20110896 Ver 1_More Info Received_20120516

ATKINS
May 16 2012
RE Package of information concerning Orton Plantation
Brunswick County NC
DWQ # 110896 SAW # 2011 00624
Dear Mr McMillan
Mr Ian McMillan
NC Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699 1650
MAY 1 6 201?
DENR GfIgMIR QUALITY
._EN - -
You requested four (4) sets of the information that has been prepared in support of the Orton
Project so you can issue the 401 Water Quality Certification for the project As you know this project is
being processed both as a CAMA Major Permit and a Section 404 Individual Permit (IP) The 401
Certification fee has been paid to the NC Division of Coastal Management as part of the umbrella permit
review and processing The following information is hereby provided in this package in chronological
order
1 Letter to Emily Hughes US Army Corps of Engineers dated May 9 2012 in response to the
Division s May 4 2012 letter I understand that you are calling Ms Hughes to get
confirmation regarding the second issue that the temporary impacts will not result in loss of
wetland acres This letter contains the current numbers for temporary and permanent
impacts for the CAMA and Individual Permit
2 Compensatory Mitigation Plan dated May 3 2012 submitted to the US Army Corps of
Engineers This includes the EEP letter for their acceptance of mitigation for the permanent
impacts for this project
3 CAMA Major Permit application — This application was accepted by the Division of Coastal
Management on May 2 2012 (letter dated May 7 2012) as complete You should be getting
a copy directly from them shortly
4 Avoidance and Minimization Proposal dated April 11 2012 and submitted to the US Army
Corps of Engineers This proposal includes additional minimization of temporary and
permanent impact to wetlands for the project
5 Response to agency comments (including DWQ) dated February 14 2012 to Jennifer Frye
US Army Corps of Engineers Please note that additional minimization of wetland impacts
were proposed as noted in the Avoidance and Minimization Proposal dated April 11 2012
and included in this package
6 404 Public Notice — This was dated October 5 2011 and is available at
http / /www starnewsonline com /assets /pdf/WM24712323 PDF
1616 East Mdlbrook Road Suite 310 Raleigh NC 27609 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone] www atkinsgiobal com

In addition there is no indication that the final comments of the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (dated May 3 and May 4 2012 respectively) were
provided to you I am attaching copies of these letters for your review and use Please note that these
agencies now strongly support this project based upon the incorporation of additional measures to
avoid and minimize impacts on waters of the US as identified above and further described in the
attached documents Finally I am attaching letters from the NC Department of Agriculture (dated May
4 2012) and the State Historic Preservation Office (dated May 7 2012) who also express strong support
for this project as proposed
We trust that this information is sufficient for the Division of Water Quality to issue the 401
Certification for this project From Steve Morrison s recent discussions with Jim Gregson and Chad
Coburn in your Wilmington Regional Office there seems to be some confusion about whether DWQ can
issue the 401 Certification before the Corps of Engineers determines if additional minimization is
warranted Our understanding of the process is that the State certifies as to whether a project requiring
a permit under Section 404 is protective of NC water quality standards and complies with other
requirements of 15A NCAC 2H 0500 The rules provide that the compensatory mitigation required by
the Corps constitutes the mitigation required by DWQ, provided the ratio is not less than 11 for wetland
restoration or creation replacing wetlands acres lost (15A NCAC 2H 0506(h)(1)) The compensatory
mitigation plan dated May 3 2012 (attached) meets the 1 1 criterion for replacement of wetlands acres
lost It is certainly true that the Corps may impose additional requirements further restricting or
imposing conditions for impacts proposed in the application package However this should not affect the
DWQ decision on the 401 certification based on DWQ rules at Section 0500 Since the Corps
application as supplemented by the enclosed information addresses all the issues that the Corps and
agency staff have raised we believe that the Division can proceed to issue the 401 Certification for this
project as modified by the attachments to this letter We plan further discussions with the Corps staff
in the near future but request that you act on the application package as supplemented throughout this
process outlined in our April 11 2012 submittal (attached hereto)
Please feel free to contact me at 919 522 6364 if you have additional questions
V
R Dor
Cc Peter Talty Orton Plantation Holdings U0 (without
Chad Coburn Division of Water Quality Wilmington Field Office (without attachments)
Steve Morrison Land Management Group (without attachments)

1
LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP nic.
Environmental Consultants
5/9/12
Emily Hughes
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington N C 28403 1343
Re Response to May 4, 2012 DWQ comments Orton Plantation Historic Rice Field
Protection and Restoration Project SAW 2011 00624
Dear Emily
On behalf of Orton Plantation Holdings LLC, we are responding to the May 4, 2012 DWQ
comments listed below
1 Please provide a revised impact table that takes into account the new rice field exclusion
areas Include wetland impact type (404 1coastal) and duration (temporary/permanent)
Impact Type
P YP
Original Plan
May 2012 Plan
Permanent
(acres)
(acres)
Temporary
404 Wetlands
333
241
Permanent
Coastal Wetlands **
150
016
Permanent
Fresh Water Canals
230
255
Permanent
Open Water
160
200
Permanent
Remaining Rice Fields
33070
*317 60
Temporary
(404 Wetlands)
* Reduction of temporary impacts to nce field wetlands as explained in detail in the Apnl 11,
2012 Avoidance and Minimization Proposal
** Coastal wetlands' is a term defined at 15A NCAC 7H 0205(a) Activities in coastal
wetlands are regulated under Section 404 in the same manner as freshwater wetlands and other
waters of the United States The term 404 Wetlands as used in this table refers to freshwater
wetlands which do not qualify as coastal wetlands' under the CAMA defirution
WWW Imgroup net info@imgroup net Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave Suite 15 Wilmington NC 28403 P 0 Box 2522 Wilmington NC 28402

2 Please pi ovade documentation from the USACE indicating that they will consider the
333 74 acres of impacted coastal wetlands proposed to be converted to rice cultivation to
remain 404 1jurasdactional wetlands
The applicant is not proposing to convert any area of coastal wetlands as defined at 15A NCAC
7H 0205(a), to rice cultivation The proposed temporary impacts to the remaining 317 60 acres
of rice field wetlands for cultivation purposes will not result in the loss of any jurisdictional
wetland
3 Are the proposed race field exclusion areas part of the areas that were cleared and
disturbed? If so what will the restoration /preservation (management ?) plan for those
areas be?
As explained at page 4 of the Compensatory Mitigation Plan and at pages 4 6 of the Avoidance
and Minimization Proposal, the proposed rice field exclusion areas will improve the wildlife
habitat value of the project area Portions of the rice field exclusion areas were bush hogged,
and will regenerate to a shrub scrub condition which will provide a greater diversity of habitat
types, as explained at page 2 of the Avoidance and Minimization Proposal Aside from the
exclusion of these areas from rice cultivation preparation activities there is no separate
restoration/preservation or management plan specifically applicable to these areas As stated in
the Avoidance and Minimization Proposal, at page 1, no activities which require a permit under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act will be conducted in rice field exclusion areas
Please contact me with any questions that you may have regarding these responses Thank you
for the opportunity to provide this information
Sincerely,
Steve Morrison
Environmental Consultant
Cc Dale Beter, USACE
Emily Hughes, USACE
Jennifer Frye USACE
Chad Coburn DWQ
Karen Higgins DWQ
Ian McMillan, DWQ
Jeff Garnett EPA
Kim Williams, LMG
Orton Plantation Holdings LLC
Craig Bromby, Hunton & Williams
www Imgroup net info @Imgroup net Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave Suite 15 Wilmington NC 28403 P 0 Box 2522 Wilmington NC 28402

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN
ORTON PLANTATION
U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ACTION ID # SAW 2011 00624
Submitted May 3 2012
Permanent wetland impacts
Salt marsh — After the final modification to the design of the revetment along the Cape
Fear River, a total of 0 16 acres of unavoidable permanent impact to salt marsh remains
According to NC WAM, this wetland is mostly of overall Medium to High quality
Therefore, the Orton Team proposes to provide salt marsh mitigation at a 2 1 ratio
corresponding to a total of 0 32 acres of salt marsh nutigation The NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) has indicated that they have salt marsh credit available in
this 8 digit HUC (03030005) As a result, the Orton protect proposes to purchase salt
marsh credits from EEP
Freshwater unpacts — The total permanent impacts to freshwater wetlands are from the
refurbishment of the revetment and interior dikes as well as repair of water control
structures and access points for a total of 2 41 acres of unpact to riparian wetlands These
wetlands are predominantly overall Low quality wetlands according to the NC WAM
analysis However, 0 08 acre of these freshwater wetland impacts is located on the
outside of the front rice field dike and would likely not be classified as Low quality
wetlands Therefore, the Orton Project proposes to purchase credits from either EEP or
from a private bank if credits become available in the near future For impacts to the 2 33
acres of wetlands that are of overall Low quality, Applicant proposes to purchase riparian
wetland credits at a 1 1 ratio For impacts to the 0 08 acre of non Low value wetlands,

Applicant proposes to purchase riparian wetland credits at a 2 1 ratio, corresponding to a
total of 0 16 acre of riparian wetland mitigation It should be noted that there will be
additional on -site restoration of 122 acres of wetlands in the North Front Rice field
where the upland knoll of the old dredge spoil is located The Orton project is not seeking
compensatory mitigation credit for this wetland restoration since multi year monitoring
and recordation of a conservation easement will interfere with plans to cultivate nce in
this location However, the agencies should be aware that this additional acreage of
wetland will be achieved by the project
Temporary wetland unpacts
A total of up to 317 60 acres of temporary impacts will occur within the nce field system
as a result of preparing the fields for nce cultivation The 317 60 acre calculated figure
represents the total jurisdictional area within the fields (333 74 acres) less the acreage of
the nce field exclusion areas (13 1 acres), and less areas of permanent impact (3 04
acres), which consist of thirteen field access points along with structure replacements
(0 12 acre) and permanent impacts associated with the shift of the nverfront dike work
landward (0 37 acre of permanent nce field wetland impacts and 2 55 acres of permanent
impacts to nce field canals)
All of these field areas were rated by NC WAM as overall Low quality It should
be noted that the Front Fields are completely dominated by Phragmites In addition,
about one -half of Field # 1 is Phragmites —dominated, and Phragmites is present in
smaller amounts in Field # 9 and in the Back Rice Field In light of the invasive nature of
this species it can be reasonably anticipated that Phragmites would eventually dominate
all of the nce fields without active, on going management
2

The Applicant believes that compensatory mitigation is not warranted for these
temporary impacts The point Corps /EPA mitigation rule states that mitigation is required
to offset unavoidable impacts (defined as adverse effect') to waters of the United States
(33 CFR §230 91 (a) and 33 CFR §230 92) These rules also required the District
Engineer to determine the compensatory mitigation to be required based on what is
practicable and capable of compensating for the aquatic resource functions that will be
lost (33 CFR §230 93(a)) These requirements are typically understood to mean that
compensatory mitigation is needed when there is a loss of acreage or function of
wetlands
Temporal disturbance will occur within rice field wetlands that are presently of
overall Low quality and will remain overall Low quality once they are in rice cultivation
Therefore, there is no loss of function As outlined above according to the point
mitigation rule of the Corps and EPA, there is no need for compensatory mitigation for
these temporary impacts However, it is also clear that the wildlife value of the
Phragmites- dominated Front Rice Field will be increased by the active, on going removal
of Phragmites and replacement with rice Rice has a higher wildlife food and habitat
value as compared to Phragmites Rice Field #1 is also heavily infested by Phragmites
In addition Phragmites is present to some degree in the other rice fields, and will be
controlled only by active, on going management From the literature search conducted
on the wildlife value of rice fields and provided on February 14 2012 to the Corps of
Engineers, it is clear that rice fields can provide important wildlife habitat under the
planned water management regime As noted earlier, Applicant intends to develop a
water management plan which will maximize wildlife habitat value consistent with
3

satisfying the basic project purpose of rice production This plan will serve to maintain
or increase the wildlife value of the rice fields, and increase the hydrology and water
quality values, depending on the precise management plan which is ultimately adopted
In order to increase habitat diversity in the Orton landscape, Applicant will
establish four Rice Field Exclusion Areas which will not be prepared or used for rice
cultivation These areas will be maintained in a shrub -scrub condition similar to the
condition that has developed over the past several decades Since these areas are fairly
narrow and surrounded on several sides by mature forest and since the roots of the bush
hogged woody shrub vegetation are still intact, the areas will regenerate very rapidly into
a shrub scrub condition
The project will employ several mitigative measures that will help to enhance wildlife
value within the existing rice field areas These measures include (1) active, on -going
removal of Phragmites in the Front Fields, (2) the control of Phragmites to prevent its
encroachment on the remaining fields, (3) the reduction in the extent of the rice
cultivation area to allow 13 1 acres to reestablish into shrub scrub wetlands, and (4) the
development and implementation of a water management plan intended to maximize
wildlife benefits (to an extent practicable and consistent with rice production)
Combining the habitat value enhancement and the management plan for the rice fields,
Applicant believes that the present overall Low wetland values in the rice fields will be
enhanced post project and during subsequent active rice cultivation on the Orton
Plantation Therefore, Applicant believes that this project is self mitigating and that
additional compensatory mitigation for the temporary impacts is not appropriate based
upon current federal mitigation requirements and practices
4

LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP nic.
Environmental Consultants
5/3/12
Emily Hughes
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, N C 28403 1343
Re Compensatory Mitigation Plan, EEP acceptance letter, Orton Plantation Historic Rice
Field Protection and Restoration Project, SAW 2011 00624
Dear Emily,
On behalf of Orton Plantation Holdings LLC, we are submitting the enclosed Compensatory
Mitigation Plan for the proposed wetland impacts associated with the Orton Plantation Historic
Rice Field Protection and Restoration Project Also enclosed is a copy of the EEP acceptance
letter relating to the riparian and coastal marsh impact acreages
As your requested agency comments arrive and have been reviewed, we would look forward to
meeting with you and Dale and any other relevant agencies to discuss the avoidance &
mnumization proposal and any other matters that may be of concern We can make ourselves
available to meet at your convenience, as we look forward to moving to the decision phase of
this process
Please contact me with any questions that you may have regarding the proposed mitigation plan
and the overall project Thank you for your assistance
Sincerely,
Steve Morrison
Environmental Consultant
www Imgroup net info @Imgroup net Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave Suite 15 Wilmington NC 28403 P 0 Box 2522 Wilmington NC 28402

Encl Compensatory Mitigation Plan
EEP acceptance letter
Cc Dale Beter, USACE
Ken Jolly, USACE
Orton Plantation Holdings, LLC
Craig Bromby, Hunton & Williams
John Dorney, Atkins
www Imgroup net info @lmgroup net Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave Suite 15 Wilmington NC 28403 P 0 Box 2522 Wilmington, NC 28402

1.•
IE tem.
PROGRAM
May 2 2012
Peter Talty
Orton Plantation
1716 Floor 1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York NY 10020 Expiration of Acceptance November 2 2012
Project Orton Plantation County Brunswick
Tins letter replaces one dated May 1 2012 The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program ( NCEEP) is willing to accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project
as indicated in the table below Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the NCEEP will be approved by the
pernut issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to determine
if payment to the NCEEP will be approved You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits
regulations or authorizations associated with the proposed activity including SL 2009 337 An Act to Promote the Use of
Compensator�,r Mitigation Banks as amended by
S L 2011 343
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable If we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant s
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP Once NCEEP receives a copy of the pernut(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the In
Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www nceep net
Based on the information supplied by you to your request to use the NCEEP the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are
summarized in the following table The amount of mitigation required for this impact is determined by permitting agencies
Impact
River
Basin
CU
Location
Stream (feet)
Wetlands (acres)
Buffer I
(Sq Ft )
Buffer II
(Sq Ft )
Cold
Cool
Warm
Rip an
Non Riparian
Coastal Marsh
Cape Fear
03030005
0
1 0
0
1 241
0
016
0
0
Upon receipt of payment EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation The mitigation will be performed in
accordance with the N C Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program In Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28 2010
Thank you for your interest in the NCEEP If you have any questions or need additional information please contact Kelly W ►Il►aw at
[phone]
Sincerely
Ellison
Director
cc Karen Higgins NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Emily Hughes USACE Wilmington
Chad Coburn NCDWQ Wilmington
Doug Huggett, NCDCM Morehead City
Kim Williams agent
File
Rartormg Prot" Our .fta &
AV - WAA
MUM
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 -1652 / 919 -715 0476 / www nceep net

AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION PROPOSAL
ORTON PLANTATION
U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ACTION ID # SAW 2011 00624
Submitted April 11 2012
Introduction
In response to agency comments received at the interagency meeting on March 28, 2012, Orton
Plantation Holdings LLC ( Applicant ) proposes the following modifications to address those
comments and further avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the United States The
modifications consist of areas within the historic rice fields which Applicant proposes to exclude
from cultivation ( Rice Field Exclusion Areas ) No activities required to be permitted under
Section 404 would be undertaken in the Rice Field Exclusion Areas which total 13 1 acres in
four separate areas
Rice Field Exclusion Area Selection Criteria
The Rice Field Exclusion Areas were selected based on satisfying several of the following
criteria
• Wetland functional value based the NC Wetlands Assessment Methodology ( "NC WAM ),
• Wildlife habitat value enhancement provided by a mid canopy or shrub scrub transitional
zone (ecotone) between the wildlife habitat provided by forested canopy outside or on the
fnnge of the rice fields and the wildlife habitat provided in the areas of rice cultivation,
• The degree of disturbance of, or intrusion into, the visual landscape component of the historic
value of the historic rice plantation,
• The degree to which cultivation of rice in a proposed Rice Field Exclusion Area would be
operationally inefficient using modern agricultural practices, and
• The degree of importance of an area of the rice field to the efficient functioning of the water
management system
Wetland Functional Value
The overwhelming majority of the rice fields were rated as overall Low functional value, due in
large part to the fact that the hydrology of the rice fields has been intensively manipulated since
the early 18a' century Additionally, because of the intensive hydrologic manipulation and
elimination of normal sediment transport from the Orton Reserve through these wetlands to the
coastal marsh or the Cape Fear River, the soils inside the rice fields have, particularly in the back
rice fields, taken on unusual characteristics, essentially transformed into floating mats of highly
organic material over a mineral substrate In addition, this floating mat moves up and down

depending on the amount of water introduced or removed from the nce fields Consequently,
these soils are generally not physically capable of supporting trees which would form a mature,
closed canopy typical of a forested rivenne swamp In essence, the nce fields are wetlands, but
they are not forested and are mostly incapable of becoming mature forested wetlands due to their
highly unstable substrate
There is an area at the western extremity of, Rice Field #9 which has a watershed independent of,
and supplemental to the water management system, such that the hydrology of this area is not
entirely dependent on the manipulation of the water management system Consequently, this
area was rated overall Medium functional value using NC WAM Because the resumption of
nce cultivation in this area would degrade the overall functional value as measured by NC WAM
from Medium to Low this areas has been designated as a Rice Field Exclusion Area
Wildlife Habitat Value Enhancement
Presently, there are a number of types of wildlife habitat provided within, and along the fringes
of the rice fields In some areas along the fringes of the historic field a forested canopy of
mature trees can be found Other areas of the rice fields have been allowed through disuse or
mismanagement over the years to grow into a shrub scrub habitat Additionally, large areas of
the rice fields have suffered infestation by Phragmites austrahs, a noxious weed
Each of these vegetation assemblages provide habitat of greater or lesser value and diversity In
general, soil conditions in the nce fields provide poor substrate for trees to form a mature, closed
canopy, and thus the habitat values provided by such a canopy are essentially absent in the
interior of the rice fields However, a mature hardwood canopy exists in some locations at the
fringes and outside of the rice fields, providing significant habitat value for species favoring
those conditions A cultivated nce field along with rotational crop coverage, also provides
valuable habitat and feeding for waterbirds, a diverse array of amphibians, and other wildlife, as
described in the annotated bibliography submitted earlier
The shrub scrub condition that covered much of the back fields also has value for habitat for an
array of species distinguishable from either a mature forested canopy or a cultivated nce field
Based on NC WAM analyses, the functional value of the wetland in the back nce fields has
similar value in a shrub scrub condition to that in a nce field condition However, there is value
in the successional or transitional habitat provided between mature forested canopy and the
cultivated rice field by shrub scrub habitat Therefore, some Rice Field Exclusion Areas were
evaluated as to successional habitat values that could be provided if these areas were left in a
shrub scrub condition, adjacent to mature forested canopy and cultivated rice field
Visual Landscape
A significant component of, and contributor to, the historic uniqueness and value of Orton
Plantation is the visual landscape provided by the remaining, intact nce fields once they are
returned to rice cultivation Protection of the visual landscape can be accomplished by
maintaining and cultivating nce in the intact rice fields in their entirety The visual landscape
could be significantly impaired by taking substantial portions of the intact rice fields out of the
plans for cultivation, essentially severing those portions of the fields from the plantation
2

Nowhere else in North Carolina, and in few, or perhaps no, places in the United States, has a rice
plantation dating back to the early 18'' century been so well preserved, where a significant
portion of diked fields and the water management system designed and constructed by enslaved
West African craftsmen has been continuously maintained and operated As a result of this
continuous maintenance and preservation, the plantation can be and is proposed to be, returned
to a close approximation of its appearance and function from the important historic period of rice
culture in the 18a` and 19th centuries Moreover the project is proposed exclusively using private
sources of funding, which makes it singularly unique
The historical importance of the Orton Plantation project is magnified by the adjacent state
owned Brunswick Town historic site, which includes ruins of St Philip s Church, Fort
Anderson, and Russellborough, the former colonial governor s mansion The history of
Brunswick Town and Orton Plantation are inextricably linked (Brunswick Town was founded by
the original owner of Orton Plantation), and the opportunity to re establish the appearance of the
plantation, in connection with the preservation of the Brunswick Town ruins, is unique in the
United States This opportunity is especially valuable since Orton Plantation was never degraded
to ruins
Given the unique value of the visual landscape component of the historical value of Orton
Plantation nee fields Rice Field Exclusion Areas were evaluated based on the degree to which
they would intrude on the visual landscape provided by the rice fields Attention was paid to the
visual isolation of the areas excluded, either by distance from readily accessible view locations
or by proximity or adjacency to intervening forested areas
Operational Efficiency
The principal purpose of the project for which a permit is required under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act involves the resumption of rice cultivation in the remaining intact rice fields at
Orton Plantation However, modern agricultural methods and practices will be employed, even
though heirloom varieties of rice will be grown Traditional utilization of hand labor and farm
animals did not emphasize efficiency to the same degree as modern agriculture practices
Certain areas within the Back Rice Field, in particular, pose operational challenges in terms of
maneuvering equipment because the area is limited spatially in terns of its configuration, or
would require a canal or ditch crossing In such areas the value and efficiency of nce
production was critically evaluated against the consequent impact to waters if such areas were
put into production
However some otherwise oddly configured or spatially limited areas were found to have
significant importance to the efficient operation of the water management system In these areas,
which might otherwise be challenging for access and maneuverability of equipment, the efficient
functioning of water management and distribution system in an area with limited topographic
increments, depends on maintaining a level surface, which, in turn, requires some disturbance
and redistribution of the soil surface Thus, areas which might satisfy the operational
efficiency criterion with respect to limitations on access or maneuverability of agricultural
equipment were not excluded based on the supervening need to manipulate the soil surface for
the purpose of optimizing efficiency of a water management system with very low tolerances
3

Proposed Rice Field Exclusion Areas
The areas indicated on the attached aerial photograph (referred to hereinafter as' Rice Field
Exclusion Areas ) are proposed to be withheld from nce cultivation No activities required to be
permitted under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act will be undertaken on the Rice Field
Exclusion Areas The total acreage of avoidance of impact represented by the Rice Field
Exclusion Areas is 13 1 acres No avoidance is proposed in the Front Rice Fields or in Rice
Field #1 One reason is for this determination is that almost the entirety of the Front Rice Fields,
and a significant portion of Rice Field #1, are infested by Phragmites austrahs The elimination
of Phragmites in the process of putting the fields into a nce crop constitutes a significant positive
contribution to wildlife habitat values, as it provides, at the very least, a more valuable food
source for wildlife 1 The overall plan for each of the exclusion areas will be to maintain them in
a shrub scrub condition thereby adding habitat diversity to this landscape and further
enhancement of wetland value and function
Rice Field Exclusion Area A
Rice Field Exclusion Area A is 3 8 acres in size and adjoins Rice Field #9 to the west It was
selected as the only wetland area located within the intact nce fields which was rated overall
Medium value using NCWAM In designating Rice Field Exclusion Area A, Applicant has
avoided a wetland area within the nce fields which, according to NCWAM analysis, has a higher
degree of wetland values, and an area which would change to an overall Low value rating if it
was to be put into cultivation Rice Field Exclusion Area A is the only wetland area within the
intact nce fields that has a relatively undisturbed and intact watershed separate from the water
management system which has been in place since the 18'b century Notwithstanding, the
hydrology of Rice Field Exclusion Area A is, and will continue to be heavily influenced by the
operation of the water management system, since none of the Rice Field Exclusion Areas are
(nor cannot be without installation of additional structures), hydrologically isolated from the nce
fields
Rice Field Exclusion Area A will remain and will be maintained in shrub scrub vegetation
providing productive wildlife habitat distinct and complementary to the habitat values provided
by the adjacent mature forest canopy to the north, west and south and the cultivated nce field
adjoining to the east The habitat value of Rice Field Exclusion Area A may be distinct from
other areas because it is hydrologically unique within the intact nce fields in that it receives
hydrologic contribution from a relatively undisturbed and intact watershed to its west and north
1 Infestation by Phragmites austrahs has been detected in Rice Field #9 and in the Back
Rice Field,, though to a less significant degree than in the Front Rice Fields or Rice Field #1
However, domination by Phragmites austrahs will inevitably occur in all nce fields unless the
weed is actively and vigorously controlled Failure to obtain permits, and, thus the inability to
put the fields in nce production would result in full or partial abandonment of efforts to control
Phragmites austrahs, and the resultant loss of significant wetland functions and values in all nce
fields
4

