The Environmental Impacts of Ariculture and Forestry: An Amendment to the Land Use Plan-1984

DC�I �., hear y
coastal resources collaborative, ltd.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
l
DCM COPY DCM COPY
i lease do not remove!!!!!
Division of Coastal Management
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY:
AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN OF PAMLICO COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
612 Shady Lawn Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 919-942-8937

1
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY:
AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN OF PAMLICO COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
1
1 1984
Coastal Resources Collaborative, Ltd.
I
1

I
The preparation of this document was financed in part through a grant
provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds
provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is
administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
n
1
1

H
1
1
1
1
1
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction 1
Chapter 1 Pamlico County Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 Natural ' Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Population and Economy .
1.3 Agriculture . . . . 0.
1.4 Forestry . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5 Commercial Fisheries . . . . .
Chapter 2 Environmental Impacts of Agriculture and Forestry . . . .
2.1
Impacts Associated with the Conversion
of
Natural Areas . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
2.2
Decline in Soil Productivity . . . . .
. . . . . . .
2.3
Problems Related to Artificial Drainage
. . . . . .
2.4
Inadequate Restocking of Forested Lands
. . . . . .
2.5
Freshwater Runoff to Estuaries . . . .
. . . . . . .
2.6
Sedimentation . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
2.7
Nutrients . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
2.8
Pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
2.9
Pesticides . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
Chapter 3 Current Approaches to Reducing Impacts . . .
. . . . .
3.1
Technical Solutions and Ipediments to
their Adoption . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
3.2
Soil Erosion Programs . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
3.3
Water Quality Programs . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
3.4
Drainage and Water Management Programs
. . . . . . .
3.5
Forest Management Programs . . . . .
. . . . . . .
Chapter 4 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
4.1
County Policy . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
4.2
Education, Technical Assistance, and
Economic Incentives . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
4.3
Support for the Bay River Soil and Water
Conservation District . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
4.4
Cross -Compliance . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
4.5
Water Management . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
3
4
6
9
11
11
13
15
17
18
20
21
23
24
28
28
30
34
38
43
47
47
48
50
51
53

1
INTRODUCTION
In Pamlico County, as in many other parts of the coastal plain,
agriculture and forestry are two of the area's leading industries and together
account for the vast majority of land use. A substantial portion of the
county's population derives its livelihood either directly or indirectly from
this production of food and timber. Clearly, the long-term economic health
and social well-being of the county depend on maintenance of the natural
resource base that supports these and other commercial activities.
Unfortunately, not all agricultural and forestry operations in the county
are conducted in an environmentally sound manner. Certain practices have been
shown to have detrimental effects on the productivity of the land and on the
condition and enjoyment of neighboring lands and receiving waters. Such
impacts include accelerated erosion, the loss of natural areas and wildlife
habitat, freshwater inflow to brackish nursery areas, and noxioius inputs of
sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and bacteria to receiving waters. Such
impacts have the potential for damaging the long-term productivity of
agriculture and forestry as well as the quality and productivity of estuarine
waters, upon which the county's other leading industry, fishing, depends.
Policy makers in the federal, state, and local governments have
recognized many of these problems and have instituted programs to address
them. Some programs have been successful in achieving their objectives.
Others have not, for reasons of underfunding, poor design, or other causes.
In most cases these environmental problems persist, though at levels that are
less severe than they would be in the absence of government intervention.
The purpose of this report is to examine the environmental impacts of
1

agriculture and forestry in Pamlico County, to review the major public
programs currently addressing these issues, and to make recommendations to the
Board of Commissioners, as appropriate, on measures to further reduce these
impacts. The report is divided into four chapters: a profile of the county
and its agriculture, forestry, and fisheries industries; a review of the_
principal environmental impacts of agriculture and forestry in the county; a
review of existing federal, state, and county programs designed to reduce or
eliminate these problems, and a series of recommendations for the Board,
including an amendment to the county land use plan and various options
available to implement this policy.
2

Chapter One
PAMLICO COUNTY PROFILE
1.1 Natural Setting
Pamlico County occupies the outer portion of the peninsula lying between
the embayed lower reaches of the Pamlico and Neuse Rivers in the North
Carolina coastal plain. The topography of the county was largely shaped
during periods of higher sea level. The eastern two-thirds are part of the
Pamlico marine terrace, a flat, low-lying surface ranging from 0-20 feet above
sea level. This surface is separated from the higher Chowan terrace in the
county's western third by the Minnesott Ridge and Grantsboro Scarp, an ancient
shoreline feature running north -south through the county along highway 306.
The county's modern-day shoreline is dissected by'a series of creeks and bays,
particularly along the Pamlico Sound shore.1
Extensive areas of both organic and mineral soils occur. Eighty percent
of the county's soils are classified as either poorly drained or very poorly
drained. As a result, most of the natural vegetation is hydrophytic
(water -loving), and most of the county could be classified as various types of
wetlands. Natural habitats in the county once included brackish and fresh
marshes, wooded swamps, hardwood flats, pine flatwoods, upland pine stands,
and upland mixed pine -hardwood forests.2 While substantial portions of the
county have been cleared for agriculture or converted to pine plantations,
many natural areas remain, ranging in condition from virtually pristine to
highly disturbed. Abundant populations of many wildlife species were noted by
Barick and Critcher, including deer, small game (quail, rabbit, squirrel,

dove, woodcock, snipe, raccoon, opossum), furbearers (fox, bobcat, mink,
otter, muskrat, beaver, nutria), and waterfowl.3
1.2 Population and Economy
Pamlico County's population stood at 10,398 in 1980, an increase of 9.8%
over 1970. Population size has remained relatively stable over the years,
having fluctuated between 9,000 and 10,000 since the turn of the century.
The most recent county land use data were recorded in 1967 and are shown
in Table 1. Cropland expanded steadily in the 1970's and now can be found
throughout the county outside the large expanses of marshland along Pamlico
Sound and the pocosin bogs of the interior. Urban uses are concentrated for
the most part in the county's eight incorporated and several unincorporated
towns and in strip development along the major highways.
The economy is natural resource oriented and is dominated by agriculture,
fishing, and forestry (Table 2). These three industries accounted for 13% of
the county's employment p
' in 1980 (compared with only 3% statewide), and if
agricultural services are included, generated an estimated 23% of all personal
income in the county in 1978.4 The contributions of these industries to the
county economy are in fact even larger than these figures would indicate.
Much of the manufacturing and wholesale trade in the county is in locally
produced food and fiber; in 1977, for instance, 15 of the county's 18
manufacturing establishments involved food processing, and a 16th dealt with
wood products.5 In addition, many of the retail and service establishments
and a large part of government employment are supported indirectly by earnings
from agriculture, forestry, and fishing. Clearly, the county is heavily
dependent on the continued vitality of these industries.

Table 1. Pamlico County Land Use
Data
% Land Area
Land Use Area
Forested 157,000 acres
74 %
Cropland and pasture 33,500
16
Marshland 19,000
9
Urban 2,900
1
Total land area 213,400
100 %
Total water area 151,000
Total county area 364,400
Source: N.C. State Univ. Dept. of Economics, "North Carolina Land Use Data,"
1967, as cited in Pamlico County 1980 Land Use Plan.
Table 2. Receipts for Agricultural, Forestry and
Fisheries Products,
Pamlico County
(in thousands of dollars)
Year Agriculturel Forestry 2
Fisheries3
1983 N/A 3,621
7,135
1982 15,064 3,395
7,688
1981 12,985 3,183
6,710
9,737
1980 13,291 3,012
1979 11,598 3,260
6,573
1. Cash receipts from farm marketings and government
payments minus receipts
�.
from farm forest, greenhouse, and nursery, from N.C. Farm Income, published
annually by the N.C. Crop and Livestock Reporting
Service, N.C. Dept. of
Agriculture, Raleigh.
2. County extension agent estimates of receipts for timber
sales; figures
listed are stumpage prices and therefore represent
income minus cost of
harvest, unlike the other two columns.
3. Preliminary seafood landings, dockside value, from
the N.C. Division of
Marine Fisheries.

[7
1
1.3 Agriculture
Agriculture is Pamlico County's leading industry and second largest land
user. It employed 264 county residents in 1980, and farm receipts totalled
over $15 million in 1982.
Trends in farm numbers, size, and acreage harvested over the last thirty
years, as recorded by the federal Census of Agriculture, are shown in Table
3. The national trend toward fewer, larger farms, due largely to steady
advances in mechanization and worker productivity, is very evident locally.
Harvested acreage declined from 1950 to 1969, but increased steadily during
the boom years of the 1970's to reach a thirty-year high in 1982. Throughout
this period, however, there has been a steady increase in the proportion of
farms in harvested cropland, from 41% in 1950 to 70% in 1982, reflecting in
part the effect of escalating farm costs.
Principal crops grown in the•county, in terms of harvested acreage and
income, are soybeans, corn, tobacco, potatoes, and wheat (Table 4). The
county has one of the lowest livestock populations of any county in the state;
Table 3. Trends in Pamlico County Agriculture, 1950-1982.
Number
of farms
1982
136
1978
174
1974
225
1969
286
1964
330
1959
466
1954
738
1950
789
Average size
of farms
324 acres
245
205
159
172
133
93
89
Land in
f arms
449045 acres
42,597
46,130
45,466
56,789
61,781
68,547
66,022
Source: U.S. Censuses of Agriculture, 1950-1982.
Harvested
cropland
30,718 acres
28,129
24,132
20,533
22,458
23,699
26,393
27,080
0

