, a marsh which is always wet

may be more highly regarded than a flood plain which is

inundated once every year or two. The white cedar

swamp will usually be more highly regarded than a

pocosin bog.

Clearly, marshes and swamps should not be cleared

or drained nor impounded or otherwise subject to al-

teration of natural function. Even the thin borders

.of marsh that lie along streams and waterways are

worth protecting for water quality and other benefits.

Swamps and marshes are simple to identify and there is

little to argue about in placing their boundaries.

Conversely, floodplains and bogs are often difficult

to delineate and hard to conceptualize as wetlands;

that isP as water areas rather than land.areas. Also,

the wetland-type values for these bog and floodplain

"moistlands" tend to be lower than for marsh and swamp

wetlands. Nevertheless, the state should incorporate

into its program standards for protection of the essen-

tialwater-related functions of bogs and sporadically
inundated floodplains. The state should cooperate

closely with wetland protection activities of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (under Section 404 of the Clean

Water Act).
5. What*restrictions have to be placed on land conver-

sion to protect water quality?
The main pollution problem is the runoff of chemi-
cals (fertilizer, pesticidesi etc.) and some silt into

canals and down to the estuary. This problem needs to
be recognized during the layout of croplands, tree farms,

and strip mine restorations so that green strips

(5 feet width recommended) can be left along the sides

of the field ditches and collectors to hold back eroded

soil and filter out pollutants. These green strips

(also called filter strips or buffer strips) are the

presently favored solution. Also, more skill, or care,

by spray operators (plane or ground) to keep chemicals

from falling on water surfaces would help. Any storage

reservoirs set up for water retention (see 1. above)

will improve water quality by also acting as settling

basins.

If these remedies prove inadequate, there may

have to be controls on the types and amounts of chemicals

applied to the land. Any large industrial facilities

attracted by the peat resource (e.g. power plants,

methanol factories) could create serious new pollution

problems.

6. What controls are needed to protect groundwater?

Realizing that overpumping of groundwater can have

serious consequences, the state requires permits for

amounts greater than 100 thousand gallons/day. One

presumes that due care will be exercised so that power

plants, methanol factories and so forth will m t over-

p ump aquifers.

Hydrologists are concerned that too much drainage

may lower the surface water table, reduce hydraulic

head pressure and allow salt water to penetrate into

the soil along estuarine shores and canals. Some

biologists are afraid that lake levels might also

fall if the land is "over-drained." Conversely,

drought is not an unfamiliar visitor to the coastal

lowlands and any well engineered system will provide

for water level management as well as drainage. Such

management will keep the water table from falling too

far. It is now possible and soon may be necessary, for

the state to require maintenance of the groundwater

at a certain specified level.

Past Experience

State agencies, using their existing resources

and powers seem to have done the best they could to

control land conversion over the past decade. But

their efforts have obviously fallen.short, leaving

wildlife, fisheries, wetlands, water quality, and

flood prone areas without sufficient protection. How

could this happen? Five possible reasons are given

below:

1) Complexity: Solutions are difficult to

create in a situation with such a complexity

of environmental impacts, of economic con-

siderations,, of technical details and of

policy aspects .

2) Lack of technical information.: Scientific

studies have been spotty, uncoordinated and

inadequate for decision purposes until just

recently when some more useful information

has emerged.

3) Lack of authority: State agencies have not

been given sufficient authority to deal with

some important aspects of land conversion.

4) Lack of focus: Without a mechanism to central-

ize efforts, the existing authority to control

land conversion has been scattered among various

agencies -- each with its own mission, its own

constituency, and its own expertise -- rather

than sharply focused.

5) Lack of mandate: The state resource agencies

have not yet been instructed to put fisheries

and wildlife conservation or ecological pro-

tection at a higher priority than the types of

land utilization or exercise of property rights

which degrade the environment.

To make better progress, the state will have to

take the problem more seriously and devote more atten-

tion and resources to its solution. This should be done

right away, before any further permits are given for

large scale land conversion in the lowlands and before

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Interior Depart-

ment get too far along with their current studies of

coastal land clearing in North Carolina. It may be

hoped that the Governor's task force on coastal water man-

agement, now presently reviewing the subject, will recommend

an accelerated and higher priority program.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lilly, J. Paul, 1981. The Blackland Soils of
11orth Carolina: Their Characteristics and Manage-
ment for Agriculture. North Carolina Agricultural
Research Service., Tech. Bul. No. 270. North
Carolina State University. Raleigh, North Carolina.

2. Lilly, J. Paul. 1980. "A History of Swamp Land
Development in North Carolina." Prepared for
Richardson, C.J., Ed. 1981. 'Pocosin Wet Lands;
A Conference on Alternative Uses of Coastal Plain
Freshwater Bogs of North Carolina. Dowden, Hutch-
inson & Ross., Stroudsburg, Pa.

Land Clearing Steering Committee. 1981. "Alter-
native Solutions to Pamlico Land Clearing Problem
Smoke Management and Fire Control Viewpoint."
Discussion Paper, Land Use Steering Comn)itteel,
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development. Raleigh, North Carolina.

4 . Doucette, William H., and Phillips, Joseph A. 1978.
Overview: Agricultural and Forest Land Drainage in
North Carolina's Coastal Zone. Center for Rural
Resource Development Report No. 8. North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.