Additionally Rice Field Exclusion Area A is somewhat visually isolated from the remainder of
Rice Field #9 given its landscape position as its western extremity, and the farthest point from
the portion of the entrance causeway adjacent to and traversing the back nce fields
Rice Field Exclusion Area B
Rice Field Exclusion Area B is 1 1 acres in size and adjoins the Back Rice Field at its northwest
corner Unlike Rice Field Exclusion Area A it is entirely hydrologically managed by the nce
field water management system, and is rated overall Low value by NC WAM However, the
landscape position of Rice Field Exclusion Area B, on the edge of accessible sight lines from the
entrance causeway adjacent to and traversing the back nce fields, provides a degree of visual
isolation
Additionally, Rice Field Exclusion Area B is bounded on the south and east by an irrigation
canal of considerable size which operationally isolates the area from the remainder of the Back
Rice Field Given the relatively modest size of Rice Field Exclusion Area B it would be
inefficient to conduct agricultural activities here, particularly since equipment crossings would
be necessary to conveniently provide access to agricultural machinery
Finally, because the adjoining area outside the Back Rice Field to the northwest represents a
mature forested fringe maintaining Rice Field Exclusion Area B in shrub scrub vegetation will
provide productive habitat distinct and complementary to the habitat values provided by the
adjacent forested area to the west and north and the cultivated nce field adjoining to the south
and east
Rice Field Exclusion Area C
Rice Field Exclusion Area C is 4 5 acres in size and adjoins the Back Rice Field on the eastern
edge of its northeastern corner Its hydrology is totally managed by the nce field water
management system, and it is rated overall Low value by NC WAM The landscape position of
Rice Field Exclusion Area C on the edge of accessible sight lines from the entrance causeway
adjacent to and traversing the back nce fields and bordered by mature forest to the east provides
a degree of visual isolation
Rice Field Exclusion Area C is separated from the entrance causeway at the junction between the
Back Rice Field and Rice Field #1 because that intervening area must be level and managed to
maintain the efficiency of the water management system In particular the intervening area must
remain susceptible to management to facilitate the release of water out of the Back Rice Field to
the coastal marsh and the transit of water from the Back Rice Field to Rice Field #1
Additionally, Rice Field Exclusion Area C is bounded on the west and south by a mayor
irrigation canal which imposes a degree of operational isolation from the remainder of the Back
Rice Field While the size of Rice Field Exclusion Area C makes it the largest of the Rice Field
Exclusion Areas, the nature and size of the bordering irrigation canals would require the
installation of crossings that would further impact waters of the United States, counterbalancing
its size from the perspective of agriculture operational efficiency
5

Maintaining Rice Field Exclusion Area C in shrub scrub vegetation will provide productive
habitat distinct and complementary to the habitat values provided by the adjacent forested area to
the east and the cultivated rice field adjoining to the south and west
Finally Rice Field Exclusion Area C provides the additional benefit of providing a degree of
buffer between the agricultural operations in the Back Rice Field and the cemetery located to the
southwest of the plantation office mitigating to a degree the potential reduction in historic value
resulting from the incursion into the visual landscape
Rice Field Exclusion Area D
Rice Field Exclusion Area D is 3 7 acres in size and adjoins the Back Rice Field to the west
along the lower southwestern quadrant of the Back Rice Field, to the southwest of the upland
`island ' Unlike Rice Field Exclusion Area A, the supplemental watershed contributing water to
Rice Field Exclusion Area D has undergone a degree of disturbance and reduction, dating back
to the initial construction of the water management system at Orton Pond Reserve and adjacent
rice fields in the 18th century As with Rice Field Exclusion Area A, Rice Field Exclusion Area
D is, and will continue to be, heavily influenced by the operation of the rice plantation water
management system, since none of the Rice Field Exclusion Areas are (nor cannot be without
installation of additional structures), hydrologically isolated from the remaining rice fields
The landscape position of Rice Field Exclusion Area D to the southwest of the upland island in
the Back Rice Field visually isolates it from the entrance causeway and the readily accessible
points on the eastern edge of the Back Rice Field near the Plantation House and the plantation
office
Maintaining Rice Field Exclusion Area D in shrub scrub vegetation will provide productive
wildlife habitat distinct and complementary to the habitat values provided by the deep and
adjacent forested area surrounding Rice Field Exclusion Area D on three sides to the north, west
and south, and the wildlife habitat values provided by the cultivated rice fields to the east
Comparable to Rice Field Exclusion Area C Rice Field Exclusion Area D is of sufficient size
and configuration for efficient agricultural operation, but unlike Rice Field Exclusion Area C,
there is no irrigation canal that would impede access by agricultural equipment or otherwise
operationally isolate Rice Field Exclusion Area D However Applicant has determined that the
high degree of visual isolation and value for wildlife habitat enhancement in the most remote
location within the rice field system makes it an appropriate candidate for exclusion
0
78308 000002 EMF_US 397080420

2/14/12
Jennifer Frye
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington N C 28403 1343
Re Response to USEPA comments, Individual Permit application, Orton Plantation
Holdings, LLC, Action ID SAW 2011 -00624
Dear Jennifer,
On behalf of Orton Plantation Holdings, LLC (Applicant), Land Management Group Inc
(LMG) offers the following information in response to the recent comment letter (dated January
18, 2012) from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) We believe that the
information contained in this response will help clarify statements made in EPA s comments
Furthermore we expand on four principal points of discussion contained within the EPA s
comment letter (1) Purpose and Need (2) Project Alternatives, (3) Environmental Consequence
of the Applicant's Preferred Alternative and (4) Compensatory Mitigation
I Background of Orton Plantation and Long-Term Management of Rice Fields
Orton Plantation was established in 1725 Over the more than 200 years that the plantation was
in nee production numerous nee fields were constructed on Orton Plantation and the affiliated
Kendall Plantationwhich represent the only remaining intact and functional nee field system in
North Carolina The five remaining nee fields and their various structural components (e g
dikes nee trunks bypass canals water intake and outlet structures etc) have been continuously
maintained from the time they were constructed The nee fields have existed historically as
freshwater impoundments in the sense that the fields are separated and protected from the salt
water marsh by dikes To suggest that the proposed work would result in the conversion of
coastal wetlands into freshwater impoundments is erroneous The nee fields have been
maintained literally for hundreds of years Production of nee was discontinued on a
commercial scale in the early 1930s reportedly because of a blight However, agricultural crops
were still produced within some or all of the nee fields for a period of time after that as clearly
shown by the quarter ditches evident on the attached aenal photograph from 1949 Although the
Applicant has discovered no record of subsequent commercial production of crops being
www lmgroup net info @lmgroup net Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave Suite 15 Wilmington NC 28403 P 0 Box 2522 Wilmington NC 28402

cultivated in the nee fields the dikes and water management system were nevertheless
maintained continuously to the present
The protection and restoration of the nee field system which is the defining element of the
plantation will allow the resumption of a historically significant agricultural resource Work on
the rehabilitation of the plantation house is proceeding and actions taken to repair breaches in the
dikes as they have occurred since 2010 It would be erroneous to suggest that the nee fields or
the water management system had fallen into complete or near complete disrepair It is more
accurate to say that the dikes and water management system have been continuously maintained
and the nee fields kept intact Repairs of this ancient system of dikes, trunks, gates canals and
water conveyances are needed as they have been periodically, for the last 287 years Repairs
and maintenance in the past have been performed with varying methodologies and degrees of
sophistication depending upon the resources available to the then owner of the plantation
Through the digitization of the outer coastal marsh limits on aenal photographs from 1998, 2004
and 2010 it has been determined that approximately 6 2 acres of protective marsh has been lost
due to the severe erosive forces along the nverfront over a 12 year period
The long tern and intensive hydrologic management of the nee fields has substantially altered
the natural hydrologic regime of the nee field wetlands as described in section IV A (Wetland
Functional Assessment) of this report The Orton Reserve Pond and associated outfall (i e
bypass) canal redirects surface water inflow away from the Back Rice Fields and severely
truncates the size of the contributing watershed
II Purpose and Need
As stated in the original permit application the purpose of the proposed project is to protect and
rehabilitate the various elements of the historic nce field system at Orton Plantation The Applicant s
preferred alternative, as presented in the Public Notice has been selected subsequent to careful
consideration of a range of alternatives as detailed in the Alternatives Analysis (provided below)
and is believed to be the least damaging, practicable alternative (LEDPA) that satisfies the stated
purpose and need
The purpose of the project is not the commercial production of nee Rather, it is the
reestablishment of historic nee cultivation and revitalization of this historic resource In doing
so agricultural practices related to nee cultivation will be employed within only the five nee
fields within the functioning intact hydrologic management system
In the Fall of 2010 Orton Plantation was purchased by Orton Plantation Holdings LLC The
principal of the parent company of Orton Plantation Holdings LLC is a direct lineal descendant
of Roger Moore the person who succeeded to the original crown grant and established the
plantation As such Orton Plantation Holdings LLC has an interest and a purpose to reestablish
the plantation for the cultivation of nee consistent with the rehabilitation of the historic
plantation buildings gardens and cemeteries Rehabilitation of these historic resources is being
performed in close coordination with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO)
The Applicant and SHPO believe this effort to be of significant public interest Tangible public
benefits are anticipated as a result of the proposed project For instance the rehabilitation of nee
www Imgroup net info @Imgroup net Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave Suite 15 Wilmington NC 28403 P 0 Box 2522 Wilmington NC 28402

fields and re establishment of cultivation of heirloom nee varieties can provide unique
educational opportunities in a manner similar to the recent longleaf pine restoration workshop
held on the Orton property 1 The proposed rehabilitation of the nee fields is consistent with the
overall conservation effort of the owner and the revitalization of these areas as an historic and
educational resource benefits the public interest
III Consideration of Project Alternatives
The stated purpose of the project is to protect and rehabilitate the various elements of the historic
nee field system at Orton Plantation The following alternatives have been considered by the
Applicant
A No Action Alternative Under this alternative, no dike improvements would be made no
water control structures would be replaced and no nee field preparation would take place
resulting in the continued deterioration and ultimate failure of the historic dikes and water
management system Failure of the dikes and water control structures would render nee
cultivation operations impossible This site has primarily been in nee cultivation since the 1700s
and the loss of this historic farming resource would be historically and culturally significant
Because this alternative does not meet the Applicant s stated purpose and need, it has been
removed from further consideration
B Upland Alternative Under this alternative nee cultivation would take place in upland areas
at Orton Plantation This alternative is not practicable due to the nature of the historic and
traditional cultivation practices to implement and manage the growth of nee crops The water
management system is gravity based in a low elevation landscape The management of water is
required for purposes of seed germination and the elimination and prevention of competitive
weed establishment The hydrologic control measures and devices remain positioned within
areas that are wetlands due to long term soil saturation and periodic flooding In addition nee
cultivation in such areas does not achieve the Applicant s stated purpose and need
C Rehabilitation of Rice Fields on Orton and Kendall Plantations Historically the
plantation operated as two groups of nee fields fed by two separate reserves The Orton Reserve
(also known as Orton Pond) supplied fresh water to the five remaining nee fields comprising the
Orton Plantation and the Kendall Reserve supplied fresh water to the nee fields north of Orton
and south of Lilliput Creek The dam impounding the Kendall Reserve failed in the mid
twentieth century The diked nee fields of the Kendall Plantation were thereafter without a
dependable source of fresh water As a result the dikes around the Kendall Plantation nee fields
ceased to be maintained and deteriorated to the point that the nee fields returned to coastal marsh
habitat It is the Applicant s understanding that prior owners of Orton Plantation previously
sought to permit the rehabilitation of portions of these nee fields but withdrew their application
when the application met with agency resistance
While this alternative would more completely satisfy the project purpose, it is not believed to be
the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative (LEDPA) Implementation of this
I Over 50 people (including member s of the NC Coastal Land Trust the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission the US Fish and Wildlife Seri ice and the Cape Fear Rn er Watch) attended this workshop
www Imgroup net info @Imgroup net Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave Suite 15 Wilmington NC 28403 P 0 Box 2522 Wilmington NC 28402

alternative would require substantial structural improvements to the Kendall Reserve Dam and
essentially reconstruction of dikes around former rice fields This alternative would have a
significant impact on coastal wetlands that have largely reverted to a natural and high
functioning condition As a result it has been eliminated from further consideration
D Rehabilitation Limited to the Front Rice Fields Rehabilitation of the front rice fields
alone will not achieve the Applicant s project purpose Reestablishing the historic extent of the
Orton Plantation Rice Fields supplied by the intact and functioning freshwater Orton Reserve
(Orton Pond) would necessarily include not only the two Front Rice Fields but Rice Field #1,
Rice Field #9 and the Back Rice Fields These fields are all part of the same system that has
been maintained over the last 287 years The practicable extent of historic rehabilitation includes
all the fields of this system Rehabilitation of only the Front Rice Fields would significantly
reduce the historic value and impair the functionality of the Orton Plantation nce field system
and thus is not a feasible alternative for satisfying the project purpose
E Rehabilitation of the Historical Extent of the Orton Plantation Rice Fields (Applicant's
Preferred Alternative) As described, the preferred protect is the least damaging, practicable
alternative that still meets the Applicant s purpose and need The extent of the proposed project
area has been defined by identifying the limits of the functioning water control system and dike
system associated with Orton Reserve (Orton Pond) The Applicant is proposing to protect and
rehabilitate only those remaining rice fields that have been maintained since the onset of
environmental regulation Unlike the effort required to rehabilitate the rice fields of the Kendall
Reserve System, rehabilitation of the Orton Reserve rice fields is a practicable alternative to
achieve the project purpose and is consistent with the conservation efforts of the owner The
preferred alternative also represents minimal disturbance to freshwater wetlands that have been
impounded for 287 years The long term and severe hydrologic modification to Orton rice fields
has resulted in documented functional degradation of the wetlands impounded within the rice
fields (refer to NCWAM discussion below) Therefore, functional impact to wetlands associated
with implementation of the preferred alternative is negligible
IV Environmental Consequences of Preferred Project Alternative
A Wetland Functional Assessment According to the N C Wetland Assessment Method (NC
WAM)2 the wetlands within the rice fields are for the most part, Low quality wetlands (see
attached summary figure) Therefore as described in the more complete NC WAM discussion in
Appendix A the protect will not result in a degradation of the productivity of those wetlands
That is the wetlands contained within the diked rice fields are hydrologically controlled as part
of the water management system and have been maintained to varying degrees as freshwater
impoundments dominated by non tidal freshwater marsh Overall the rice field wetlands have
Low levels of function regardless of which specific field was evaluated This overall conclusion
is consistent with the high level of hydrologic manipulation which resulted in our evaluating
1 NC WAM is afield method developed b) an interagency team of ► egulators (including the U S Army
Cops of Engineers and the U S Em a onmental Protection Agency) to pros ide an accurate consistent rapid
observational and scientifically based means to determine the lei el offunction of a wetland relative to a reference
condition (whe► a app► op► late) for each of 16 North Carolina gene► al wetland types NC WAM was c► eated to be
used fo► project planning alto► natives analysts compliance and enforcement mitigation planning and u ack-ing
functional replacement
www Imgroup net info @Imgroup net Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave Suite 15 Wilmington NC 28403 P 0 Box 2522 Wilmington NC 28402