Table 4. Crops Harvested in
Pamlico County, 1982.
Crop
Acreage
Value
(thousands of dollars)
Tobacco
720
2,632
Corn for grain
9,400
2,652
Soybeans for beans
249000
39888
-
Sweet potatoes
Irish potatoes
30
2,550
24
2,106
Wheat for grain
7,400
876
Oats for grain
180
14
Sorghum grain
1,170
80
Source: North Carolina Crop and
Livestock
Reporting Service, North Carolina
Agricultural Statistics
(Raleigh:
N.C. Dept. of Agriculture and U.S.
Dept. of Agriculture, 1983).
the 1982 Census of Agriculture
recorded only 550 cattle, 1800 hogs, and 85
chickens.
One of the distinguishing features of agriculture in Pamlico County is
its dependence on artificial drainage. As mentioned earlier, most county
soils have high water tables. In 1967 the Soil Conservation Service
classified 92% of the county's cropland and 95% of all county land in land
capability subclasses marked "w," indicating wetness limitations for
agricultural production.7 Drainage is necessary to farm most of these soils,
and an extensive surface drainage network of canals and ditches exists
throughout the county.
1 1.4 Forestry
Forestry is the largest land user in Pamlico County but ranks behind
agriculture and fisheries in income generated. Loblolly pine is the principal
species harvested and virtually the only one planted; the rest of the harvest
consists of long leaf and pond pines and oak, sweetgum, tupelo, blackgum, and
other hardwoods. In 1983 the timber harvest, as estimated by the county

extension agent, amounted to 296,500 cords of pulpwood and 5.48 million board
feet of sawtimber.
Estimates of commercial forest land ownership in Pamlico County were made
by the U.S. Forest Service in 1974 and are shown in Table 5. Major industrial
owners include Weyerhauser, Texasgulf, Georgia-Pacific, and Taylor. On these
lands, typical management is for a 25-35 year pine rotation that includes one
or more thinnings, application of phosphate fertilizer, an optional pruning,
and periodic controlled burns of the forest floor.8 On small, private
holdings, management intensity varies widely with landowner objectives,
interest, and availability of funds, and ranges from management as intense as
that of the forest industry to no management at all.
The harvests on both industrial and small private holdings are typically
done by contract loggers, and most of the harvest is taken to pulp or saw
mills in New Bern and Plymouth. Regeneration is accomplished by planting
(particularly on industrial holdings) or by natural seeding from seed trees or
neighboring tracts.
?� Table 5. Commercial Forest Land Ownership in Pamlico County, 1974.
Area
Percentage
Forest industry 35,956 acres
24 %
Farm 32,556
22
Miscellaneous corporate 19,664
13
Miscellaneous individual 57,939
39
State 1,000
1
Total 147,115
99
Source: Richard L. Welch and Herbert A. Knight, Forest Statistics for the
Northern Coastal Plain of North Carolina
1974, USDA Forest Service
Resource Bulletin SE-30 Asheville, N.C.:
Southeastern Forest
Experiment Station, 1974), p. 14.

1
1.5 Commercial Fisheries
Commercial fishing was Pamlico County`s second leading industry in 1983,
generating over $7 million in dockside earnings and substantially more in the
processing, wholesale, and retail trade of fish products. County landings, in
weight and value, for the last six years are shown in Table 6. Throughout
this period, the county has consistently ranked third in value landed among
coastal counties after Dare and Carteret. Principal species landed are
shrimp, flounder, blue crab, grey sea trout, croaker, and spot.
Major fishing ports in the county are Lowland, Hobucken, Vandemere,
Bayboro, Pamlico, and Oriental. A total of 848 commercial vessel licenses
were purchased in 1983,
consisting of 272 full-time licenses, 188 part-time,
p (The
and 388 pleasure.
figure of 272 full-time
licenses is misleading, as it
is doubtful that all of
these vessels were used
by bona fide full-time
fishermen. Only 108 of
these vessels were over
25 feet in length and 111 were
under 21 feet, and many
of the latter were probably not used full-time.) The
county had 58 licensed
seafood dealers in 1983,
with the greatest
concentrations in Lowland,
Bayboro, and Oriental.9
Table 6. Seafood
Landings, Pamlico
County, 1978-1983.
Year
Landings
Dockside Value
(thousands of pounds)
(thousands of dollars)
1983
14,022
7,135
1982
14,020
79688
1981
17,329
6,710
1980
21,381
9,737
1979
19,524
6,573
1978
15,412
4,317
t
Source: Preliminary seafood landings, N.C. Division
of Marine Fisheries,
Morehead City,
N.C.
1 9

�J
IFOOTNOTES
1.
S. Lance Peacock and J. Merrill Lynch, Natural Areas Inventory of Pamlico
29 (Raleigh: N.C. Dept. of
County, North Carolina, CEIP Report No.
Natural Resources and Community Development, 1982), pp. 1-3.
2.
Ibid., p. 5.
3.
Frank B. Barick and T. Stuart Critcher, Wildlife and Land Use Planning
With Particular Reference to Coastal Counties (Raleigh: N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission, 1975).
4.
Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population, Vol. 1, Characteristics
of the Population, Chapter C, General Social and Economic
Characteristics, Part 35, North Carolina (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, 1983), pp. 64, 443; U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
Analysis, Regional Economic Analysis Division, data supplied by N.C.
Office of State Budget and Management, Raleigh.
5.
Bureau of the Census, 1977 Census of Manufacturers, Vol. III, Geographic
Area Statistics, Ch. 34, North Carolina (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, 1980), p. 34-38.
Preliminary Report,
6.
Bureau of the Census, 1982 Census of Agriculture
Pamlico County, N.C. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1984).
7.
Soil Conservation Service, North Carolina Conservation Needs Inventory
(Raleigh: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1971).
8.
Andrew N. Ash, Charles B. McDonald, Emilie S. Kane, and Carolyn A.
Pories, Natural and Modified Pocosins: Literature Synthesis and
Management Options, FWS OBS-83 04 Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1983), p. 45.
9.
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, N.C.
1
I
1 10

IJ
Chapter Two
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
The environmental impacts of agriculture and forestry in Pamlico County
jcan be divided into those whose principal impact is at the site of the
activity, and those whose principal impact is off -site. By legal tradition,
the focus of environmental protection efforts has always been on off -site
impacts where injury to others could be clearly shown. In recent years,
however, there has been growing interest in on -site impacts as well, and a
ttempering of private property rights with the notion that society has a
legitimate interest in maintaining a productive land base for future
generations and that private landowners have an obligation to practice good
g
land stewardship. In particular, these latter views have received increasing
support as the implications of the country's alarming rates of soil erosion
ihave received greater attention. It is argued that Pamlico County not only
can but must be concerned with on -site environmental impacts, particularly
those that threaten long-term land productivity, if the economic future of the
county it to be assured.
On -Site Impacts
2.1 Impacts Associated With the Conversion of Natural Areas
The conversion of natural areas to agricultural use and forest
plantations was widespread in Pamlico County and the rest of the coastal plain
during the 1970's, but in the last several years has dropped off dramatically.
Such conversions may have several adverse impacts on the areas involved:
1 11

(1) Loss of natural ecosystems. In its natural state, the county
contained a diverse array of natural ecosystems, including various wetland
types and upland forest communities. With development, some of this diversity
has been lost. The area of many habitat types has been reduced, and much of
the rest has been subject to some disturbance, though a number of high quality
natural areas remain.1 Further conversion of natural areas to agriculture and
intensive forestry will result in further losses of this natural diversity and
of the county's natural heritage.
Agriculture and forestry are not the sole casues of this decline.
Residential and other types of urban development are responsible for some
losses, and future large-scale mining of peat and phosphate deposits may
significantly reduce the natural acreage that remains.
(2) Loss of wildlife habitat. While the conversion of natural areas
will mean some loss of wildlife habitat and productivity, the extent of this
loss will depend on the extent to which wildlife conerns are incorporated into
agricultural and forestry management. Barick and Critcher identify several
agriculture and forestry management practices in the coastal plain that are
particularly detrimental to wildlife, including the creation of large,
even -aged pine plantations, the widespread use of pesticides, the
channelization of streams and destruction of bottomland hardwoods, the
consolidation of small fields and elimination of shrubby fence rows, and
uncontrolled erosion and concomitant stream sedimentation.2 Many of these
practices can be minimized or eliminated with little impact on farm and forest
income, but with large positive benefits for wildlife productivity. Monschein
notes that there are a number of measures that farmers and foresters can take
to maintain wildlife populations and, in certain situations, even to increase
wildlife productivity over that of the natural system.3
1 12

(3) Decline in aesthetic quality. Personal tastes vary, of course, but
for many the conversion of natural areas to managed forests and farmland
entails some loss of aesthetic quality. This will be particularly true in
recently logged areas and where wildlife populations are substantially
reduced.
2.2 Decline in Soil Productivity
Certain agricultural and forestry practices may cause soil productivity
to decline, for several reasons.
(1) Erosion. Accelerated erosion is a likely consequence whenever soil
is left exposed to the erosive power of water and wind. Major causes of
farmland erosion are deep plowing, the cultivation of row crops (whose acreage
has expanded statewide by almost 50% in the last 15 years, and which occupy
the vast majority of harvested cropland in Pamlico County), and exposed ditch
and canal banks. On forest land, most erosion occurs during and immediately
after harvest and site preparation and is concentrated at forest roads and
skid trails.
As topsoil is lost to erosion, the water storage capacity of the soil
decreases, more energy is required for tillage, greater applications of lime
and fertilizers are needed, and yields decline. Erosion is a long-term
problem; its effects appear only gradually, and restoration of eroded soils
may take decades and even centuries.
As in most counties of the outer coastal plain, accelerated erosion from
agricultural and forestry activities on the level soils of Pamlico County is
not a widespread problem and does not approach the magnitude it does in the
Piedmont. The county's district conservationist estimates that most of the
-farmland in the county erodes at a rate of less than 5 tons of soil per acre
1 13