5. Doucette, William H. and Phillips, Joseph A. 1979.
Proceedings: 1978 Workshop on Coastal land Drainage
for Agriculture and lbrestry. Center for Rural Re-
source Development Report No. 13. North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.

6. Daniel, Charles C. 1978. "Land Use, Land Cover, and
Drainage on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula, Eastern
North Carolina, 1974." (Maps) U.S. Geological Survey,
Water Resources Investigation 78-134. Raleigh, N.C.

7. Doucette, William H. 1980. "Coastal Land Drainage
for Agriculture and Forestry." The North Carolina
Agricultural Extension Service. North Carolina State
University at Raleigh, North Carolina.

8. Land Quality Section. ....."Permit for the operation
of a mining activity, Peatco, Inc. (Draft). " North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Com-
munity Development, Division of Land Resources,
Land Quality Section.

9. Water Quality Planning Branch. 1981. DEM Assessment
of Water Quality in Coastal North Carolina. Division
of Environmental Management, Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development. Raleigh, North
Carolina.

10. Kirby-Smith, William W., and Barber, Richard T. 1979.
The Water Quality Ramifications in Estuaries of
Converting Forest to Intensive Agriculture. Water
Resources Research Institute. University of North
Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina.

11, Philen, Don. 1981. "The North Carolina Coastal
Plain." Summary of a presentation to the North
Carolina Peat Task Force. North Carolina De-
partment of Natural Resources and Community De-
velopment. Raleigh, North Carolina
12. Heath, Ralph C. 1975. Hydrology of the Albemarle-
Pamlico Region North Carolina; A Preliminary Report
in the Impact of Agricultural Developments. u.s.
G.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations
9-75.

13. James Smith2 North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community DevelopmEntq personal
communication. (September, 1981.)
14, North Carolina Crop & Livestock Reporting Service.
1980. Agricultural Statistics. Number 141. North
Carolina Crop and Livestock Reporting Service2
Raleigh, North Carolina.
15. Campbell, R.G. and Hughes, J.H. 1981 "Forest Man-
agement Systems in North Carolina Pocosins: Weyer-
hauser." In Richardson., C.J., Ed. 1981. Pocosin
Wet Lands; A Conference on Alternative Uses of
Coastal Plain Freshwater Bogs of North Carolina.
Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross., Stroudsburg, Pa.

16. NRCD Peat Mining Task Force. 1981. "Report
of Peat Mining Task Force." Submitted to Secre-
tary Howard N. Lee, N.C. Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development. Raleigh,
North Carolina.

17. Otte, Lee J., and Ingram, Roy L., 1980. 1980
Annual Report on Peat Resources of North Carolina.
North Carolina Energy Institute. U.S. Department
of Energy.
18. Straley, Joseph P. 1980. "Peatlands Development and
the Impact on the Estuarine Waters of the Albemarle
pamlico Peninsula." (Student of Dr. C. Smallwood.,
Paper, Dec. 8, 1980.)

19. Skaggs, R.W., Gilliam, J.W., Sheets, T.J., and Barnes,
J.S., 1980. Effect of Agricultural Land Development
on Drainage Waters in the North Carolina Tidewater
Region. Water Resources Research Institute, The
University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North
Carolina

20, Council of Civil Defense. 1955. North Carolina
Hurricane Rehabilitation Project. Governor's Office,
Raleigh, North Carolina.

21. State of California. 1980. "Subsidence of Organic
Soils in Sacremento-San Joaquin Delta." State of
California, Department of Water Resources.

22. Personal communication. Russ Franson., Department
of Water Resources., State of California. October, 1981.

23. Boelter, Don H. and Verry, Elon S. 1977. Peatland
and Water in the Northern Lake States. US
Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-31.
24. Gilliam, J-W.., Skaggs, R.W., and Sheets, T.J.
n.d. Fertilizer and Pesticide Movement in
Surface Water. North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, North Carolina.

25. Duda@ Alfred M., and Klimek, Alan. n.d. Signi-
ficance of Non-Point Sources of Nutrients to
Eutrophication in the Chowan River. North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development. Raleigh, North Carolina.
26. Hobbie, John E. and Smith, Nathaniel W. 1975.
Nutrients in the Neuse River Estuary, North Caro-
lina. Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-75-21.
Raleigh, North Carolina.

27. Paerl, Hans W. 1981. Unpublished statement.

28. Daniel, Charles C., 1980. Hydrology, Geology, and
Soils of Pocosins: A Comparison of Natural and
Altered Systems. Prepared for Richardson, C.J.,
Anderson, S.A. and Thompson, W.A., 1981. Pocosins:
An Integrated Analysis of Coastal Plain Freshwater
Wetlands in North Carolina. Dowden, Hutchinson and
Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pa.
29- Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development. 1981. North Carolina's Environment,
1981 Report. Department of Natural Resources and
community Development. Raleigh, North Carolina.

30. Jones, Robert A., and Sholar, Terry M., 1981. The
Effects of Freshwater Discharge on Estuarine Nurser
Areas of Pamlico Sound. North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development.
Division of Marine Fisheries,, Morehead City, N.C.

31. Data supplied by Preston P. Pate, Jr. Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development.
Marine Fisheries) Morehead City, North Carolina.
July, 1981..
32. Courtesy of Dr. Curt Richardson, Duke University.

33. Kusler, Jon A. 1980. Regulating Sensitive Lands.
Ballinger Publishing Company) Cambridge, Mass.

I
I

.I
I-,

I 1111811111milliffil
3 6668 14102 8888 ,