metric 1 (Ground Surface Condition) as B (Severely altered) and metric 2 (Surface and Sub
surface Storage Capacity and Duration) as C (Substantially altered) for all the nce fields In
addition metric 22 (Hydraulic Connectivity) was evaluated as D since the overbank flooding
is severely altered by the presence and management of Orton Pond and the overland flow is
severely altered by the perimeter ditch which is present along the edge of a large portion of the
Back Field Even the now cleared Rivenne Swamp Forest on the southern part of the Back Field
(south of the Pine Island) had an overall low level of function This condition is mainly due to
the high degree of hydrologic manipulation the intensity of the quarter ditches the very
immature nature of this forest and the presence of about two to three feet of a quasi - floating
mat of organic debris over mineral soil as well as the hydrologic manipulation which makes this
now cleared Rivenne Swamp Forest very different in its characteristics from a reference
Rivenne Swamp Forest The Low overall functional value for many of the areas evaluated is
consistent with the high degree of edaphic and hydrologic alteration documented This degree of
alteration has affected the vegetative community structure to the extent that monoculture stands
of common reed (Phragmites austraks) are prevalent in many of the existing nce fields Prior to
bush - hogging, the Back Rice Fields consisted of a mix of emergent vegetation (e g, cattail)
scrub shrub vegetation (e g red maple, groundsel tree, and wax myrtle) and a scrub shrub
dominated by swamp forest trees (e g , red maple and wax myrtle) of relatively low density It
would be inaccurate to characterize any part of the Back Rice Field as a mature nvenne swamp
forest with one exception as described below
While a ma onty of the Back Rice Field was rated as Low overall functional value and low for
each of the three Functions, some level of wildlife function is associated with the wooded
condition in a few specific locations (see attached figure) Prior to bush hogging much of the
area consisted of scrub shrub wetlands with denser stands of bald cypress limited to the western
edge of the Back Rice Field immediately below Orton Pond and along the channelized portion of
Orton Creek where relatively mature Rivenne Swamp Forests still persist (see attached
representative photographs) Of particular importance, related to wildlife function, is the fact
that the project area consists of nce fields employing an intact and functioning water
management system As a result wildlife function is effectively controlled by management
practices implemented at any particular time by the owner Water management (flooding or
draining) bush hogging and/or controlled burns (all permissible activities not requiring federal
or state authorization) influence wildlife function to a far greater degree than the proposed,
relatively small, fill related activities that are prompting Section 404 /401 written authorization
Therefore, any effect on wildlife function attributable to the proposed activities requiring permit
authorization is negligible
The reintroduction of rice cultivation will not change the value or productivity of the wetlands
according to NC WAM Canals and quarter ditches within the fields will be restored and the
excavated material evenly distributed in a thin veneer across the fields without impairing
wetland character or functionality The fields will not lose their jurisdictional wetland
parameters and the quality of these wetlands will remain as overall Low quality Attached as
Appendix A is the summary of the NC WAM analysis documenting that there will be no
significant loss of functional value of the wetlands within the nce fields as a result of the project
Indeed, as described more fully below, the Orton Plantation will work to manage the rice fields
to actually increase their hydrology water quality and habitat values Therefore EPA s concern
that there will be irreversible loss of valuable aquatic resources or a significant impact on the
wetlands is incorrect
www Imgroup net info @Imgroup net Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave Suite 15 Wilmington NC 28403 P 0 Box 2522 Wilmington NC 28402

In response to EPA s review comments and statement that it is debatable as to whether a
monoculture of nee makes for a functional wetland to be utilized by a high diversity of wetland
biota (page 2 of EPA letter dated January 18 2012) an intensive literature review has been
conducted of the peer reviewed scientific literature concerning the value of nee fields for
wildlife with special attention to any possible management implications for Orton Plantation A
total of 28 articles were reviewed as summarized in the Annotated Bibliography (Appendix B of
this response)
Summary of Literatui e Review — There is substantial literature concerning the value of nee
fields for wildlife Most of the literature reflects studies conducted in Europe or Asia with some
important recent work done in California (mainly by Dr Christopher Elphick and his
colleagues) No literature is apparently available concerning wildlife and nee fields in the
eastern US with the exception of some work done in Louisiana The literature is somewhat
dominated by bird usage (especially waterbirds) because they represent the top consumers in the
food chain taking advantage of the abundance of prey individuals of the underlying trophic
levels Therefore, a healthy waterbird community probably reflects healthy lower trophic levels
Most of the literature shows that nee fields are heavily used by wading birds such as herons and
egrets (Richardson and Taylor 2003 in Australia Fasola 1986 in Italy, Acosta et al, 1996 in
Cuba, Fasola, et al, 1996 in the Mediterranean region, and Lane and Fujioka 1998 in Japan)
This work shows that nee fields provide significant habitat for these wading birds depending on
the species of wading bird For example Fasola (1986) notes that 46% and 39% of the
populations of Black crowned Night Herons (Nycticorax nycticorax) and Little Egret (Egretta
garzetta) respectively in Europe are supported by nee fields Similarly, Fasola, Canova and
Samo (1996) concluded that nee fields are the main foraging habitat for herons breeding in the
Mediterranean area Pierluissi and King (2008) found that nee fields in southwestern Louisiana
are important breeding habitats for King Rails (Rallus elegans) From a different viewpoint,
Tourenq et al, (2001) reported on damage to nee fields by the Greater Flamingo
(Phoenicopterus ruber roseus) in southeastern France, with suggestions on non lethal ways to
discourage use of nee fields by flamingos
With respect to other waterbirds, many publications cite the importance of nee fields to these
species Elphick and Onng (1998) reported on the widespread use of nee fields by a wide
variety of waterbirds in California and concluded that winter flooding of the fields results in a
great increase in waterbird use Similarly Rendon et al (2007) reported on the use of nee fields
for waterbirds in Spain Fasola and Ruiz (1996) reported on waterbird use of nee fields in the
Mediterranean region and noted that winter flooding is important but that bird exposure to
pesticides through their prey is of concern The authors also state that these concerns are
decreasing in developed countries since most pesticides are short lived and more target specific
Several authors have attempted to compare nee fields to natural wetlands for a variety of
waterbirds Elphick (2000) worked in California and concluded that flooded nee fields provided
habitat equivalent in value and function to that provided by natural wetlands in that area
Similarly Fasola Canova and Saino (1996b) summarized the literature on the benefit of nee
fields to a wide variety of waterbirds in the Mediterranean region They concluded that nee fields
are highly valuable as feeding habitats for a wide variety of waterbirds but less valuable as
breeding sites with flooding depth and duration as important variables affecting the value of nee
www Imgroup net info @Imgroup net Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave Suite 15 Wilmington NC 28403 P 0 Box 2522 Wilmington NC 28402

fields to waterbirds Finally Rendon et al (2007) studied waterbirds in Spain and concluded
that all mayor habitat types (including natural wetlands and nee fields) were important for
waterbirds wintering in the area since they act as alternative complementary sites for waterbirds
In contrast several publications have clearly shown that nee fields provide less valuable habitat
for waterbirds, compared to natural wetlands (Tourenq, et al 2001 in France Bellio et al 2009
in Sri Lanka and Ma et al 2004 in China) The difference seems to be due mainly to the
relative condition of the natural wetlands since the French, Chinese and Sri Lankan comparisons
were to reference or near reference quality wetlands while the California natural wetlands that
Elphick studied have alterations with respect to vegetation and hydrology to the point that he
refers to them as semi natural wetlands The nee fields at Orton Plantation have had
hydrologic and vegetative alterations for centuries and would ostensibly fit into Elphick s
category of semi natural wetlands
Some studies have examined amphibians and aquatic insects in nee fields Machado and
Maltchik (2010) reported on amphibian use of nee fields in Brazil and concluded that natural
high quality wetlands provided better amphibian habitat than nee fields, but that winter flooding
increased amphibian diversity in these fields Gonzalez Solis, et al, (1996) reported on the
seasonal variation of waterbird prey in nee fields in Spain and reported that high levels of
waterbird prey were present after harvest in these fields the presence of which enhances the
value of these wetlands during migration Marques and Vmcente (1999) reported that
amphibians crustaceans and fish were the most abundant prey taxa for waterbirds in nee fields
in the Sado estuary in Spain Lane and Fujioka (1998) reported on egret and heron food sources
in two different types of nee fields (one with earthen ditches and gravity flow of water and the
other with pumps and concrete lined ditches) in Japan and found little significant difference in
wading bird food species Finally Hesler et al, (1993) compared the arthropod fauna of
conventional and organic nee fields in California and reported that there was no significant
difference in pest abundance or damage with the exception of one particular pest (Hydrellia
gi iseola) a leaf miner with higher damage in some of the organic fields
Finally a number of publications address the effect of various management practices on
amphibians, invertebrate, waterbird and waterfowl use of nee fields Most of this work has been
done in California concerning nee straw management after the state of California began to phase
out nee straw burning for air quality reasons Bird et al, (2000), in California reported on the
effect of mallard ducks on nee straw decomposition and concluded that winter flooding of nee
fields (which encourages waterfowl use) accelerates straw decomposition through waterfowl
grazing In a broader study Van Groening et al (2003) in California reported similar but less
dramatic results but also reported that waterfowl foraging dramatically reduced the weeds in the
field the following year and therefore reduced the need for subsequent weed management using
herbicides Day and Colwell (1998) reported on differing post - harvest treatments in California
and found that conventional harvest (with cutter bars) and shallow winter flooding (to 10 cm in
depth) resulted in the best waterbird community Elphick (2003) and Elphick and Onng (2004)
reported on the benefits of winter flooding on waterbird and non waterbird communities in
California They concluded that winter flooding of nee fields had wide - ranging benefits to bird
communities in this area Finally Lawler (2001) summarized the literature regarding nee fields
as habitat for waterbirds She concluded that nee fields can provide significant habitat for a
variety of invertebrates and vertebrates especially waterbirds and frogs Overall she concluded
that native diversity in nee fields increases with reduced pesticide use, longer hydropenods and
fanning methods that are less physically disruptive such as soil versus concrete irrigation
www Imgroup net info @Imgroup net Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave Suite 15 Wilmington NC 28403 P 0 Box 2522 Wilmington NC 28402

systems She concludes that organic nee cultivation is better than traditional nee cultivation in
terns of its environmental effects
Management Implications at Orton Plantation — As noted elsewhere in this submittal the
wetlands at Orton Plantation that are proposed to be reestablished as nee fields are of Low
overall quality with presently Low habitat value according to NC WAM mainly due to the severe
alteration of ground surface and hydrology over the centuries when these areas were active nee
fields Comparison of the wildlife value of these fields after conversion to nee must take into
account the present condition of the fields Therefore the publications that show degraded
waterbird use of nee fields compared to natural high quality wetlands must be discounted since
natural or reference condition Nevertheless the literature provides important guidance for the
proposed reestablishment of the Orton Plantation nee fields as outlined below
From the literature review, it is evident that nee fields can provide significant habitat value
particularly if certain management practices are employed (as described below) Orton
Plantation provides an excellent opportunity to conduct this work since there are a variety of
fields (Back Field #1 #9, Front north and Front south fields) in a variety of conditions which
can be tested using different management approaches To that end the following approach is
proposed
It is clear that management of nee fields can have a significant effect on the value of these fields
for a wide variety of amphibians, invertebrates and waterbirds Given that the intent of the Orton
project is to restore nee cultivation without concern for high yields that purpose can easily
accommodate wildlife friendly management Therefore, the applicant proposes to consult with
Dr Elphick at the University of Connecticut, a well regarded and widely published author in this
field to develop a draft post permit management plan for review by the agencies with the aim to
increase wildlife function of these wetlands after conversion to nee fields The Orton team
presently plans to develop the draft plan in consultation with Dr Elphick and to review the plan
with appropriate agencies This plan will focus on amphibians and the waterbird community
Expected components of this plan include organic production and /or an integrated pest
management approach, as well as winter flooding of the fields after harvest, in order to
encourage this increased wildlife habitat use The result of this management plan will be an
increase in the present wetland quality (especially in terms of hydrology water quality and
habitat functions) since more frequent flooding post harvest (which was not done historically)
would increase water retention and filtration as well as provide water for waterbirds and
reproduction of amphibians It should be pointed out that the management plan is not intended
to be research although the applicant may explore proposals from legitimate researchers A
number of entities (including the Carolina Gold Foundation and the Rice Foundation) may be
available to assist with funding for scientific research The net result of this management plan
will be management of the proposed nee fields at Orton Plantation in a manner which provides
for nee cultivation and increases the level of function of these presently impaired wetlands
B Avoidance and Minimization The nee fields of Orton Plantation represent the surviving
remnant of nee culture in North Carolina and the northernmost intact water management system
specifically designed for the cultivation of nee in the southeast There are no other such nee
fields in the State of North Carolina These nee fields are part of an integrated system, joined
together by a functioning water management system The dikes protecting the fields and the
components of the water management system have been continuously maintained since the 18`h
www imgroup net info @imgroup net Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave Suite 15 Wilmington NC 28403 P O Box 2522 Wilmington NC 28402
78308 000002 EMF US 388204550 1