I
1
1
1
fl
a
I
1
1
n
n
per year, the maximum rate at which erosion can occur without a long-term
decline in productivity. (This figure, known at the tolerance level or
T-value, represents the rate at which new soil can be built from subsoil.)
Most of the county's remaining farmland is thought to erode at approximately
this rate. By comparison, the average rate for all North Carolina farmland in
1977 was 7.6 tons/acre/year.4
However, there are some lands, particularly in the western part of the
county where relief is greater, that do have ersoion problems. In 1967 the
Soil Conservation Service identified 2484 acres, or 8% of the cropland in the
county, as "e" cropland, indicating that it possessed an erosion hazard. The
actual erosion rate of this cropland is not known, but the acreage in each of
the three "e" land capability subclasses in the county, together with average
statewide erosion rates for land in these subclasses in 1977, are:
Acreage of Cropland Average Sheet and Rill
Subclass in Pamlico County5 Erosion Rate for N.C. Cropland6
2e 1863 acres 11.8 tons/acre/year
3e 414 16.2
4e 207 17.7
While these figures do not indicate how fast these Pamlico County soils are
eroding, they do indicate the erosion potential of these lands. Other land
capability classes of cropland in the county (2w, 3w, 4w, 7w), constituting
the remaining 92%, had average statewide erosion rates in 1977 of 3
tons/acre/year or less.7
Forest land, by comparison, had an average statewide sheet and rill
erosion rate (comparable to the above figures) of only 0.14 tons/acre/year.8
Erosion rates in coastal plain forests are even lower.
The general conclusion to be drawn from this information is that, while
most forest and agricultural lands in the county do not have erosion problems
14

1
1
1
1
1
1
I
that threaten long—term soil productivity, some county soils do have an
erosion potential that warrants concern and attention. Furthermore, it should
be kept in mind that erosion at rates well under the tolerance level may still
cause sedimentation problems in receiving waters (see the discussion of
sedimentation later in this chapter).
(2) Other impacts on soil productivity. Careless forestry practices may
result in a more immediate decline in soil productivity. Part of the reason
why such practices are more common in forestry operations is that, unlike
agriculture, forest operators are paid on a cash basis and have no stake or
interest in the yield of the next "crop," providing them with less incentive
to protect the soil. These practices include: (A) Soil disturbance when wet,
particularly by heavy logging equipment. Such disturbance compacts the soil
and destroys its structure, reducing tree growth rates. Without assistance,
such soils may take a century to regain their original productivity. (B)
Careless destruction of natural drainage during logging, particularly by road
construction across small or intermittent stream channels. The result is
poorer drainage and reduced yields. (C) Improper site preparation. -rnere
have been instances of K—G operations that scraped off too much soil and piled
it in windrows, resulting in alternating rows of rich and poor soil.
2.3 Problems Related to Artificial Drainage
(1) Land subsidence. Subsidence occurs on deep organic soils when the
land is drained and converted to other uses. It is caused by oxidation of
organic material, either by biochemical action and/or by fire, and by the
irreversible drying and shrinkage of the soil. If subsidence continues over
time, additional investments in drainage become necessary, the area's
Ll
15

I
1
[l
r
1
hydrology is further altered, and the susceptibility of the area to flooding
is increased.
Research results on subsidence rates present a complex and sometimes
contradictory picture. Heath cites studies by Dolman and Buol on land west of
Lake Phelps that indicated subsidence in organic soils of 2 feet due to
drainage alone, and of 3 to 6 feet due to compaction, fires, and slow
oxidatioa.9 The N.C. Soil and Water Conservation Commission, on the other
hand, cites other research showing that subsidence elsewhere did not occur
beyond the curing of a thin (8-10") surface layer.10 Skaggs and co-workers
found that subsidence of organic soils on the Hyde County pasture they studied
was greatest directly after development, but quickly declined to less than 1
mm per year.11 On the other hand, studies in the Florida Everglades found
rates of subsidence varying from 0.6 to 2.3 inches per year, depending on the
depth to the water table.12
(2) Salt water encroachment. Artificial drainage for agriculture and
forestry may result in the encroachment of salt water into previously fresh
water areas via several means. By lowering the height of the water table,
drainage reduces the hydraulic head maintaining the deep, fresh water aquifers
and allows salt water to rise into previously fresh zones. (In fact, salt
water was probably rising as a result of sea level rise before man even
entered the area, but drainage will tend to increase the rate of advance.)13
Drainage canals also provide conduits for salt water encroachment from the
sounds into the shallow, ground water table aquifer during high wind tides
when flow in the canals is reversed, and at other times where the bottom of
the drainage canal is below sea level. Drainage -induced subsidence also
increases the area and depth of storm floods. The result is salt
contamination both of the soil, which will reduce yields during the 2 to 3
16

I
years needed to flush the salt out, and of the shallow aquifer. While salt
contamination of the root zone is a familiar problem to county farmers,
relatively little is known about the impacts of drainage on salt water
encroachment in Pamlico County aquifers.
1 2.4 Inadequate Restocking of Forested Lands
A substantial portion of the woodland in Pamlico County is not adequately
restocked following harvest. The county forester has estimated that only
about one third of the harvested acreage is replanted. On some of the
remaining acreage natural seeding produces adequately stocked timber stands,
but on other parcels where the seed supply is insufficient or conditions do
not favor seed germination and seedling survival, regrowth is to hardwood
brush of little or no economic value. The result is that thirty or forty
years later there will be no trees available for harvest on those parcels to
meet growing timber demand, and the economic base of the county will have been
depleted.
There are several causes for landowners' failure to restock, but the most
important is that people are reluctant to make sizable investments ($50 to
$250 per acre for replanting) in practices that won't provide a return for
thirty
or forty years.
Partly as a result, in 1974 the U.S. Forest Service
found
approximately 25%
of the commercial forest land in the county, or 37,000
acres,
poorly stocked.14 In 197 the N.C. Forest Service estimated that an
equal
percentage, 25% or 27,540 acres, of the county's private nonindustrial
forest
land was in need
of forest regeneration.15
I.
1 17

Off -Site Impacts
Neighboring,lands will be subjected to some smoke and dust from land clearing
activities, prescribed burning on forest lands, and wind erosion and field
operations on agricultural lands. Most off -site impacts, however, will be
caused by freshwater runoff from these lands and the pollutants it carries:
sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and pathogens. Unfortunately relatively
little is known about the concentrations and impacts of these pollutants in
the receiving waters of Pamlico County, and one must rely heavily on research
elsewhere in the coastal plain to help construct a realistic, if
probabilistic, picture of current conditions.
1 2.5 Freshwater Runoff to Estuaries
The estuarine waters bordering Pamlico County are highly productive and
support a large fishing industry. Of particular importance in maintaining
this resource are the so-called primary nursery areas, where the initial
post -larval development of many commercially important finfish and shellfish
takes place. Located in the upper reaches of tidal creeks and bays, these
areas typically are surrounded by regularly or irregularly flooded marshes and
have soft mud sediments and salinities in the 5 to 15 parts per thousand
range. State statutes and regulations protect these areas from certain
commercial fishing activities and from dredging and filling operations that
might impair their producivity.16
Pamlico County contains one of the largest concentrations of primary
nursery areas of any coastal county. Sixty-one different areas are designated
by state fisheries regulations,17 scattered along the east and northeast shore
of the county from Oriental to Goose Creek.
1 18

IUnfortunately, many drainage canals empty into these nursery areas or
into creeks leading into them. This drainage network is designed to remove
water rapidly from inland areas, and does so by providing efficient short-cuts
past the bogs, swamps, marshes, and other areas that once temporarily retained
water and regulated surface runoff. The result is peak runoff rates in
drained areas that occur sooner and are higher (3 to 4 times in one study18)
than in undrained areas. These pulses of freshwater discharge may affect
Juvenile fish inhabiting nursery areas by creating salinity conditions that
stress the fish or the food organisms they rely on, and possibly by disrupting
the currents these juveniles use to reach these areas.
In the most significant research yet on this subject in North Carolina,
researchers comparing altered and natural nursery areas in and near Rose Bay
in Hyde County came to several conclusions:
(1) Nursery areas appear to have the capacity to absorb some "man-made"
drainage without large fluctuations in salinity.
(2) Extensive drainage into nursery areas reduces their value as
estuarine habitat by reducing average salinities and by making salinity more
sensitive to the effects of rainfall in the drainage basin.
' (3) Most importantly, the juvenile forms of all five species examined
(brown shrimp, spot, croaker, southern flounder, and blue crab) were found in
greater abundance in nursery areas with no man-made drainage and with stable
salinity patterns.19
Many questions about the effects of freshwater inflow remain unanswered.
The studies at Rose Bay have continued, and a new research program is planned
for Broad Creek in Hyde County that will permit the experimental manipulation
of freshwater inputs and will provide data under more controlled conditions.
But there is little question that artificial drainage networks do have
1 19

detrimental effects on nursery areas. The issue has created a great deal of
interest and is currently one of the most pressing environmental problems in
the coastal region, particularly in counties like Pamlico where concentrations
of nursery areas occur and where both agriculture and fisheries are major
segments of the local economy.
2.6 Sedimentation
High sediment inputs to streams and estuarine waters can have several
adverse effects. Of greatest concern are the physical and chemical changes in
bottom sediments and the destruction of benthic organisms, which together may
result in long-term changes in the ecology and productivity of the area.
Siltation of shellfish (primarily oyster) beds, burial of fish spawning beds,
and reduced light transmission and photosynthesis from high turbidities may
also occur.
In the coastal plain sedimentation tends to be greatest during land
clearing and shaping operations and during the digging and maintenance of
drainage ditches. Significant damage to oyster beds has resulted from such
operations in the past, and now settling basins and other measures are often
used to reduce such impacts.
Once such operations are complete, sediment inputs drop off
significantly. Some sedimentation continues, though, primarily as a result of
eroding fields and unprotected ditch banks. Studies in other coastal plain
counties have found rates of sediment input from agricultural lands 3 to 30
times higher than those from forested watersheds.20 Streams channelized for
drainage improvement also have higher turbidities and sediment loads than
unchannelized ones, presumably because the faster flow provides more energy
for transport and because the filtering effect of adjacent wetlands is
eliminated.21
1 20

Some researchers and policy makers have suggested that because of the low
erosion potential of flat coastal plain soils, agricultural operations are
unlikely to create sediment water quality problems, particularly in relation
to the much greater rates of sedimentation in Piedmont watersheds. Others
have pointed out that while erosion and sedimentation may be much lower than
in the Piedmont, (1) Piedmont inputs to estuaries are much reduced by
distance, (2) many coastal plain canals and streams empty directly into
sensitive estuarine habitats, and (3) outer coastal plain sediments tend to be
more organic and colloidal than those of the Piedmont, are more easily
suspended and transported, and change the physcial bottom conditions more
drastically when they settle. Pamlico County fishermen, for instance, have
complained of the dark, organic muck that seems to clog many creek bottoms.
While sedimentation is perhaps not the severe problem it is in other
watersheds in the state, it does occur and should be of concern to those
interested in maintaining the productivity of the county's streams and
estuarine waters.
2.7 Nutrients
Nitrogen and phosphorus are the principal elements implicated in the
eutrophication of water bodies. Nonpoint inputs from agricultural runoff,
derived largely from fertilizers and animal wastes, are among the major
' sources of these elements. In the Chowan River, for instance, 79% of the
nitrogen input and 23% of the phosphorus are estimated to originate from
agricultural sources.
Nutrient yields from specific watersheds depend on many factors,
including land use, agricultural practices, topography, soil type, drainage,
1 21

r
' stream channel conditions, and rainfall. Examples of how these factors may
influence nutrient yields in coastal plain watersheds include:22
(1) Nitrogen and phosphorus losses from agricultural watersheds are
consistently higher than those from forested ones; in the coastal plain they
average roughly 4-5 times higher.
(2) Phosphate tends to bind tightly to sediment, while nitrate is much
more readily leached from the soil and transported in solution. As a result,
erosion control is also effective in reducing phosphorus inputs, but far less
so with nitrogen. In organic soils, however, phosphorus has nothing to bind
to and is readily lost in solution.
(3) Under anaerobic, or deoxygenated, conditions, which readily occur in
flooded soils, nitrate is broken down.by denitrifying bacteria and the
.nitrogen is released to the atmosphere. As a result, poorly drained soils
generally lose less nitrogen in runoff waters than do well -drained soils.
(4) Kuenzler and others found higher nitrogen and phosphorus loads in
their channelized streams than in unchannelized ones. This is partly due to
the fact that the channelized streams they studied received more agricultural
runoff and livestock and sewage wastes than unchannelized ones, but also to
absence in the former of functioning swamp floodplain systems to strip the
nitrogen and phosphorus from the water.
(5) Most of the nitrogen and phosphorus lost annually is lost in a few
large storms.
In Pamlico County nuisance blooms have occurred in drainage canals and in
' the creeks at Oriental, but none yet in the brackish waters along the coast,
including nursery areas. In part, this is due to the fact that most nuisance
.
species, particularly the blue-green algae, are freshwater species and cannot
P
tolerate brackish conditions. In addition, blooms generally require long
22

periods of relatively stagnant water to develop. The coastal waters of
Pamlico County have a high energy level, with wind generated mixing and
flushing by wind tides, producing physical conditions less suitable for bloom
idevelopment.
This is not to say that nuisance blooms in coastal waters, and
particularly the sheltered creeks and bays that serve as nursery areas, could
not occur. The bloom would be made up of different species of algae, but in
disrupting the phytoplankton population it could still have major effects on
zooplankton and other groups further up the food chain, including commercially
important finfish and shellfish. The situation warrants continuing attention.
Reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus inputs, while apparently not immediately
necessary, would nonetheless be welcome, particularly to prevent greater
problems from developing.
2.8 Pathogens
A variety of pathogenic bacteria in human sewage and animal wastes, if
released to shellfish waters, may be taken up by shellfish and passed on to
humans when the shellfish is eaten. The pathogens most frequently transmitted
through water are those that cause typhoid and paratyphoid fevers, dysentery,
and cholera. Fecal coliform bacteria, while not themselves dangerous, are
used as an indicator of the presence of these organisms, and the FDA has
promulgated fecal coliform standards for closing shellfish waters that are
applied and enforced by the states Shellfish Sanitation section in the
Division of Health Services. While the correlation between fecal coliform
levels and health risks continue to be debated, high coliform levels do result
in the closing
losin of shellfish waters and a potential loss of fishing income.
Thus high fecal coliform levels are of concern to the county on two counts: as
1 23

indicative of potential health risks, and as the immediate cause of shellfish
' water closings.
The principal sources of fecal coliform in Pamlico County are improperly
' functioning septic tanks and livestock wastes. No assessment is available of
the relative contribution of each. But the effect is clear: in June of 1984,
' 16,075 acres, or 12% of the 134,450 acres in the county classified as
' potential shellfish waters, were closed to commercial harvest. Elsewhere in
the coastal plain, elevated fecal coliform levels have been found in canals
draining pastures. This increase from grazed lands is common throughout the
U.S. and apparently causes few problems, as a marked reduction in
concentration occurs within 5 km. downstream. but where grazed lands or
' feedlots occur close to shellfish waters, the potential for trouble exists.23
While the county's low livestock population results in a relatively small
amount of waste generated, the county also has a large proportion of its land
in close proximity to shellfish waters.
2.9 Pesticides
Pesticides include such a wide variety of chemicals that it is difficult
' to generalize about the impacts of their use. Their pollution potential will
depend on their toxicity, persistence, ease of transport, and other
factors. Some persist in the environment for years or even decades, while
others break down into nontoxic forms within days of their application. Most
bind readily to soil particles so that pesticide losses are correlated to
soil erosion, and control of the latter will reduce the former. Others,
including many herbicides, are transported mainly in solution. Summarizing a
number of studies, the Agricultural Research Service concluded that "except
when heavy rainfall occurs shortly after treatment, concentrations are low and
1 24

1
11
1
the total amount of pesticide that runs off the land during the crop year is
less, often much less, than 5% of the application."24
One of the most easily manipulated factors controlling the pollution
potential of pesticides is the care with which they are applied. The direct
spraying of or drift into water bodies results in much larger inputs of
pesticides into these systems. Skaggs and co-workers found that
concentrations of the herbicide alachlor in the drainage water from their
study area in Hyde County suggested that some applicators were careful to
avoid spraying the V-ditches in the fields and others were not, resulting in
excessively high concentrations in drainage water after some applications.25
Even these concentrations, though, were reduced by dilution to nontoxic levels
by the time the runoff reached biologically productive receiving waters.
The Division of Environmental Management has no records of fish kills or
complaints of overspraying in Pamlico County. As long as toxic chemicals are
used; though, the potential for pesticide pollution exists. The magnitude of
this potential will continue to depend on how well a series of people, ranging
from the state Pesticide Control Board to local dealers and applicators, do
their jobs correctly.
25

I
FOOTNOTES
'
1.
See S. Lance Peacock and J. Merrill Lynch, Natural Areas Inventory of
Pamlico County, North Carolina, CEIP Report No. 29 (Raleigh: N.C. Dept.
of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1982).
2.
Frank B. Barick and T. Stuart Critcher, Wildlife and Land Use Planning
With Particular Reference to Coastal Counties (Raleigh: N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission, 1975).
3.
Tom Monschein, "Values of Pocosins to Game and Fish Species in North
Carolina," pp. 155-170 in: Curtis J. Richardson, ed., Pocosin Wetlands
(Stroudsburg, Pa.: Hutchinson Ross, 1981).
4.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) and the N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources
and Community Development (NRCD), Phase I National Resources Inventory --
North Carolina, as cited in: Division of Soil and Water Conservation,
NRCD, A Long Range Plan for Soil Water and Related Resource Conservation
in North Carolina, 1981-1986 Raleigh: Div. of Soil and Water
'
Conservation, n.d.).
5.
Soil Conservation Service, North Carolina Conservation Needs Inventory
(Raleigh: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1971).
6.
USDA and NRCD, Phase I National Resources Inventory, cited above.
7.
Ibid.
8.
Ibid.
9.
Ralph C. Heath, Hydrology of the Albemarle -Pamlico Region, North
Carolina, U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations 9-75
'
Raleigh: USGS, 1975), p. 86.
10.
N.C. Soil and Water Conservation Commission and the 208 Agricultural Task
'
Force, Water Quality and Agriculture, A Management Plan (Raleigh: N.C.
1979),
Soil and Water Conservation Section, Div. of Land Resources, NRCD,
P. 19.
11.
R.W. Skaggs, J.W. Gilliam, T.J. Sheets, and J.S. Barnes, Effect of
Agricultural Land Development on Drainage Waters in the North Carolina
'
Tidewater Region, WRRI Report No. 159 (Raleigh: Water Resources Research
Institute, 1980), p. xviii.
12.
Heath, Hydrology of the Albemarle -Pamlico Region, cited above, p. 86.
13.
Ibid., pp. 45-47, 88-93.
26