Century The N C State Historic Preservation Office has advised that the nee fields satisfy the
eligibility cntena for listing on the National Register of Historic Places As such, the nee fields
could collectively be treated as a designated historic property 33 CFR Part 325 Appendix C
The protect purpose is the protection and rehabilitation of the historic nee fields which will have
a beneficial effect on the historic value of those properties Indeed, neglect of the nee field water
management system components may result in their deterioration or destruction a consideration
in the criteria for adverse effect at Appendix C pars 15(b)(4) A principal of the corporate
Applicant is a direct lineal descendant of the founder of Orton Plantation who is buried on the
plantation property The Applicant thus has a unique interest in the reestablishment of nee
cultivation at Orton Plantation The historic nature of the fields and the fact that they are the last
remaining intact nee fields in North Carolina, situated in a historic plantation (which is otherwise
being rehabilitated without requiring activity in waters of the United States) means that work in
those fields including dike repair and maintenance, repair and maintenance of water
management system components maintenance of interior ditches, and preparation of the fields
for planting, cannot be avoided within the dimensions of the nee fields, without diminishing the
historic value of the nee plantation It is important to note, however that the dikes with the
exception of the revetment on the Cape Fear River will be maintained within the original
footprint of the existing dikes and that the nee fields, in their entirety will retain their character
as wetlands In fact a 122 acre portion of the front nee field converted to an upland by the
deposition by the U S Army Corps of Engineers of dredged spoil from the Cape Fear River, will
be restored to its historic wetland character The maintenance of the existing canals and quarter
ditches in the nee fields is exempt from the requirement for a permit under Section 404 33
U S C § 1344(f)(1)(C) Furthermore bush hogging (as has already occurred) is an allowable
activity within jurisdictional wetlands Clearing of existing vegetation is regulated only to the
extent that it involves significant disturbance of soil (mechamzed land clearing) Therefore
activities regulated under Section 404 will include only the broadening of the footprint of the
revetment protecting the Front Rice Fields from the Cape Fear River, and some land preparation
which will not have the effect of converting the nee fields from their wetlands character and will
have virtually no effect on the functionality of the wetland, based upon NC WAM
Following discussions with the NC Division of Coastal Management, the Applicant has agreed to
further minimize its permanent impacts on wetlands by scaling back the revetment work from the
entire dike facing the Cape Fear River to only that portion which is most immediately threatened
by the extreme erosive forces of the wakes from large ocean going vessels using the nearby
Corps maintained Cape Fear River navigation channel The revised revetment layout is being
developed and will be provided promptly upon completion The revision to the revetment will
significantly reduce the total permanent wetland impacts associated with the project It is likely
not a permanent solution for Orton, as the erosive forces will continue but it addresses the
immediate need
C Agricultural Practices As indicated during the December 7, 2011, on site agency meeting
there will be fertilizer and pesticide application used as needed to ensure the survival and success
of the nee planted The application rate of fertilizer (inorganic form) will be based upon need as
determined by soil testing prior to planting in conjunction with the management plan described
in section IV B (Rice Fields and Wildlife Habitat) of this report Since the restoration of historic
nee cultivation at Orton Plantation will not require maximizing yield for commercial production,
the amount of fertilizer applied will be minimized as much as practicable Furthermore the
method of nee growing will reduce the opportunity for release of N or P to downstream waters
www Imgroup net info @Imgroup net Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave Suite 15 Wilmington NC 28403 P 0 Box 2522 Wilmington NC 28402

Application of fertilizer (if necessary) will occur early in the growing cycle of the nee, when
water is being retained on site As the nee grows and water elevations increase the
concentration of soluble nutrients will decrease from plant uptake, demtnfication (in the case of
nitrate nitrogen) and /or adsorption to fine sediments such as silts or clays and binding to
organic matter present in the soil
Biogeochemlcal cycling of N and P is dramatically different in wetlands than in well drained
upland fanned areas Aerobic conditions of upland farm fields coupled with localized ditching
and channelization of surface waters result in the well documented nutnent loading to
downstream waters Conversely, wetlands (particularly those subject to prolonged saturation and
inundation) are typically considered sinks for N and P due to relatively long hydrologic residence
tunes and resulting increased opportunity for plant uptake nutrient transformation and sediment
adsorption In particular, the release of nitrate nitrogen to downstream waters is significantly
reduced by denitnfication (magnified under anaerobic conditions) or leaching into groundwater
where biological processes (microbial /plant uptake) result in N transformation to organic forms
In light of these physiochemical conditions, and the water management planned at the site, the
potential for measurable release of soluble N or P to the Cape Fear River from the nee
cultivation is negligible
Pesticides approved for use in aquatic sites will be applied as necessary to reduce the risk of
mortality of nee culms in conjunction with the proposed management plan As with the
application of fertilizer pesticides will be applied prior to the inundation of the nee fields in
accordance with EPA - approved labels The types of pesticides used in aquatic sites generally
have high adsorption coefficients and short half lives Given the prolonged hydrologic residence
time needed for nee growth any pesticide used will readily break down in solution and will not
persist in concentrations that would adversely affect downstream water quality
Similarly, any sediment flux resulting from mechanical tilling will not persist due to the
hydrologic management of the fields Inundation and subsequent increased residency times will
result in the precipitation of suspended solids within the fields In addition, the size of the
controlling outflow onfices will restrict the release of sediment to downstream waters
In summary the management plan described above will be designed to minimize the use of
pesticides and fertilizer use in the nee fields Integrated Pest Management and/or organic
fanning will be actively investigated and incorporated into this plan Since the applicant is not
interested in commercial nee production it is very likely that a management plan which
minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizer will ultimately be adopted Elements of the
management plan (e g reduction of the use of pesticides /fertilizers, the type of
pesticides /fertilizers applied and the proper hydrologic management) will further minimize the
potential for release of nutrients or contaminants to downstream waters to the extent that any
potential environmental effect would be negligible
V Compensatory Mitigation
There is no significant permanent impact resulting from the work in the 333 74 acres of
freshwater wetlands in the nee fields The wetlands in the nee fields have been determined by
NCWAM (an assessment method developed by EPA, the Corps of Engineers and the NC
Division of Water Quality as well as other state and federal agencies) to be for the most part
www Imgroup net info @Imgroup net Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave Suite 15 Wilmington NC 28403 P 0 Box 2522 Wilmington NC 28402

overall Low Quality The work in the nee fields will result in no change in that functional
assessment The present volunteer scrub /shrub vegetation in the nee fields would be replaced by
nee and by crops in rotation following proper nee cultivation practices The work performed in
the Back Rice Fields will have no effect on the extent of jurisdictional wetlands The character
of the present wetlands will remain overall Low Quality With no change in functional value no
mitigation is appropriate According to the 2008 Federal Compensatory Mitigation Rule to
which EPA cites ecological performance standards should be utilized so a mitigation project can
be objectively evaluated
Ecological performance standards must be based the best
available science that can be measured or assessed in a practicable
manner Performance standards may be based on variables or
measures of functional capacity described in functional assessment
methodologies, measurements of hydrology or other aquatic
resource characteristics and/or comparisons to reference aquatic
resources of similar type and landscape position
33 CFR § 332 5(b) NC WAM which was developed cooperatively with EPA Region 4 and the
Corps of Engineers, is the functional assessment methodology in North Carolina which satisfies
this provision If as measured by NC WAM the functional capacity of the pre project nee
fields is no greater than the post - project nee fields, no significant permanent impacts will occur
and mitigation is not appropriate
The forested wetlands (Back Rice Field) referred to by EPA were predominately scrub /shrub
vegetation (see photos attached) Based on historic aerial photography dating back to 1939 this
field has displayed varying degrees of vegetative cover with some years showing this
scrub /shrub condition and other years showing an essentially cleared condition One location of
fairly mature cypress is present in the Back Field near the channelized Orton Creek and the
Applicant has no plans to disturb this area In addition all of the fields have Phragmites
infestation to some degree Conversion to nee field by eliminating a dominating Phragmites
infestation is a positive significant permanent consequence
Given the anticipated reduction of coastal wetland impacts associated with the rehabilitation of
the Front Rice Field revetment the Applicant is considering the use of credits from an approved
private mitigation bank and/or payment into the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
rather than on site mitigation On site restoration of coastal wetlands would be considered an
ecologically appropriate form of mitigation (and consistent with a watershed based approach) if
coastal wetlands were the primary type of wetland to be impacted However consideration of
alternative forms of compensatory mitigation may be warranted in light of the reduction of
coastal wetland impacts and in light of the 2008 Federal Mitigation Rule The Applicant will
provide a formal proposal for compensatory mitigation to permitting agencies in the near future
once the specific reduction of coastal wetland impacts is quantified
Please contact me with any questions that you may have regarding this information Thank you
for your assistance
www Imgroup net info @Imgroup net Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave Suite 15 Wilmington NC 28403 P 0 Box 2522 Wilmington NC 28402

Sincerely,
Steve Momson
Environmental Consultant
Encl. Appendix A NC WAM evaluations at the Orton Plantation
Appendix B, Annotated Bibliograpy
Figures 1 and 2
1949 NAPP aerial photograph
Representative photographs, Back Rice Field
Cc Orton Plantation Holdings LLC
Craig Bromby, Hunton & Williams
www Imgroup net info @Imgroup net Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave Suite 15 Wilmington NC 28403 P 0 Box 2522 Wilmington NC 28402

Appendix A — NC WAM evaluations at the Orton Plantation
Analysis of Wetland Function at Orton Plantation, Brunswick County, NC
Atkins North America
January 27, 2012
a Background
The North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) was used to
conduct a wetland functional assessment for this project as described below NC WAM
was developed by an interagency team, including the NC Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) NC WAM has been presented
to the Environmental Management Commission (EMC), discussed at several scientific
conferences and used for several NC DOT protect but apparently this is the first use of
NC WAM for a private project in NC
DWQ rules encourage use of a `Wetland Evaluation Procedure that has
widespread acceptance in the scientific commumty (15A NCAC 2B 0103(c))
Similarly the Corps/EPA point mitigation rule mandates the use of appropriate
functional or condition assessment methods" where available 33 CFR 332 3(f) to
assess loss of aquatic resources functions The Orton Team believes that use of NC
WAM is appropriate for this project both from a state and federal viewpoint Therefore
NC WAM was used for this project to determine the existing level of function for the
wetlands on site
The purpose of the proposed permanent fills is to restore the revetments and
repair water control structures throughout the project while the temporary impact to the
non -tidal freshwater marsh are needed to prepare the nee fields for regular replanting
The Corps Public Notice (US Army Corps of Engineers 2011) states that the nee fields
will continue to remain wetlands after these temporary impacts The project proposal
was to fill and thereby permanently impact a total of 3 33 acres of freshwater wetlands
up to 15 acres of coastal wetland and 6 4 acres of open water as well as have temporary
impacts to 333 74 acres of freshwater wetland Based upon an evaluation of a range of
alternatives it is believed that the most appropriate and environmentally preferable
compensatory mitigation for the proposed wetland impacts is to provide high - quality
coastal marsh restoration on the Orton Plantation property (i a on site ) to compensate
for the unavoidable impacts of the project As documented in the mitigation plan the
proposed mitigation will provide functional uplift that meets or exceeds the functions of
the low value freshwater wetlands and the high to medium value salt/brackish marsh that
will be unavoidably impacted by the project
Compensatory wetland mitigation is normally only required for permanent
impacts to wetlands — indeed, the Division of Water Quality s rules refer to
' As described elsewhere the proposed compensatory mitigation (on site salt/brackish marsh
restoration) may result in an inci ease to the total area of disturbance to low value non tidal freshwater
marsh This disturbance will be unavoidable as part of the restoi ation effort and will be offset accordingly
as described in the mitigation plan

unavoidable losses of existing uses" and ` replacement of wetland acres lost '
15A NCAC 2H 0506(h)(6) Therefore no mitigation is proposed for temporary impacts,
especially considering that the freshwater wetlands are rated overall Low value The
open water impacts should not require compensatory mitigation since these impacts
affect ditches on the property or are needed to stabilize the revetments to continue to
protect the rice fields Therefore, compensatory mitigation is proposed for the 15 acres
of impact to high to medium value salt marsh and 3 33 acres of impact to low value non
tidal freshwater marsh
b Wetland Functional Assessment Process
NC WAM was used to determine the level of function for the wetlands on the
Orton Plantation property NC WAM (N C Wetland Functional Assessment Team 2010)
is an observationally based, rapid assessment method developed over the past several
years by an interagency team of wetland regulators and wetland experts in NC The
ultimate result compares the wetland to a suitable reference suite of relatively undisturbed
wetlands and results in ratings of High (less disturbed), Medium (moderately disturbed)
or Low (highly disturbed) On October 20, 2011, John Domey and Brad Allen from
Atkins conducted a site visit to the wetlands at Orton Plantation in order to evaluate the
level of function of these wetlands using the most current version (Version 4 1) of the NC
WAM In follow up visits on November 7, 2011 and December 16, 2012, John Dorney
conducted several additional NC WAM evaluations on the site and at a nearby,
representative location (USS North Carolina) The purpose of this work was to visit
representative locations of each of these wetlands and conduct an NC WAM evaluation
in order to support the permit application and eventual compensatory mitigation plan for
unavoidable impacts to these wetlands These evaluations update those included with the
404 application package Because of the complexity of the site and the lack of directly
comparable reference sites, the initial NC WAM evaluations erroneously rated the value
of the wetlands within the rice fields as determined by Mr Dorney and Mr Allen both of
whom were actively involved in the development of NC WAM and have been instructors
for all 12 classes taught to date The updated evaluations accurately reflect the level of
function present in the Orton Plantation wetlands This evaluation showed that freshwater
wetlands on the site are of Low overall functional value except for some arms of the rice
fields In addition, the salt/brackish marsh along the Cape Fear River is of Medium
Quality where it has been narrowed by severe erosion from the federal shipping channel
or of High value where it is wider Finally, the saltibrackish marsh along the north side
of Orton Creek is also of High overall value All of these evaluations (except for the USS
North Carolina evaluations) are shown on Figure 1 which graphically depict the data
presented in Table 1
c Hydrological background
Mr Dillon Epp (Orton Plantation Project Manager) was queried concerning the
past and present practices of land and water management on the Orton Plantation The
purpose of obtaining this narrative was to document the substantial alterations to the
natural hydrologic regime and the resultant vegetation change that occurred (and