J
u
u
1
I
11
fl
14. Richard L. Welch and Herbert A. Knight, Forest Statistics for the
Northern Coastal Plain of North Carolina 1974, USDA Forest Service
Resource Bulletin SE-30 Asheville, N.C.: Southeastern Forest Experiment
Station, 1974), p. 17.
15. Bay River Soil and Water Conservation District, Long Range Plan
1983-1988, p. 31.
16. See the state's Dredge and Fill Act (N.C.G.S. §113-229), Coastal Area
Management Act (N.C.G.S. §113A-100 et seq.), and coastal fishing
regulations (15 NCAC 3B .1400).
17. 15 NCAC 3B .1405.
18. Skaggs and others, Effect of Agricultural Land Development, cited above,
pp. 37-39.
19. Preston P. Pate, Jr. and Robert Jones, Effects of Upland Drainage on
Estuarine Nursery Areas'of Pamlico Sound, North Carolina, UNC Sea Grant
Working Paper 81-10, UNC Sea Grant College Program, Raleigh.
20. Skaggs and others, Effect of Agricultural Land Development, cited above;
Frank J. Humenik, Beverly A. Young, and Fred A. Koehler, "Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Control: Case Studies in North Carolina, III. Chowan
River Priority Watershed," N.C. Division of Environmental Management,
Raleigh, 1983.
21. Edward J. Kuenzler, Patrick J. Mulholland, Laura Anne Ruley, Robert P.
Sniffen, Water Quality of North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams and
Effects of Channelization, WRRI Report No. 127 (Raleigh: Water Resources
Research Institute, 1977).
22. See Skaggs and others, Effect of Agricultural Land Development, Humenik
and others, "Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control," Kuenzler and others,
Water Quality of North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams, all cited above;
and Andrew N. Ash, Charles B. McDonald, Emilie S. Kane, and Carolyn A.
Pories, Natural and Modified Pocosins: Literature Synthesis and
Management Options, FWS/OBS-83 04 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1983).
23. Skaggs and others, Effect of Agricultural Land Development, cited above.
24. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Control of
Water Pollution from Cropland, Vol. II: An Overview, Report ARS-H-5-2
Washington, D.C.: Agricultural Research Service, USDA, and Office of
Research and Development, USEPA, 1976).
25. Skaggs and others, Effect of Agricultural Land Development, cited above.
27

11
1
Chapter Three
CURRENT APPROACHES TO REDUCING IMPACTS
3.1 Technical Solutions and Impediments to Their Adoption
In most cases, solutions to the problems identified in Chapter Two exist
that are technically feasible and that can be applied by individual landowners
and operators or by management agencies. Erosion and seimentation from
cultivated fields, for instance, can be reduced through the use of
conservation tillage, cover crops, grassed waterways, field borders,
windbreaks, striperopping, and a variety of other practices. The U.S. Soil
Conservation Service has decades of experience in developing and testing
erosion control practices -and can provide detailed specifications to farmers
on the installation of these measures. As part of the state's water quality
management planning process, SCS published in 1978 an extensive compilation of
best management practices for controlling sediment inputs from agricultural
lands in the state.1
Experience and research with forestry practices throughout the country
have built up an extensive body of knowledge on the control of water pollution
' from silvicultural activities. This material also has been compiled and
published for use in North Carolina. 2 Recommended practices include the use
' of filter strips and culverts, the proper location and construction of access
roads, skid trails, landings, and decks, and the proper conduct of site
preparation, fertilizing, and pesticide spraying operations.
Even for such recently identified problems as the large pulses of
freshwater input to nursery areas, a range of potential solutions exists,
though more research and testing are needed. These approaches include
1
28

' detention ponds, diversion of freshwater runoff from nursery areas to open
shoreline, use of sheetflow through swamps and marshes, and use of companion
areas of cropland, pasture, and forest (the latter two, having less demanding
idrainage needs than cropland, are used for temporary storage of cropland
' drainage).
Research continues to refine these management practices and develop
' others. A great deal of research is still needed on the relative
cost-effectiveness of different practices and on the development of systems of
' best management practices suited to the conditions of specific regions. The
point to be made, though, is that technical solutions to most of the problems
identified in Chapter Two are readily available. If this is the case, the
' next question is: why do these problems persist?
There appear to be a variety of reasons. Cost is a major one. The
return from investments in soil conservation are often very low, and there may
' be no return from best management practices for pollution control. Many
farmers and forest owners cannot afford the high costs of some management
practices, particularly those requiring large initial investments in
construction or equipment. A second, related reason is risk: the danger that
an installed practice will not produce the expected return, or even worse,
result in lower yields.
Tradition and social pressures play major roles in rural communities and
sometimes work against the adoption of environmentally sound management
practices. Conservation tillage is a good case in point. Many farmers pride
themselves on the neat, clean -tilled appearance of their corn and bean fields.
Their reluctance to suddenly adopt a practice that entails leaving crop
residues on the surface is understandable.
1 29

1
1
V
Ignorance of the impacts of poor management practices is also common.
The effects of erosion are sometimes difficult to discern, and farmers and
forest owners may be completely unaware of their contributions to water
quality problems in drainage waters far downstream. Indifference and careless
ness also play a role: in a survey of county forest rangers in North Carolina,
42% cited these causes as the principal reasons for less -than -good forestry
operations in their counties.3
Tenure arrangements are frequently cited as a reason why best management
practices are not adopted. Short-term contracts remove the incentive for farm
tenants and renters to invest in erosion control practices. Such problems
have been cited in Pamlico County, where 49% of the 44,000 acres in farms in
1982 was rented.4
For these and other reasons, many farmers and forest owners have not
voluntarily and spontaneously adopted adequate soil and water conservation
measures. It has been to address this failure that a variety of government
programs and institutions have been established.
Though many of the programs described below have multiple objectives and
broad responsibilities, for ease of discussion they have been classified under
the heading where their principal objectives with regard to agriculture and
forestry, and often their historical roots, lie.
3.2 Soil Erosion Programs
Many of the public programs and institutions dealing with soil erosion
date to the 1930's and owe their existence to the impetus the Dust Bowl gave
to soil conservation efforts. These include the two principal federal soil
conservation programs today, the Conservation Operations Program of the Soil
Conservation Service, and the Agricultural Conservation Program of the
30

1
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, both in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The Conservation Operations Program was authorized by the 1935 Soil
Conservation Act5 that created the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) in USDA to
develop and maintain a continuing federal program of soil and water
conservation. Under Conservation Operations, SCS, working in cooperation with
the nation's 3000 soil and water conservation districts, provides technical
assistance to agencies and individual landowners to "reduce soil losses from
erosion, help solve soil, water, and agricultural waste management problems,
bring about adjustments in land use as needed, and reduce damage caused by
excess water and sedimentation."6 SCS maintains a state office in Raleigh and
area and county offices throughout North Carolina, including one in Pamlico
County staffed by a district conservationist. This conservationist provides
technical assistance to landowners through the local soil and water
conservation district, as specified in a memorandum of understanding; most of
this assistance in Pamlico -County is directed at soil erosion and drainage
Iproblems.
n
1
The Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) was authorized by the Soil
Erosion and Domestic Allotment Act of 19367 and is administered by the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) in USDA. The
program provides cost -sharing assistance to farmers for carrying out enduring
conservation and environmental protection measures, including erosion control
practices (striperopping, grassed waterways, conservation tillage, and
others), water conservation, and forest and wildlife management. Practices
that are primarily production oriented or have little or no conservation or
pollution abatement benefits are no longer eligible for funding; this change,
31

made several years ago, removed drainage improvements from the list of
eligible practices.
In Pamlico County the program is administered by the elected county ASC
' Committee based on national and state directives and the advice of other
' resource specialists in the county. The SCS conservationist provides
technical assistance on the practices employed, and must certify that the
Ipractice was installed to the required specifications before any cost -share
payment is made. Landowners must also agree to maintain cost -shared
'
is 60%,
improvements. Currently the cost -share rate for most practices with
an annual limit of $3500 per individual.
ACP funds expended in Pamlico County
in recent years are:
1984 allotment
$11,258
1983 expenditure
142100
1982
6,374
1
1981
17,562
In February of 1937, President Roosevelt submitted "A Standard Soil
Conservation Districts Law" to the states. North Carolina became the second
state to adopt a law based on that model
by enacting the Soil Conservation
Districts Law8 later that year. The act
contains enabling legislation for the
'
establishment of soil and water conservation districts as distinct units of
local government, governed by a board of
supervisors, to provide for the
conservation of soil, water, and related
resources. Districts are given the
authority to develop comprehensive plans
for soil and water conservation
within the district, to conduct water resources
conservation and development
'
projects, to cooperate with and furnish
aid to agencies and landowners, to buy
and sell property, and to adopt land use regulations.
Pamlico County was originally part of the five -county Lower Neuse
Conservation District organized in 1944. In 1972 the district split into
1 32

J
1
r-
single-county districts, and the Bay River Soil and Water Conservation
District was organized in Pamlico County. it is governed by a board of five
supervisors, three elected in general county elections and two appointed by
the state Soil and Water Conservation Commission from nominations made by the
elected supervisors. The District's principal activities are the provision of
technical assistance to agencies and private landowners on matters of soil and
water conservation, primarily through services of the SCS district
conservationist provided under a Memorandum of Understanding, and the
promotion of soil and water conservation through various educational
and informational programs, including publications, meetings, school contests,
and other activities. The district's only staff is a part-time secretary.
Funding levels in the 1982-83 year were $2275 from Pamlico County and $2014
from the state.
Districts are assisted and directed in their operations by the North
Carolina Soil and Water Conservation Commission and the Division of Soil and
Water Conservation in the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development. Such assistance takes a variety of forms: information on
conservation practices, materials for education programs, training for
district supervisors, etc. The Commission and Division are responsible for
the state's overall soil conservation program, which emphasizes voluntary
landowner action encouraged by a combination of education, technical
assistance, and economic incentives.
Two other programs that touch on soil erosion problems in Pamlico County
A are:
- The Watershed or P.L. 566 Program, authorized by the Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954.9 This program provides financial
and technical assistance to local organizations (including county governments
1 33

and soil and water conservation districts) for projects dealing with flood
iprevention, the conservation, utilization, or disposal of water, or the
conservation and proper utilization of land. Projects are limited to
watersheds less than 250,000 acres in size and must meet certain other
restrictions. Through 1982, 110 applications for projects in North Carolina
had been filed, of which 26 have been completed and 17 are awaiting or are
under construction. Two projects were applied for in Pamlico County involving
the construction of channels and dikes to promote better drainage. Both were
Mapproved for construction but later terminated before construction began.
- Federal low interest loans. Farmers Home Administration provides low
interest loans to farmers, some of which (soil and water loans, farm operating
loans, and farm ownership loans) can be used for installation of best
management practices. The Small Business Administration provides some
low -interest loans for soil and water conservation measures to qualifying
farmers.
3.3 Water Quality Programs
Most current water quality management efforts originated with the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, which completely rewrote the
federal law on water pollution control. Three provisions are of particular
interest to agriculture and forestry: Title III, Section 208, and Section 404
(discussed later in this chapter).
Title III of the act authorized establishment of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, program to regulate the discharges of
most point sources of pollutants, including animal feedlots. EPA's feedlot
1 regulations prohibit the discharge of process waste water pollutants, but the
1
34

I
I
A
I
size exemption is such that none of Pamlico County's livestock operations are
subject to the law.
Of far greater importance is Section 208, which requires that all areas
of a state be covered by an areawide waste treatment management plan that,
among other things, includes
"a process to W identify, if appropriate, agriculturally and
silviculturally related non -point sources of pollution, including return
flows from irrigated agriculture, and their cumulative effects, runoff
from manure disposal areas, and from land used for livestock and crop
production, and (ii) set forth procedures and methods (including land use
requirements) to control to the extent feasible such sources..6"10
EPA, for its part, provided grants to state and areawide waste treatment
management agencies to conduct these studies and published a series of reports
providing guidance to these agencies. In the last several years, however,
funding for 208 activities has been severely curtailed and the 208 program has
languished. In response to prodding from states and to studies underscoring
the importance of nonpoint sources, EPA is again showing interest in the 208
program, and there is sentiment in Congress, in connection with
reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, to provide additional funds for 208
and possibly to give the program some teeth by setting implementation
deadlines for states.
In response to the requirements of Section 208, the state completed its
comprehensive water quality management plan in 1979. The plan is divided into
subject areas; the agricultural portion was delegated to the Soil and Water
Conservation Commission, which assembled a group called the 208 Agricultural
Task Force to assist it, and the forestry portion was written by the Divisions
of Environmental Management and Forest Resources.
Both plans examined a number of options for achieving water quality
goals, and both selected a voluntary approach stressing education, technical
assistance, and economic incentives to encourage the adoption of best
35

1
n
1
I
1
I
management practices. Since then a number of studies have been conducted in
North Carolina to provide better water quality data and information on the
effectiveness of best management practices. Implementation efforts have
focused on improvements in the state's educational and technical assistance
programs, but progress has been hampered by limited funding from both EPA and
the General Assembly. The Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development's budget request to the 1984 Short Session contains a
comprehensive program for reducing nonpoint source pollution to nutrient
sensitive waters that contains many of the elements that have been rejected on
a statewide basis in previous years. These include additional funds for
education and technical assistance, including two positions in the Division of
Forest Resources that would concentrate solely on water quality concerns, and
the state's first cost -sharing program for agricultural conservation
practices. While these measures would not immediately benefit Pamlico County,
the offices involved hope these programs will be expanded statewide in the
future.
Two other programs have an impact on pollution from agricultural and
forestry activities in Pamlico County. N.C. General Statutes §143-214.1
authorizes the Environmental Management Commission to classify the waters of
the state and to adopt a series of water quality standards for each class.
Four classes of fresh water and three classes of salt water have been
established, each with standards for maximum concentrations of a variety of
substances, including chlorophyll a (a measure of eutrophication), turbidity,
coliform bacteria, and various pesticides. The standards have no regulatory
enforcement effect themselves, but they do serve as a basis for other water
quality control measures. Two of particular interest to agriculture and
forestry are that (1) one of the standards for approval of CAMA permits in
36

estuarine areas of environmental concern is that the development will not
violate any air and water quality standards, and (2) Section 401 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act11 requires that any applicant for a
federal .license or permit (such as a Section 10 or 404 permit) that may result
in a discharge of pollutants into U.S. waters obtain a certification form the
state water quality management agency stating that the discharge will comply
with applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. Thus those
drainage projects requiring any of these permits must demonstrate that the
discharge will not violate state water quality standards.
The Commission has also created a special class of "nutrient -sensitive"
waters with standards governing the discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus. At
present only the Chowan River and Jordan and Falls Lakes are classified
nutrient -sensitive, but the classification is available for application to
other waters, including those in Pamlico County, if nutrient problems develop
further. Of even greater interest, the Division of Environmental Management
is now developing salinity standards for primary nursery areas. The proposed
P g
standards will identify an optimum salinity range, and later standards may
address the rate of salinity change. The development of salinity standards
for nursery areas presents serious difficulties because of the natural
variability of such systems, and a great deal of work remains to be done on
the technical application and enforcement options for such standards.
Also related to water quality is the program established under the N.C.
Pesticide Law of 197112 to regulate the use, application, sale, and disposal
of pesticides. The N.C. Pesticide Board is charged with administering the
program, including the registration of pesticides and the annual licensing of
pesticide dealers and applicators. Among other things, the law requires that
1 37

1
r
1
n
the Board's regulations must include all reasonable precautions to prevent
injury by drift or misapplication to nontarget species and ecosystems.
3.4 Drainage and Water Management Programs
There are a number of programs at the federal, state, and local level
concerned with specific drainage and water management needs, particularly in
the outer coastal plain where high water tables are a major limitation on land
use. Unlike soil erosion and water quality, however, there are no programs or
institutions concerned with multi -purpose water management, and the current
situation in Pamlico County is best described as benign anarchy. Drainage has
been an integral part of the land development process in the county for two
centuries, and an extensive drainage network of hundreds of miles of ditches
and canals exists. But no agency or authority is responsible for ensuring
that the network functions well as a system; landowners are free to tie into
whatever drainage canals they have access to, and are individually
reponsible for maintaining the canals on their property. This approach has
worked well and has met the needs of county landowners for many years, but
recently problems have begun to be identified (such as freshwater and
pollutant inputs to nursery areas) whose solutions are beyond the capability
of individual landowners.
The programs and institutions that have helped to shape the existing
drainage network are:
(1) The Drainage Acts. Chapter 156 of the North Carolina General
Statutes provides a framework for establishing and maintaining drainage canals
by individuals, corporations, and drainage districts. No drainage
corporations or districts have been organized in the county, and as mentioned
above, all canals and ditches are the responsibility of individual landowners.
38

C.
I
(2) The Role of the Soil Conservation Service and the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service. One of the major roles of SCS in
Pamlico County over the years has been to provide technical assistance in the
design of farmland drainage systems. The district conservationist assisted in
the installation of roughly 60,000 feet of ditches in 1983 and almost 80,000
feet during the first half of 1984. Annual workloads during the boom years of
the 1970's reached 200,000 feet. This assistance is not available throughout
the county, however, as SCS, at the national level, eliminated the
availability of technical assistance in draining many wetland types in the
mid-1970's in response to growing concerns about wetland destruction.
For many years Agricultural Conservation Program cost -sharing funds were
available for drainage improvements. In the late 1970's, however, ACP drew
increasing criticism for funding practices that are primarily production
oriented, and with the emphasis that the federal Soil and Water Resources
Conservation Act of 1977 placed on priority conservation problems, the
eligibility of drainage under ACP was eliminated.
Watershed (P.L. 566) funds are still available for drainage -related
projects. As noted earlier, two such projects were approved for the county
but were never constructed.
(3) Mosquito Control Program. Under the Authority of N.C. General
Statutes §130A-346 and §130A-347, the state has provided matching funds to
local governments for mosquito control. The major portion of Pamlico County's
program over the years has focused on drainage improvements to eliminate the
temporary pools where mosquitos breed, and many of the major canals in the
county were constructed using program funds. During the early stages of the
program some 430 miles of ditches in the county's coastal marshes were
installed. As state and federal regulatory programs increasingly restricted
39