continues to occur) in response to this alteration The area was first impacted in the early
1700 s with construction of Orton Pond (the Pond) which is an 880 acre five mile long
pond built to supply gravity fed water to the rice plantation along Orton Creek and the
Cape Fear River Land for the rice plantation was probably cleared shortly thereafter
Originally we believe the front fields as well as fields # 1 and # 9 were probably
salt/brackish marshes and the back field was probably riverme swamp forest, based on
their position in the landscape relative to the location of Orton Creek, the Cape Fear
River and local topography (Figure 1) Water flowed from the Pond to the fields when it
was needed for rice cultivation At other times which was the predominant condition
water from the Pond flowed (and flows) down the Pond spillway channel to the Cape
Fear River The rice fields were, and are allowed to dry out in the early spring when
historically the land was plowed by mule and oxen and then planted to rice As the rice
grew water was gradually added to the rice fields to keep the growing rice in standing
water, but the water level was kept below the top of the growing rice plants Planting
occurred in April and rice was harvested in September The fields were allowed to
completely dry out before harvest One crop of rice was grown annually Since rice was
only grown for about 90 days (with some additional land preparation time and drying
time for harvest), during most of the year water flowed from Orton Pond via the spillway
channel to the Cape Fear River
Rice was grown until 1931 when a severe blight hit the area and prevented rice
cultivation After that time, water levels in the rice fields were managed for waterfowl
but with approximately the same schedule Eventually Phragmites began to invade the
fields and, despite efforts to control it Phragmites eventually took over the fields,
particularly the North Front Field and the South Front Field The Phragmites was
sprayed in late 2011 and the applicant plans to control its growth in the future From the
1949 aerial photo submitted with the permit application, the extent of the so called
quarter ditches is readily apparent throughout the fields
It is also apparent from historical aerial photos that portions of the North Front
and South Front fields were used as spoil disposal areas from dredging of the Cape Fear
River This was confirmed by soil sampling that was done during the NC WAM
evaluations which found predominately sandy soils in several locations in the North Front
and South Front fields including a 122 acre upland location in the North Front field
Finally based on an analysis of aerial photos from 1998, 2004, and 2010 (Figure 2)
erosion along the Cape Fear River has been significant but uneven with greater erosion
on the section that huts out into the River (associated with a narrower salt marsh fringe)
and along the southern end near the confluence of the Orton spillway channel with the
River
d Results of NC WAM evaluation
A total of seventeen (17) NC WAM forms were completed at locations with soil samples
taken at each location as well as observations of wetland condition (Table 1 and Figure
1) Multiple forms were completed on the North Front Field, Field # 1 and the Back

Field since slightly different soil conditions were found within these locations Since no
differences were found between the levels of function within these fields despite the
different soil conditions, the data were combined into a single evaluation per field
Completed sheets for the seventeen sites were submitted with the application materials
Figure 1 depicts all the NC WAM data collected to date at Orton Plantation These data
graphically depict the results of the evaluations with separate maps for hydrology, water
quality habitat and finally overall wetland quality In general, hydrology is medium
over most of the site with the exception of a few arms of the Back Field where diking and
beaming have severely impaired the hydrology and one arm which is rated High
(Evaluation 13) of the Back Field which is at a higher elevation and drams to the Back
Field Water quality is low over most of the site except for the brackish/salt marsh and a
few of the arms of the Back Field and Field # 9 as well as directly below Orton Pond
Habitat is also low over most of the site except for the brackish/salt marsh and several of
the arms of the Back Rice field Overall most of the wetland acreage on site is of Low
quality except for the brackish/salt marsh and locations with more mature nverine swamp
forest and a few of the arms of the Back Rice field and Field # 9 Of the areas originally
requested to be put into rice plantation, only one area (the arm of Field #9) has an overall
value higher than Low since this site is rated overall Medium Otherwise, all the areas
planned to be placed into nce cultivation are rated as Low overall value In contrast the
salt/brackish marsh on the site is generally of High overall quality and High for all three
functions except for the narrower fringe along the Cape Fear River where active erosion
has diminished the wetland function
Freshwater wetlands Overall the nce field wetlands have Low levels of function
regardless of which specific field was evaluated This overall conclusion is consistent
with the high level of hydrologic manipulation as described above which resulted in our
evaluating metric 1 (Ground Surface Condition) as B (Severely altered) and metric 2
(Surface and Sub surface Storage Capacity and Duration) as C (Substantially altered)
for all the nce fields Even the now cleared Rivenne Swamp Forest on the southern part
of the Back Field (south of the Pine Island) had an overall low level of function This
condition is mainly due to the high degree of hydrologic manipulation the intensity of
the quarter ditches, and the presence of about two to three feet of a quasi floating mat of
organic debris over mineral soil which makes this now cleared Rivenne Swamp Forest
very different in its characteristics from a reference Rivenne Swamp Forest Portions of
the wetland in the North Front Field have been exposed to salt water intrusion where the
dike was temporarily breached due to the erosive forces of tides in the Cape Fear River,
amplified by wave action resulting from ships using the nearby Corps maintained Cape
Fear shipping channel Overall, this past salt water intrusion has not altered the level of
function of the wetland since it is of Low overall quality throughout the North Front field
The only exception to this overall Low rating was for arms of these nce fields that had
their own relatively undisturbed watersheds (Evaluations 9, 12 and 13) In these
situations the overall functional rating was either High or Medium depending on the
degree of past disturbance The two exceptions (Evaluations 13 and 14) were for arms of
the Back Rice field that had separate watersheds but those watersheds also had their

hydrology severely altered (Metric 1) or substantially altered (Metric 2) by berms for a
dam or the Orton spillway channel that cut across the watersheds of these wetlands
thereby severely altering the drainage much like that for the Back Field itself Of these
three locations with more than Low overall value only one location (Evaluation 9 at the
Field # 9 — western arm) was planned to be converted to rice fields
Salt/braclush marsh wetlands Two sets of NC WAM forms have been completed for
the salt/brackish marsh along the Cape Fear River by John Dorney of Atkins staff
(Evaluations 3, 4, and 5) One location (Evaluation 3) was rated on October 20, 2011 near
the joint boundary of the North and South Front fields where the salt marsh is wider and
more stable and the second location (Evaluation 4) was rated on November 7, 2011 at the
narrower part of the marsh near the bulkhead dust south of the old breach near the middle
of the North Front nce fields (Table 1) The fringing salt/brackish marsh along the Cape
Fear River was evaluated at high tide near the mutual boundary of the North and South
fields This marsh was found to have a High level of function although it is notable that it
is being gradually and inexorably eroded from boat wakes from the Cape Fear shipping
channel in the Cape Fear River, so it is uncertain how much longer it will remain in its
present condition The evaluation done on the narrower marsh along the Cape Fear River
showed that it is of Medium overall quality (Medium for Hydrology function, High for
Water Quality function, and Low for Habitat function) mainly where the marsh width is
about 100 foot or narrower The main reason that this salt/brackish marsh is of lower
quality than the marsh near the North and South Front field location is that the this marsh
is narrower and actively eroding which results in its lower quality Since a large portion
of the salt marsh to be impacted is of the lower condition its replacement with High
quality salt/brackish marsh mitigation should more than offset the unavoidably lost
functions Finally an evaluation (Evaluation 5) was made for the salt/brackish marsh
along the north side of Orton Creek (across from Field # 1) which showed that this marsh
is of High overall quality and is therefore likely a suitable reference site for the planned
salt/brackish marsh restoration at the top end of the North Front Rice field
Battleship North Carolina site — Upon request of the US Army Corps of Engineers, an
NC WAM evaluation was made of the riverme swamp forest near the Battleship to
update the evaluation done in January 2006 by the Wetland Functional Assessment
Team This site provides a comparison to the condition of the rivenne swamp forest in
the Back Rice fields These evaluations are noted below as well The evaluations used
different versions of the NC WAM manual (version 3 1 from 2006 and version 4 1 for
2011) Overall this wetland still rated Low due to the severe hydrologic alteration at the
site (severely restricted overland and overbank flow) despite the fact that the site is
dominated by mature (although second or third growth) hardwood and cypress forest

Table 1 NC WAM evaluations of the level of wetland function for wetlands at Orton
Plantation
NC WAM
Location
Wetland
Date of
Hydrology
Water
Habitat
Overall
evaluation
Type
analysis
Quality
Value
number
(all
Version
41 of
Manual
except as
noted)
1
North
Non tidal
October
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Front Field
freshwater
20 2012
marsh
2
South
Non tidal
October
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Front Field
freshwater
20 2012
marsh
3
Tidal marsh
Salt /brackish
October
High
High
High
High
along Cape
marsh
20 2012
Fear River
at North
and South
Front field
boundary
4
Tidal marsh
Salt /brackish
November
Medium
High
Low
Medium
along Cape
marsh
7 2011
Fear River
near
bulkhead
5
Tidal marsh
Salt /brackish
December
High
High
High
High
along north
marsh
16 2011
side of
Orton
Creek
6
Field # 1
Non tidal
October
Medium
Low
Low
Low
freshwater
20 2012
marsh
7
Orton
Riverine
December
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
Creek
swamp
16 2011
below
forest
Orton Pond
8
Field # 9
Non tidal
October
Medium
Low
Low
Low
freshwater
20 2012

marsh
9
Field # 9 —
Riverine
December
Medium
High
Low
Medium
western
swamp
16 2011
arm
forest
10
Back field
Non tidal
October
Medium
Low
Low
Low
near access
freshwater
20 2012
road
marsh
11
Back field
Riverine
October
Low
Low
Low
Low
south of
swamp
20 2012
pine island
forest
12
Back field
Riverine
December
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
# 8 arm to
swamp
16 2011
northeast
forest
13
Back field
Riverine
December
High
High
Medium
High
# 4 arm to
swamp
16 2011
south
forest
14
Back field
Riverine
December
Low
Low
Medium
Low
# 3 arm to
swamp
16 2011
south
forest
below
drained
pond
15
Back field
Riverine
December
Low
Low
Low
Low
# 2 arm to
swamp
16 2011
south
forest
16
LISS North
Riverine
January
Low
Low
High
Low
Carolina
swamp
27 2006
forest
(Version
313 of
Manual)
17
USS North
Riverine
December
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Carolina
swamp
16 2011
forest

Appendix B — Annotated Bibliography for Rice Fields and Wildlife Usage
Acosta M, L Mugica, C Mancina and X Ruiz 1996 Resource partitioning between
Glossy and White Ibises in a nce field system in southcentral Cuba Colonial Waterbirds
19(l) 65 72
Location of study — south central Cuba
Species studied — ibises
Types of wetlands — nce fields
Findings — The authors determined that both species of ibis fed extensively in nce fields
but were segregated by diet with white ibis feeding on invertebrates in recently muddied
fields and glossy ibis feeding on nce grams as well as invertebrates in flooded nce fields
Note that both ibis species occur in coastal North Carolina in moderate numbers (Potter,
Parnell and Teulings 1980 Birds of the Carolinas University of NC Press)
2 Bellio M G, R T Kingsford and S W Kotagama 2009 Natural versus artificial
wetlands and their waterbirds in Sri Lanka Biological Conservation 142 3076 — 3085
Location of study — south east Sri Lanka
Species studied — various waterbirds (68 species of 18 families)
Types of wetlands — reference quality natural salt marshes versus artificial wetlands
(irrigation tanks (irrigation ponds), salt ponds, nce paddies)
Findings — The authors found that the different wetland habitats had differing populations
of waterbirds They conclude that artificial wetlands supported waterbirds but were not
adequate replacements for loss of natural wetlands Rice paddies had the lowest diversity
and species evenness among the artificial wetlands Egrets, storks herons and ibis were
found in similar densities in artificial and natural wetlands However since the natural
wetlands were salt marsh and the rice paddies were freshwater systems it is difficult to
compare the waterbird populations of these two very different wetland types especially
since the salt marshes were of very high quality (Ramsar sites)
3 Bird T A G S Pettygrove and J M Eadie 2000 The impact of waterfowl foraging on
the decomposition of rice straw Mutual benefits for nce growers and waterfowl
Journal of Applied Ecology 37 (5) 728 — 741

Location of study — Central Valley, California
Species studied — mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos)
Types of wetlands — nee fields with varying post harvest treatments
Findings — The authors used captive mallard ducks in experimental plots and found that
waterfowl foraging accelerated nee straw decomposition especially in untilled plots while
nitrogen concentrations in surface straw were also reduced by waterfowl foraging
especially in tilled fields (increase in decomposition of 78 %) They conclude the
waterfowl foraging can substantially increase straw decomposition and suggest that this
is an example of a mutually beneficial solution (winter flooding of post harvest nee
fields) to provide waterfowl habitat while addressing an agricultural problem
4 Brouder S M and J E Hill 1995 Winter flooding or ncelands provides waterfowl
habitat California Agriculture 49 (6) 58 — 64
Location of study — Sacramento Valley California
Species studied — waterfowl
Types of wetlands — nee fields
Findings — The authors report on an ongoing long term research effort to determine how
nee straw management and flooding affects use of nee fields by waterfowl in California
They report that nee fields have (on average) about 80% of the food value of the
remaining natural wetlands in the Sacramento Valley They are investigating various
mechanisms to use to increase the value of these nee fields to waterfowl as well as
maintain the agricultural production of these fields Various types of straw management
and flooding are being studied over a five year period
5 Day J H and M A Colwell 1998 Waterbird communities in nee fields subjected to
different post harvest treatments Colonial Waterbirds 21 (2) 185 197
Location of study — Sacramento Valley, California
Species studied —water birds
Types of wetlands — nee fields