G7
h
1
I
1
marsh operations in recent years, the program's focus shifted to upland
drainage. The county's-current contract with the state calls for
approximately $60,000 worth of upland ditching and snagging, as well as some
spraying and surveillance.
The mosquito control program ahs been a controversial one, not only in
Pamlico County but throughout the state, with charges that funds have been
used for projects providing agricultural drainage but little mosquito control,
and that the selection of projects has been politically and personally
motivated. Partly due to this controversy, and partly due to the realization
that most of the upland water management projects with mosquito control
benefits have been completed, the county has chosen not to renew its contract
with the state for upland water management, and this part of the program will
end in 1984.
(4) Coastal/Wetland Regulatory Programs. Four regulatory programs, two
state and two federal, influence the location and construction of drainage
ditches and canals. Uner the state's Dredge and Fill Act,13 a permit is
required for any dredging or filling in estuarine waters, tidelands,
marshlands, or state-owned lakes. Under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA),14 a permit is needed before undertaking any development (including
dredging and filling) in any Area of Environmental Concern, including coastal
wetlands and estuarine waters. Both programs are administered by the state's
Office of Coastal Management. Jurisdiction under the two programs is
essentially limited to proposals to construct or enlarge those portions of
drainage canals passing through coastal wetlands or connecting with estuarine
waters. Ditches emptying into other ditches are out of the programs'
jurisdiction, unless the receiving ditch itself has become fish and wildlife
40

habitat with fringing wetlands (which is true of a few large canals in Hyde
County).
General standards for the issuance of these permits require consideration
tof the project's impact on air and water quality, fish and wildlife, other
estuarine resources, archaeological and historic resources, water supplies,
and riparian owners. Specific CAMA use standards for drainage ditches cover
spoil placement, the location of outlets, the size of ditches, and measures to
reduce harmful inputs of fresh water, sediment, and nutrients. It has become
state policy to deny permits for new outlets in primary nursery areas.
The two federal permit programs are those required by Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 189915 and Section 404 of the Federal Water
' Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,16 both administered by the Army
Corps of Engineers. Under Section 10, a permit is needed for the connection
of any drainage canal to navigable waters. Jurisdiction does not extend up
the canal, but only to that portion connecting to navigable waters and.passing
through adjacent wetlands. Under Section 404, a permit is required for the
g J
discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters. The Corps
interprets this jurisdiction as all waters and associated wetlands where the
discharge is at least 5 ft3/second, regardless of whether the drainage channel
is natural or artifical. The program applies only to discharges, though, so
if the dredged material is deposited on an upland site, no permit is needed.
The statute also exempts normal farming and forestry activities, including
minor drainage, that are part of established operations, and ditch
maintenance, but not drainage associated with the conversion of wetlands to
agricultural and forestry use. Standards for the issuance of both permits
require consideration of the public interest, wetlands, fish and wildlife,
water quality, historic, cultural, scenic, and recreational values, and
1 41

neighboring properties and water resources projects. Administration of the
404 program with respect to drainage has been plagued by long delays and a
lack of predictability in the handling of permits. To a large extent these
problems have been cleared up, but a few issues remain unresolved.17
Two other state statutes deal with water management concerns: the Stream
Obstruction Act,18 which prohibits the felling of trees or depositing of
' debris in streams so as to obstruct drainage, and the Water Use Act of 1967,19
which requires water withdrawals in excess of 100,000 gallons per day
(including pumped drainage) within an existing capacity use area to be
permitted by the Division of Environmental Management. No pumped drainage
facilities of this size currently exist in Pamlico County.
It should be evident from Chapter Two and the discussion here that there
are a variety of interests, including agriculture, forestry, wildlife,
fisheries, mining, and mosquito control, that have a stake in how and when
drainage occurs. Not surprisingly, these interests are sometimes in conflict.
Recognizing that this was a growing problem, Governor Hunt appointed a Coastal
Water Management Task Force in 1981 that brought the different interests
together to reach a mutual understanding of the problems faced by each group
and to formulate a balanced approach that would allow different sectors to
develop in a mutually acceptable manner. The Task Force issued a final report
in December, 1982, that included ten recommendations covering data needs,
regulatory policies, water management planning and research, and education,
technical assistance, and economic assistance for the adoption of best
management practices. A committee was organized to oversee implementation of
the recommendations, and an implementation status report was issued in
February 1984.
1 42

1
3.5 Forest Management Programs
Several public programs have been established to improve forest
management, particularly by small landowners. Their main purpose is to ensure
an adequate supply of merchantable timber to meet the nation's needs, but they
have also adopted a number of secondary objectives, including reduction of
silvicultural sources of pollution and improved wildlife management.
Under the federal Forestry Incentives Program (FIP), authorized by the
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978,20 cost -sharing assistance is
available to small landowners for tree planting, site preparation for natural
regeneration, and timber stand improvement (thinning, pruning, and release of
seedlings and young trees from shade). Like ACP, the program is administered
by the county ASC committee. Cost -share agreements between the landowner and
USDA are based on a forest management plan developed by the landowner in
cooperation with and approved by the N.C. Forest Service. Cost -share
tpayments, now at 60%, will drop to 50% on July 1, and are limited to an annual
maximum of $10,000 per individual. FIP payments in Pamlico County in recent
years have been:
1983 $ 350
1982 4,698
1981 9,561
The Agricultural Conservation Program also provides cost -sharing for the same
forestry practices and serves as a supplement to FIP, particularly for
landowners who don't meet the ten acre minimum for FIP eligibility.
Substantial federal tax incentives for reforestation were created by P.L.
96-451 in 1981. Under this statute, the first $10,000 of reforestation
expenses in any year are eligible for a 10% investment tax credit and 7-year
Iamortization.
1 43

Two important programs exist at the state level. Landowners may acquire
technical assistance in forestry management through the Landowners Assistance
Pro ram.21 N.C. Forest Service employees in county and area offices
throughout the state are available to provide free advice on reforestation,
timber stand improvement, harvesting, and management to meet other landowner
objectives, such as wildlife production. When requested, a forest management
plan is provided to the landowner and may include recommendations for
maintaining or improving water quality. The Forest Service's Pamlico County
office, which employs a county forest ranger, an equipment operator, and one
or more part-time fire watchers, is supported jointly by state and county
funds.
Under the Forest Development Program,22 state cost -sharing assistance is
available for reforestation and release of seedling and sprouts. Work must
conform to a management plan approved (and usually written) by the N.C. Forest
Service. The cost -share rate, now 50%, will drop to 40% on July 1, and
'
are limited to 100 acres per year. Federal and state cost -share
payments
payments cannot be applied to the same acreage.
The Forestry Extension division of the Agricultural Extension Service
employs several forestry extension specialists who conduct meetings and
demonstrations, help disseminate research results, and in other ways work to
improve forest management in the state.
Finally, some wood products corporations such as Weyerhauser provide
technical assistance and even seedlings to small landowners, in return for
preferential rights to purchase the timber or land if the owner ever offers
Ieither for sale.
1
44

I
FOOTNOTES
1.
Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Potential Best
Management Practices To Control Sediment Non -Point Source Pollution From
Agricultural Land in North Carolina Raleigh: SCS, 1978).
2.
Division of Forest Resources, N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water
Quality (Raleigh: Division of Forest Resources, n.d.).
3.
Division of Environmental Management, N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Water Quality and Forestry, A Management Plan
(Raleigh: Division of Environmental Management, 1979), p. 24.
4.
Bureau of the Census, 1982 Census of Agriculture, Preliminary Report,
Pamlico County, N.C. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1984).
5.
P.L. 74-46, 16 U.S.C. §§590a-f.
6.
7 CFR 610.2.
7.
P.L. 74-461, 16 U.S.C. §§590g-q.
Ch. 139.
8.
N.C.Gen. Stat.
9.
P.L. 83-566, 16 U.S.C: §§1001-1009.
10.
P.L. 92-500, Section 208, 33 U.S.C. §1288.
11.
33 U.S.C. §1341.
12.
N.C.Gen. Stat. §143-434 to §143-470.
§113-229.
13.
N.C. Gen. Stat.
14.
N.C. Gen. Stat. §113A-100 et seq.
15.
33 U.S.C. §403.
16.
33 U.S.C. § 1344.
17.
See the Governor's Coastal Water Management Task Force Report, 1984, pp.
4-5.
18.
N.C. Gen. Stat. §§77-13,14.
19.
N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-215.11 et seq.
20.
P.L. 95-313, 16 U.S.C. §2103.
45

1
1
1
21. N.C. Gen. Stat. §113-81.2; 15 NCAC 9C .0900.
22. N.C. Gen. Stat. §113A-176 to §113A-183; 15 NCAC 9C .0900.
46

V
' Chapter Four
RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 County Policy
Agriculture and forestry are two of the leading industries in Pamlico
County and together, directly and indirectly, account for a substantial
portion of the county's employment and income. As discussed above, however,
rcertain agricultural and forestry practices may have various adverse
environmental impacts on the county, including excessive soil erosion,
increased saltwater encroachment, reductions in the supply of wildlife and
natural areas, reduction in forest growing stock, freshwater inflow to primary
nursery areas, and increased inputs of sediment, nutrients, bacteria, and
pesticides to estuaries. These impacts, in turn, can reduce the long-term
productivity of the agricultural, forestry, and fisheries sectors upon which
the county's economy depends, and also cause a deterioration in environmental
quality that will make the county a less satisfying place to live. While the
state and federal governments have instituted programs to address many of
these concerns, the county cannot rely solely on such programs to fully
protect its environment. It is important that the county take reasonable and
appropriate steps on its own initiative to help reduce or eliminate these
harmful practices.
Recommendation: Pamlico County should adopt the following policy for.
1 inclusion in its land use plan: The County recognizes the importance of
agriculture, forestry, and fisheries in the economy and life of the county and
the importance of a high quality natural environment to county residents.
Certain agricultural and forestry practices may have adverse impacts on the
1 47