Findings The authors studied the effect of a variety of harvesting techniques and
flooding on waterbird use of nee fields They found that species diversity was greatest on
conventionally harvested rather than stripped fields and in flooded fields The various
nee straw management techniques had no significant difference on waterbird diversity
The authors conclude that nee farming practices affects the diversity of waterbirds in the
Central Valley of California Conventional harvest with shallow flooding results in a
more diverse waterbird community
6 Elphick, C S and L W Onng 1998 Winter management of Californian nee fields for
waterbirds Journal of Applied Ecology 35 95 108
Location of study — Sacramento Valley California
Species studied —water birds
Types of wetlands — winter flooded nee fields
Findings The authors concluded that winter flooding of nee fields in CA increased
suitable habitat for most but not all of the species studied Of the 31 species studied, 24
had increased use of flooded fields than unflooded fields Only great blue herons (Ardea
herodias) and sandhill cranes (Gros canadensis) preferred unflooded fields Again fields
with unharvested straw were preferred by most species probably since those fields were
thought to encourage invertebrate populations which were a food source for some of the
waterfowl
7 Elphick, C S 2000 Functional equivalency between nee fields and semi natural wetland
habitats Conservation Biology 14 (1) 181 191
Location of study — Sacramento Valley, California
Species studied — waterbirds
Types of wetlands — nee fields and semi natural wetlands (seasonally flooded freshwater
marshes)
Findings — The author compared several aspects of nee fields and semi natural wetlands
in California from the viewpoint of aquatic life including aquatic invertebrates and a
variety of waterbirds The semi natural wetlands that the author studied are seasonally
flooded freshwater marshes or moist soil habitats managed for waterfowl but are the

nearest approximation to natural wetlands remaining in this area Overall he found the
flooded nee fields provided equivalent foraging habitat to semi natural wetlands and
since there was reduced predation in flooded nee fields they may be a safer habitat for
waterbirds Abundance of aquatic invertebrates was not different between nee fields and
semi natural wetlands In conclusion, the author states that flooded nee fields can be
considered equivalent to semi - natural wetlands for the waterbird species considered and
if nee fields are managed appropriately they can provide valuable waterbird habitat
Elphick, C S 2004 Assessing conservation trade offs Identifying the effects of flooding
nee fields for waterbirds on non target bird species Biological Conservation 117 105
110
Location of study — Sacramento Valley California
Species studied — non -game water and land birds
Types of wetlands — winter flooded nee fields
Findings — The author studied how the winter flooding of post harvest nee fields affected
use by non waterfowl birds in the Sacramento Valley of California He concluded that
winter flooding has no effect on most species and may benefit some passerine birds
Finally, the author points out the need for additional research to determine how field
management affects various bird species
9 Elphick C S and L W Onng 2003 Conservation implications of flooding nee fields
on winter waterbird communities Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 94 17 —
29
Location of study — Sacramento Valley California
Species studied —water birds
Types of wetlands — winter flooded nee fields
Findings — The authors studied winter flooding in nee fields and concluded that flooded
fields were much more valuable to waterbirds than un- flooded fields in terms of overall
waterbird richness, abundance and conservation value They also examined the effect of
various nee straw management practices with the lowest levels of waterbird use in fields
where the straw was removed before flooding Water depth also had a significant effect
on waterbird use with maximum use at 10 15 cm of water depth

10 Fasola, M 1986 Resource use of foraging herons in agricultural and nonagncultural
habitats in Italy Colonial Waterbirds 9(2) 139 —148
Location of study — northwest Italy
Species studied —five species of herons
Types of wetlands — nee fields, rivers, canals and freshwater marsh in an old river oxbow
Findings — The author studied feeding behaviors of five species of heron (Black crowned
Night Heron Nycticorax nycacorax), Little Egret (Egretta gaisetta), Grey Heron (Ardea
cinerea), Purple Heron (Ardea purpurea), and Squacco Heron (Ardeola ralloides) in
northwest Italy in a variety of habitats including nee fields The author reports that nee
fields contain 46% and 3 9% of the Italian breeding populations of the Black crowned
Night Heron and the Little Egret, respectively All five species were reported to use the
nee fields which also supported the greatest densities of three of the five species
Separate zones were used within the nee fields which corresponded to micro habitats
within the fields which had higher prey densities The author concluded that the five
species were non territorial and non competitive during feeding in nee fields since prey
is superabundant The author concluded that nee fields are very important habitat for
herons in Italy
11 Fasola, M and X Ruiz 1996a The value of nee fields as substitutes for natural
wetlands for waterbirds in the Mediterranean region Colonial Waterbirds 19 (Special
Publication 1) 122 128
Location of study — the entire Mediterranean region
Species studied — a variety of waterbirds
Types of wetlands — nee fields
Findings — The authors summarize numerous citations in order to determine the overall
importance of nee fields to waterbirds in the Mediterranean region They conclude that
are very valuable as feeding habitats for a wide variety of waterbirds but are less valuable
as breeding sites Flooding depth and duration are important variables which affect the
value of the nee fields for waterbirds The authors conclude that threats to waterbirds in
nee fields can be attributed to 1) toxicological risks from pesticides and 2) changes in
nee management techniques They conclude that the risk from pesticides (although real)

is decreasing in developed countries since most pesticides are now short lived and more
species specific
12 Fasola, M L Canova and N Saino 1996b Rice fields support a large portion of herons
feeding in the Mediterranean region Colonial Waterbirds 19 (Special Publication 1) 129
—134
Location of study — the entire Mediterranean region
Species studied — six heron species
Types of wetlands — rice fields as compared to natural wetlands
Findings — The authors concluded that rice fields offered better conditions to foraging
herons than natural habitats such as marshes oxbows and ponds in northwestern and
northeastern Italy The authors studied six species of heron throughout the Mediterranean
(Black - crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax), Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis),
Little Egret (Egretta garzetta), Grey Heron (Ardea cmerea) Purple Heron (Ardea
purpurea) and Squacco Heron (Ardeola ralloides) In other parts of Europe, herons
utilized rice fields and natural habitats equally Amphibians, fish and insects were the
main food sources Overall they concluded that nce fields are the main foraging habitat
for herons breeding in Mediterranean Europe and supported from 50 to 100% of the
herons during the peak breeding period
13 Gonzalez Solis J, X Bernadi and X Ruiz 1996 Seasonal variation of waterbird prey
in the Ebro Delta rice fields Colonial Waterbirds 19 (Special Publication 1) 135 142
Location of study — Ebro River delta Spam
Species studied — waterbirds
Types of wetlands — rice fields
Findings — The authors determined the level of prey species (invertebrate and vertebrate)
available in nce fields in Spain They concluded that high levels of prey are available in
the nce fields despite the use of pesticides especially from August and September Rice
fields have large amounts of prey for waterbirds especially during the autumn when the
natural wetlands are declining in carrying capacity This fact enhances the value of nce
fields for waterbirds in the Mediterranean especially during migrations
14 Hesler, L S , A A Gnganck M J Oraze and A T Palrang 1993 Arthropod fauna of
conventional and organic nce fields in California Journal of Economic Entomology
86(1) 149 158

Location of study — Sacramento Valley, California
Species studied — various pest and non -pest aquatic and non aquatic arthropods
Types of wetlands — four pairs of conventional and organic rice fields
Findings — The authors found no significant difference between pest populations in
conventional versus organic fields with the exception of one leafinmer (Hydrellaa
griseola) which was present in two of the four fields in agronomically significant levels
Populations of three predatory taxa were significantly higher in organic fields The
organic fields had no synthetic agrochemical use for at least 12 months and less intensive
disk plowing and harrowing than conventional production with resultant higher levels of
rice stubble In addition the organic fields had crops other than rice the previous
growing season (vetch or alfalfa) The main synthetic agrochemicals used in the
conventional fields were carbofuran copper sulfate pentahydrate, an unnamed fungicide
on the seeds, MCPA and molmate The authors conclude that arthropod populations
between organic and conventional fields differ in many significant ways and that further
research is needed regarding arthropods in organic rice fields
15 Lane S J and M Fuhioka 1998 The impact of changes in irrigation practices on the
distribution of foraging egrets and herons (Ardeidae) in the rice fields of central Japan
Biological Conservation 83 (2) 221 230
Location of study — central Japan
Species studied — various egrets and herons
Types of wetlands — old style (gravity fed water with earthen ditches) versus new style
(pumped water and concrete lined ditches) rice fields
Findings — The authors found that only intermediate egrets (Egretta intermedaa) had a
preference for old style rice paddies Higher numbers of aquatic prey species were
present in old style paddies than in new style paddies but there was no difference in
terrestrial invertebrates The authors conclude with management suggestions for the new
style paddies with respect to waterbird management
16 Lawler S P 2001 Rice fields as temporary wetlands A review Israel Journal of
Zoology 47 513 528
Location of study — worldwide

Species studied — a wide variety of invertebrates and vertebrates (amphibians and birds)
Types of wetlands — temporary pools compared to nee fields
Findings — This is an excellent, broad ranging review of the scientific literature Rice
fields can provide significant habitat for a variety of invertebrates and vertebrates
especially waterbirds and frogs Management can have a significant effect on the habitat
usage of these nee field with intermittent water being associated with lower diversity
than those nee fields flooded for longer times (four to six months) especially when this
cycle coincides with amphibian reproductive cycles The author concluded that benefits
to wetland species are probably greatest when flooding coincides with natural rainy
penods The author discusses Integrated Pest Management techniques for nee fields
which can result in much reduced impacts on native biota while protecting nee yields
especially compared to the use of broad spectrum pesticides The author concludes that
more study is needed with respect to how various management techniques affect native
species Rice fields provide habitat for many birds and amphibians but again,
management of nee fields may affect these populations Overall, the author concludes
that native diversity in nee fields increases with reduced pesticide use, longer
hydropenods and farming methods that are less physically disruptive such as soil versus
concrete irngation systems She concludes that organic nee cultivation is better than
traditional nee cultivation in terms of its environmental effects
17 Machado I F and L Maltchik 2010 Can management practices in nee fields
contribute to amphibian conservation in southern Brazilian wetlands? Aquatic
Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 20 39 46
Location of study — southern Brazil
Species studied — anurans (frogs and toads)
Types of wetlands — Reserva Lake (probably lake and fringing marsh) compared to nee
fields
Findings — The authors tested various hydrological regimes after nee harvest to determine
any benefits to amphibians in southern Brazil The found that the different management
techniques (dry versus flooded) did not affect the anuran richness and abundance but did
affect species composition Natural wetlands contained more amphibians than nee fields
The authors concluded that nee growers could manage their post harvest nee fields to
increase anuran richness The authors conclude that there have been few studies which
examined aquatic organisms in nee fields and compare different hydrologic management
regimes

18 Marques P A M and L Vicente 1999 Seasonal variation of waterbird prey abundance
in the Sado Estuary rice fields Aredola 46 231 — 234
Location of study — Sado Estuary, Spam
Species studied — waterbird prey species (invertebrates and vertebrates)
Types of wetlands — rice fields
Findings — The authors studied the annual patterns of abundance and diversity of
waterbird prey species in rice fields in Spain Rice fields were characterized by winter
flooding Prey populations peaked in September Amphibians, crustaceans and fish were
the most abundant prey taxa
19 Pierlussi, S and S L King 2008 Relative nest density nest success and site occupancy
of King Rails in southwestern Louisiana Waterbirds 31 (4) 530 — 540
Location of study — southwestern Louisiana
Species studied — King Rail (Rallus elegans)
Type of wetlands — nce fields
Findings — The authors examined rice fields as breeding habitats for King Rails and
found high nest survival rates and apparent stable nest densities They conclude that nce
fields appear to provide high quality habitat for King Rails which are classified as
endangered or of special concern in the IS due to dramatic declines in populations over
the last 30 years
20 Rendon, M A, A J Green, E Aguilera and P Almaraz 2007 Status, distribution and
long term changes in the waterbird community wintering in Dofiana, south west Spain
Biological Conservation 141 1371 1388
Location of study — Dofiana, south west Spain
Species studied —water birds
Types of wetlands — Freshwater marshes versus nce fields
Findings — The authors used long term data (since 1977) to compare the value of natural
freshwater wetlands, rice fields, salt pans and fish ponds to wintering waterbirds The
freshwater wetlands are marshes which flood seasonally along the delta of a river and are
protected in the Dofiana National Park The natural marshes were particularly important

for Anatidae (swans, ducks and geese ) while gulls various storks and grey herons
preferred the nee fields The authors note that nee fields are especially attractive for
waterbirds in autumn and early winter when natural wetlands in this Mediterranean
region are usually dry The authors concluded that all mayor habitat types (both natural
and artificial) were important for waterbirds wintering in the area since they act as
alternative complementary sites for waterbirds
21 Richardson, A J and I R Taylor 2003 Are nee fields in Southeastern Australia an
adequate substitute for natural wetlands as foraging areas for egrets? Waterbirds 26(3)
353-363
Location of study — Australia
Species studied — Great Egret, Intermediate Egret Cattle Egret
Type of wetlands — freshwater wooded and non wooded compared to nee fields
Findings The authors studied the seasonal foraging of Cattle Egrets (Bubulcus ibis)
Great Egrets (Ardea alba) and Intermediate Egrets (Egretta intermedia) in nee fields and
natural wetlands in southeastern Australia Overall, they found that Cattle Egrets
preferentially foraged in nee fields during the breeding season but that the Great Egret
and Intermediate Egret did not prefer to forage in nee fields but presumably foraged in
natural wetlands further away from the study area
22 Savary, S , F Horgan, L Willocquet , and K L Heong 2012 A review of principles for
sustainable pest management in nee Crop Protection 32 (2012) 54e63
Location of study — worldwide summary
Species studied — summary of the effect on various species including pest species of nee
Types of wetlands —rice fields
Findings — The authors address four main principles upon which sustainable pest
management in nee is based (biodiversity host plant resistance landscape ecology and
hierarchies) They summarize various aspects of nee management worldwide in the
context of these principles with a focus on insect diseases and insects They then
describe the research that is needed to address integrated pest management in nee
23 Teng P S 1994 Integrated pest management in nee Experimental Agriculture 30(2)
115-137
Location of study — Worldwide summary but focused on Asia