- long productivity roductivit of the land, on the productivity of estuarine waters,
and on the environmental health of the county. It is County policy to support
the modification or elimination of these deleterious practices, so as to
' ensure the long-term producivity of the county's resource base and to protect
the quality of life of county residents.
4.2 Education, Technical Assistance, and Economic Incentives
Education, technical assistance, and economic incentives are the
cornerstones of the voluntary approach the state has taken to deal with
agricultural and forestry erosion and nonpoint pollution. More could be done
in each of these areas, particularly at a time when inflation adjusted funding
levels for federal conservation programs have been steadily declining and when
the current administration is seeking further major cuts (the President's
�- fiscal year 1985 budget proposes a 63% cut in ACP funding alone).
An increased level of county funding support for these efforts could take
several forms:
(1) Additional manpower beyond the two full-time resource conservation
personnel currently employed in the county (the SCS district conservationist
and county forest ranger). Both of -these people expressed a need for more
help in education and technical assistance work, particularly to reach out to
people not aware of or for other reasons not making use of available
' conservation services. An additional position could be added to county staff,
could be "lent" to the conservation district or Forest Service under a
memorandum of understanding, or could be added directly by one of the latter
two agencies using county appropriations. There are also possibilities for
48

1
1
sharing a position or for part-time assignment of an otherwise unrelated
' position.
(2) Additional funds for specific projects, undertaken by the county,
the conservation district, or the Forest Service. For instance, there is a
pressing need for demonstration farms and forests in the county to illustrate
the feasibility and benefits of best management practices.
' (3) Financial incentives for the adoption of best management practices.
There are three basic types of financial incentives: tax incentives, cost
sharing, and low interest loans. The county has no authority to offer tax
incentives, as the power to create special classes of property eligible for
reduced assessment rates rests solely with the General Assembly. Cost sharing
and low interest loans could be provided through the county or conservation
district. Any incentives program should be highly focused or "targeted." It
should be limited to the one or two practices the county considers most
' effective in reducing impacts, or only to practices in certain areas, such as
those adjacent to primary.nursery areas. Sedimentation ponds on drainage
canals and pumped drainage through wetland areas are examples.
No attempt has been made to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these
' different options or to identify specific ones to recommend for funding. That
would require a level of effort and detail that is beyond the scope of this
study. Nor is this a recommendation for a diffuse, throw -money -at -the -problem
' approach; the county does not have the tax base to spare. What is recommended
is a willingness to fund requests for highly specific, highly targeted
conservation programs and measures that offer a good chance of success.
Recommendation: The County should consider additional funding for specific
projects and manpower needs in resource conservation that have a strongly
demonstrated need and a high probability of success.
1 49

1
1
it
U
4.3 Support for the Bay River Soil and Water Conservation District
The Bay River Soil and Water Conservation District is an underutilized
resource. Soil and water conservation districts in North Carolina have the
status of distinct units of local government, with substantial authority and a
single charge: to promote and improve the conservation of soil, water, and
related resources within their jurisdictions. They are the only units of
local government with major, explicit environmental responsibilities. They
have the potential to provide leadership on a full range of issues of concern
to county residents. Pamlico County, through consultation, joint program
sponsorships, shared resources, and other forms of assistance, can help the
Bay River District to realize this potential.
The county should encourage the district to become more agressive, both
in seeking additional sources of funding (county expertise would be helpful
here), and in developing additional expertise and programs for both the
agricultural community and other interests. Twenty-five districts in Ohio,
for instance, currently have grants from federal and state environmental
protection agencies. Additional funds would permit the district to hire its
own professional staff, which would further help the district in establishing
a strong identity.
The county should also encourage the district to reach out and broaden
its base of support, and to evolve from an agency that speaks primarily for
the agricultural community to one that is more representative of the full
range of interests in the county, including those of the fishing and
residential development sectors. Such a change would help build public
support for its programs and would probably enhance its effectiveness in
dealing with conflicting interests and in obtaining additional funding.
50

The county should seek a closer working relationship with the district.
This would help build a base of mutual trust and responsibility that would
eventually allow the county and district to work cooperatively on a full range
of conservation issues. It is in the county's interest to help build a strong
' district, one that in some ways can be more effective than the county in
maintaining a high quality natural environment.
' Recommendation: The County should develop a closer working relationship with
the Bay River Soil and Water Conservation District, and should encourage and
' assist the District in expanding its scope and funding support and in becoming
a more agressive advocate of resource conservation.
4.4 Cross -Compliance
The term "cross -compliance" refers to the notion that landowners and
operators who receive the benefit of government subsidies, particularly USDA's
' commodity programs, should be required to comply with soil and water
conservation standards. Cross -compliance is currently a popular idea among
policy makers. An excellent example is the so-called Sodbuster Bill currently
in Congress. If enacted, this bill would eliminate federal price supports,
' loans, and crop insurance for farmers who "sodbust," or convert fragile and
' highly erodible grassland to row crop cultivation. Examples at the state
level include several states that require conservation elements in state land
leases.
The best opportunity to apply this approach in North Carolina is in
' conection with use -value property tax assessment. N.C. Gen. Stat. §105-277.2
to 5105-277.7 provides for property tax assessment at use -value, rather than
market value, for qualifying agricultural, horticultural, and forest land.
Similar provisions have been enacted in many other states. Their purpose is
1 51

1
1
to prevent high property taxes from forcing landowners to sell their
' agricultural or forest land or forcing them to convert it to other uses,
particularly urban development.
In 1983 several thousand acres were enrolled in the use -value program in
Pamlico County, resulting in a reduction in assessment value of $3,098,681,
and (at a 744 tax rate) a revenue loss to the county of $22,900. The county
might legitimately expect that, in return for helping landowners preserve
their agricultural and forest land, landowners should use proper conservation
' practices to assure the continued productivity and value of this land.
There are several forms such cross -compliance could take. At a minimum,
landowners enrolled in the use -value program could be required to obtain a
' conservation plan from the SCS or a forest management plan from the Forest
Service. This amounts to "mandatory education." A stricter form requires
that the conservation plan or forest management plan be adhered to. While
' certainly more effective, this approach also creates monitoring and
enforcement problems.
Rhode Island and several counties in Washington now require the
development of conservation plans before individual farmers are eligible for
' use -value property tax assessment. Pamlico County should request the General
' Assembly to provide enabling legislation for counties to impose similar
restrictions.
' Recommendation: The County should request the General Assembly to provide
counties with the ability to require conservation plans or the installation of
appropriate conservation treatments as a condition of eligibility for
' use -value property tax assessment.
1
52

1
' 4.5 Water Management
' As noted before, there is a great diversity of interests in water
' management. Farmers are anxious to remove water rapidly most of the year, but
there is also some exciting research being conducted in Pamlico County and
other coastal plain counties on the maintenance of high water tables in summer
for subsurface irrigation. Foresters need good drainage for harvest and
' seedling establishment and moderate drainage at other times, but are also
' interested in using high water tables during forest fire seasons to reduce
fire hazard. Drainage may affect saltwater encroachment into freshwater
' aquifers. Research has been conducted on the use of maintaining high water
tables in winter to promote denitrification and reduce nitrate losses.
' Fishermen are concerned about freshwater inflow to nursery areas, and hunters
' about the loss of wetland habitat. Peat miners and health officials concerned
with mosquito control have their own drainage interests.
' Conflicts between these interests are becoming more common. State
government has responded, most notably with the effort of the Governor's
Coastal Water Management Task Force. There is currently a great deal of
interest among state agencies in innovative water management schemes that help
resolve these growing conflicts, and funding is or may be available from a
variety of sources for research and for demonstration projects.
What is lacking is a single person or agency at the local level that is
responsible for working with these different interests, who can work to
' construct compromises and to fashion the kinds of multi -purpose water
management projects that will point the way to long-term solutions. What is
' needed is some one or group to help pull together existing knowledge and apply
it to Pamlico County, to take advantage of the variety of funding sources
53

1
available, and in general to focus some of the energy and resources generated
' at the state level on specific water management issues in the county.
It is recommended that the County propose the formation of an ad hoc
' county water management task force. Membership would include the various
' groups with water management concerns: the soi.L ana water uuuo=Lva-L ►,
district, SCS, county forest ranger, county health department, the Farm
Bureau, the Fisheries Association, etc. The county should provide a chairman
and some staff time. The task force would follow developments in the field,
interact with the state, provide a forum for resolving conflicts, help plan
projects, and in general promote integrated water management in the county.
The different interest groups have been interacting at the state level for
' several years, and the time would seem to be right for bringing together local
interests to deal with the problem. Preparation and implementation of a
' comprehensive water management plan for the county should be the group's long-
term goal, and it is not too soon to begin fashioning the consensus and
building up the knowledge and expertise that this project will require.
Recommendation: The County should initiate formation of an ad hoc county
water management task force to bring together the disparate local interests in
water management and to begin work towards a comprehensive water management
' plan for the county.
H
1
54