Species studied — a variety of rice pests
Types of wetlands — rice fields
Findings — The author summarizes the history of integrated pest management in rice
especially in Asia He summarizes the experience in two counties where integrated pest
management has resulted in reduced importation of pesticides with no loss in yield or
productivity He concludes that farmer learning groups are the most effective way to
encourage integrated pest management in rice
24 Tourneq, C, S Aulagmer L Duneux S Lek, F Mesleerd, A Johnson and J L Martin
2001 Identifying rice fields at risk from damage by the Greater Flamingo Journal of
Applied Ecology 38 (1) 170 —179
Location of study — southeastern France
Species studied — Greater Flamingo
Types of wetlands — rice fields
Findings — The authors studied the damage caused to rice fields by the Greater Flamingo
(Phoemeopterus ruber roseus) in southeastern France in an attempt to determine
environmental factors which predicted the damage to rice fields From their statistical
modeling, they reported that smaller rice fields, distance from natural marshes and
wooded margins all discourage flamingos Therefore, they recommend planting of hedges
and prevention of wood cutting near rice fields in order to discourage flamingo use Note
that American flamingo is a very rare autumn visitor on the Carolina coast and may be
mainly escapees from zoos (Potter Parnell and Teulings 1980 Birds of the Carolinas
University of NC Press)
25 Tourenq C, RE Bennetts H Kowalski E Vialet J L Lucchesi Y Kayser and P
Isenmann 2001 Are ncefields a good alternative to natural marshes for waterbird
communities in the Camargue southern France? Biological Conservation 100 335 —
343
Location of study — Camarque, France
Species studied — various waterbirds
Types of wetlands — natural freshwater marshes versus nce fields

Findings — The authors compared waterbird abundance species richness and community
composition in rice fields versus natural marshes in the Camargue which is an area rich in
high quality natural wetlands Overall the nce fields had less rich waterbird communities
than natural wetlands with greater abundance, species richness and number of exclusive
species especially during the autumn and winter seasons The authors caution that these
results while striking for the Camargue may not be applicable to other regions due to the
relatively high availability of natural marshes and differences in nce field management
For instance the authors note that winter flooding of nce fields is done on a small
percentage (6 to 10 %) of the nce fields in this area which they note could explain some
of the differences
26 Van Groemgen, J W, E G Burns J M Eadie, W R Horwath, and C van Kessel 2003
Effects of foraging waterfowl in winter flooded nce fields on weed stress and residue
decomposition Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 95 (2003) 289 -296
Location of study — Central Valley, California
Species studied — various waterbirds
Types of wetlands — rice fields with waterfowl exclosures compared to control plots with
waterfowl use
Findings — The authors used waterfowl exclosures in post harvest nce fields (residue
chopped with winter flooding) to determine the effect of waterfowl foraging on nce straw
decomposition and weed pressure They reported that the presence of waterfowl
increased the rate of nce straw decomposition and dramatically reduced the level of weed
infection (especially grassy weeds) during the next growing season
27 Zhijun Ma, Bo Li, Bin Zhao, Kai Jing, Shimin Tang and Jiakuan Chen 2004 Are
artificial wetlands good alternatives to natural wetlands for waterbirds9 — A case study on
Chongming Island, China Biodiversity and Conservation 13 333 350
Location of study — China
Species studied — wide variety of waterbirds
Types of wetlands — salt and freshwater marshes compared to aquaculture (fish and crab)
ponds
Findings Species abundance and richness of a variety of waterbirds was higher in salt
marsh wetlands than in the aquaculture ponds The aquaculture ponds provided suitable
habitat for certain waterbirds especially in the winter and especially for natatorial birds
Wading birds preferred the salt marsh wetlands

I 1 `J1 t.! 1 1 1`

1.
ji
'4 W

ZO�K ON 'u0l6ulwl!M 'ZZSZ x08 'O'd „UD,/ It SI,J; Injuawijoj!,1U3 _
0900 ZSb 0 L6 'Xej "' ^� d,10'dD LNH6439VNVW (INVI ON '�(lunoo � oimsunjg
� gdejBO104d let .1abr T
8L06 JWT998 6. 6000'ZSb'Ob6 :auoud �J/�'1 nnogeuuiM -££L AMH
lau dnoaE)W-j-/v\m n
load S2��
,000` � _ J 31VOS
Agdei6oloud leiaae dd`dN 6b6 G :a:)jnoS dew
-alnlosge aq of lueew lou
aae pue alewixoadde aje sauepuno8*

IF
. -1
I ko-M
4k
Web-.
WJWSII�

S' r
% 44.
;1
�' �`- ••.,,� Syr• - \

0 IV
r _ �
' i
14

r ,
h.
M �
M
v I

�`.:.
�''y.
.:Y ,��
ti: _�:
r.
=.�.;.

-
'�tti C d• i Y
r
a � •i7 ' "" � ' 1
Pr
4p b
lk
ol

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission KN
Gordon Myers Executive Director
I3V 1:3 &M1FIXI111J,39
To Emily Hughes
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
From Molly Ellwood ,j�''�f " t'�' —'J
Southeast Permit Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Date May 3 2012
Re Response to Public Notice for Orton Plantation Holdings LLC Request for Wetland Impacts in
Brunswick County SAW 2011 -00624
Biologists with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed this request with regard to
potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources Our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the Coastal Area Management Act (G S I I 3 100 through I I 3 128) as amended and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat 401 as amended 16 U S C 661 et seq )
Orton Plantation Holdings LLC (Applicant) was proposing to impact approximately 339 acres of
wetlands on the approximately 700 acres of Orton Plantation in Brunswick County An Avoidance and
Minimization Proposal (Proposal) was submitted on April 11 2012 addressing the efforts made by the
Applicant to further reduce impacts to wetlands and improve wildlife habitat on the property while
maintaining the project objective to restore historic rice cultivation According to the current Proposal
there will be 13 1 acres of wetlands removed from direct rice cultivation activities proposed at Orton
Plantation
Areas that are to be excluded from the proposed project were evaluated by the Rice Field Exclusion Area
Selection Criteria that was outlined in the Proposal These criteria include considerations of wetland
function and areas with higher wildlife habitat values The NCWRC agrees that significant portions of
the rice fields are infested with Phragmines austrahs and that the proposed actions to restore these areas
to active rice cultivation will benefit wildlife species in the area Areas with a hardwood canopy as well as
some of the transitional shrub scrub habitat are being excluded from the areas proposed for rice
cultivation Maintaining these areas provides more diverse habitat for multiple wildlife species expanding
the overall benefit that restoration of the rice fields will have on wildlife
The NCWRC appreciates the efforts of Orton Plantation to support a diversity of wildlife habitats and
minimize impacts to higher functioning wetlands We thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on this proposal and look forward to working cooperatively with the applicant on the many
Mailing Address Division of Inland Fisheries 1721 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 1721
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]

Orton Plantation Avoidance and Minimization Proposal Page 2 May 3 2012
positive wildlife habitat projects onsite Please feel free to contact me at [phone] if there are any
questions or concerns
Cc David Cox NCWRC
Chad Coburn NCDWQ
Heather Coats NCDCM
John Ellis USFWS
Steve Morrison Land Management Group
Peter Talty Belvedere Property Management

i
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636 3726
May 4, 2012
Ms Emily Hughes
U S Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Dear Ms Hughes
The U S Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the April 11, 2012 Avoidance and
Minimization Proposal Orton Plantation, U S Army Corps of Engineers Action ID # SAW
2011 00624 (Proposal) After reviewing the information provided in this document and further
discussion with the applicant the Service believes that the proposed work can have benefits to
M and wildlife resources while restoring the historical character of the property The project
area is strategically located in the landscape such that it provides valuable habitat to migrating
waterbirds and overwintenng waterfowl In addition to the excluded areas referenced in the
April 11 proposal, it is also likely that many areas along the margins of the fields will not readily
lend themselves to cropping, and as such will be managed as early successional habitat The
precise extent of these field margins and the best practices for their management are difficult to
determine at this time However, the applicant has expressed a willingness to work with the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ( NCWRC) and the Service to determine ways to
optimize habitat values in these areas and the excluded areas in an adaptive management
approach, consistent with the project purpose
White maintaining the excluded areas in early successional habitat will provide important
habitat, the Service also has encouraged the applicant to consider planting cypress trees in some
of the areas proposed for exclusion to provide further habitat diversity This could be done with
a large spacing between trees such that the areas under them revegetate with other desirable tree
species or it can be managed as early successional habitat as in the proposal While we feel it is
premature to define specific planting schemes or other detailed management practices for these
areas at this time, the Service is eager to work with the applicant to further investigate the
feasibility of these and other potential management practices going forward
To reiterate, the Service believes that the project as now proposed and the applicant's intention
to work with the NCWRC and Service into the future will enhance the area for fish and wildlife
resources while meeting the stated objectives It is further our view that the removal of
phragmites from the front fields and proper management of the site overall will effectively
mitigate the project s temporary impacts As such, we remove our objections to the proposed

activity as expressed m our previous correspondence Thank you for the opportunity to provide
these comments Should you have any questions or require further assistance in this matter,
please contact John Ellis of my staff at 919 - 8564520 x 26
Field Supervisor

Steven W Troxler North Carolina Department of Agriculture
Commsslow and Consumer Services
Agricultural Services
May 4, 2012
Ms Emily Hughes
U S Anny Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Dear Ms Hughes
Vemon Cox
Environmental Programs
speaalrst
The North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA &CS) has reviewed the
April 11, 2012 Avoidance and Minimization Proposal Orton Plantation, U S Army Corps of Engineers
Action ID # SAW - 201100624 (Proposal)
NCDA &CS supports the above referenced Avoidance and Minimization Proposal submitted by the
applicant The preferred alternative (Item E in the Alternatives Analysis Document) will accommodate
the restoration and operation of these historic nee fields using modern agricultural methods and practices,
while also providing significant wildlife habitat improvement benefits The Proposal is an appropriate
approach to further avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the United States while also achieving the
stated objectives of the applicant
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments If you have any questions or require further
assistance in this matter please contact me at 919- 707 -3070
r cerely,
/v�
Vernon N Cox
E-mllI vernon oox@neagr gov
1001 Mail Service Center Raleigh North Carolina 27699 -1001 [phone] • Fax [phone]
TTY 1800-735-2962 Voice 1-877 735 8200
An Equal Opportunity Af nnatnre Action Emploirer

eOsmo SIS
ao.
Oil
North Carohna Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Presen anon Office
Ransom M Ba to Wmtnt trat r
Be%e 13 rate Perdu Go%cmor
Linda A Carlisle Secretary
Jeffrey) Cron Depuq Secretary
May 7, 2012
Emily B Hughes
U S Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington North Carohna 28403 Emily B Hughes @usace army mil
RE Restoration of Orton Plantation Rice Fields by O>_ton Plantation Holdings, LLC
Action ID No SAW 2011 00624, Brunswick County ER 11 2000
Dear Ms Hughes
t)ffc f %rchi nd Ili tor)
Di%vw n f Ht tonad Rc rums
David Bmnl, Ducctor
Thank you for your email of April 23 2012 transmitting the additional information provided to your office on
April 11 2012 by the permit applicant in response to continents offered b3 the resource agencies at a )oint
meeting on March 28 2012 We have reviewed the materials Ind offer die following continents
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) fully supports the restoration / rehabihtation of
the historic rice fields at Orton Plantation to the fullest extent possible Listed in the National Register of
Historic Places at the state level of historical sWitficance, the plantation is the onl) pre Civil War Atlantic coast
rice plantation that retains the key elements of it long history and ties together the land, water, buildings and
infrastructure The restoration of the listmic rice fields including the rehabilitation of the necessary w-iter
control s) stem, offers a unique opportunit) to revive rice culture on a sc11e that only begins to suggest the
extent to which rice was grown along the Cape Fear Rii er and influenced the economic and social
development of the state and region
While we would prefer that the entire extent of the historic rice fields be restored and put back into cultivation,
we appreciate the concerns expressed by the other resource agencies, and their wish to see a greater degree of
a-, oidance and minim nation Howex er we concur with the permit applicant s Alternatives Analysis Proposal
for Ax oidance and 14hnunization and Exclusion Arc t Map as they provide for the restoration of the historic
rice fields to the grevest extent possible and more close!) mirror the character setting and feeling of the
historic Orton Plantation landscape
Once you have reviewed the comments of the various agencies on the April 11 th ana13 sis and proposal, and
tench a decision on issuance of a permit we would appreciate your sharing any proposed permit conditions
with us This will allow us to determine whether or not -tny of the conditions could adversely affect the histonc
property and need further consideration
Locatdom 109 East)ones Street Raleigh NC 27601 Trailing Address 4617 Mail Semce (.enter Rai tgh N(. 2709 4617 Telephone /Pax (717)1307- 6570/807 659)

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Piesel %ation Act and the
Ad%isory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800
Thank } ou for) our cooperation and consideration 1 f ) ou ha% a questions conceriung the -iboN a comment
contact Renee Gledhill Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919 807 6579 In all future
communication concerning this protect please cite the above referenced tracking number
Sincerely
,Y ,(Ramona M Bartos
'Ramona
Orton Plantation Holdings LLC
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Agriculture
NC Division of Coastal M-inagement
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Wildhfe Resources Commission
Environmental Protection Agency
National Marine Fisheries
US fish and Wildlife Service