20040895 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_19970415

sf-
Z? r
06T
?DI Calo,?
6l G? ? jCA?? ?G??l a??
?6a/vv-'?
s fa am
WL?
GI
FRZfwWASHINGTON 03.12.1997 12:06 P.01
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL HEADER SHEET
fief lee of "to IDM% gee AR 25-11; da OMPOMW a0 MV 6 001WA
COMMAND/ NAME! OFFICE TELEPHONE FAX NO.

OFFICE T OFFICE
SYMBOL NO.
WVrOVON/Camm.J
(AUTOVON/Cwm)
FROM:
WASHINCTON
REGULATORY CESAW-CO_RW (919) 9759616 (999) 97.5-1399
FIELD OFTICE
T0:
EiR Gcdco,,6
CLASSIFICATION PRECMENCE NO. PAGES OATE.TIME MONT14 YEAR RELEASER'S SIGNATURE
(Including
Fle?der!
e?
, /,
y
REMARKS
?jj
Space Beiaw For Cammunkat/ans Center Use Only
DA FORM 391$-R. JUL 90

OA FORM 3913-R, AUG 72 IS OBSOLETE
0,3ft
o.

V2,00
` FRO, WASHINGTON 03.12.1997 12:07 P.02
March 6, 1997
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199601404
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.S., Manager
Planning and Environmental Braucb
Division of Highways
North Carolina Dcpwunent of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
My staf'f' has reviewed your January 2, 1997, correspondence requesting our review and
comments regarding the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) proposed
Nahunta Swamp Wetland Mitigation Bank (NSWMB) in Johnston, Greene and Wayne Counties.
The correspondence contained a Conservation Easement, Forest Management Plan, and Generic
Mitigation Plan. Also, please reference the minuets from the February 20, 1997, Corps/NCDOT
meeting in Raleigh concerning this issue-
After reviewing the material and weighing all factors associated with this issue, we have
determined that utilizing the proposed NSWMB as a bank for mitigation credits for NCDOT
projects is unacceptable. There are many reasons why this proposal is unacceptable and we, will
attempt to list the major concerns below:
1. Forestry Practices - We have not nor will we allow managed or unmanaged timber
harvesting in wetland mitigation areas. The possible exception would be to entice a limited
number of landowners to include their property to produce a continuous and adjacent tract of
land between existing fee simple lands. Much of the environmental damage associated with
forestry comes from the forestry practices and machinery. North Carolina does not require
mandatory Best Management Plan's (BMP's) be employed, therefore, the mitigation area could
suffer damage. There are no permanently protected areas or buffer areas, no restrictions on
livestock, and mechanical logging operations are authorized even on the banks of perennial
waterways.
2. Conservation Easement - It appears that the Wayne County Soil and Water Conservation
district will hold the easement in perpetuity, with no mechanism to ensure the area is properly
FROM WASHINGTON 03.12.1997 12:07 P.03
managed for a successful mitigation site. The Soil and Water Conservation Districts do not have
an established history of preserving or maintaining wetlands. We are not convinced that this
organization can properly manage and protect a mitigation area, Information is needed to allow
us to make a decision that the easement should be held with a county district. Will the district
decide in the future that the area is working and that the stream system needs furtber dredging 7
The conservation easement does not prohibit signs and billboards, impounding, excavating or
other earth moving activities, The easement allows the landowner to remove noxious or other
undesirable plants in the easement area without determining what a noxious or undesirable plant
is. 'these easement comments are preliminary and will not be final comments until our office of
council has bad an opportunity to review the final draft plan,
3. Dredged Stream Channels - The primary focus of the Nahunta Swamp project is to
improve the water duality of the watershed, Water quality improvement may not be possible
with future maintenance dredging of the stream channels, Dredging stream channels and
maintenance dredging must be halted and restoration afforts implemented. If full restoration is
not possible, then the placement of in-stream structures can increase the flooding frequency,
cause meanders to form, and provide fish habitat.
4. Generic Mitigation Plan - Hydrology needs and/or water budgets must be addressed on a
site-specific basis. The filling of 100 linear feet of a ditch, as is used for a representative site in
the document, will not necessarily be sufficient to meet the hydrology goal(s) for a particular
site. Each site must be evaluated (using the check list) before appropriate restoration measures
are determined- Site-specific mitigation plates for each tract must be developed, evaluating
vegetative and hydrology needs. The sites will not be "debited" before significant efforts are
made to evaluate what must be done on each tract to meet site-specific goals and objectives.
A procedure which establishes success criteria, monitoring, maintenance, and protection of the
mitigation areas must be established.
5. Several resource agencies wrote a joint letter to NCDOT dated April 12, 1996, with
suggestions to minimize impacts and to establish debitlcredit ratios for areas which allow
timbering. The recommendations appear to have been ignored, which does not instill a sense of
"team work" necessary for successful mitigation efforts.
In summary, we support the NCIDOT in their efforts to reestablish the riparian wetlands and
vegetated buffers along the Nahunta watershed with the goal of improving land and water
quality, However, we are concerned that the focus of this mitigation effort has been for the Soil
and Water Conservation District to provide benefits for the landowner with minimal concern for
functional wetland replacement of wetlands destroyed by NCDOT. It would appear that the fee
simple purchase of riparian property would be as economical as conservation leases with
landowner control.
We appreciate the opportunity to coordinate with your staff prior to the finalization of this
FROM WASHINGTON 03.12.1997 12:07 P.04
' h t
mitigation plan. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Michael Bell, NCDCT
Coordinator/ Regulatory Project Manager at my Washington Regulatory Field Office, telephone
[phone], extension 26.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section
Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 276 1 1-7687
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Hefner
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. 'T'homas Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Raleigh IV
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Branch
US Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta Federal Center
100 Alabama Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
FROM WASHINGTON 03.12.1997 12:08 P.OS
Mr. David Cox
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Past Office Box 118
Northside, North Carolina 27564
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
BCF:
Wright/CO-R,
SmiWCO-RN
Lekson/CO-RW
Ball/CO-RW
O. ?1/ {J? ? ?G r4vbt

A'' ?? ? t? ? c B t
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
February 18, 1997
Colonel Terry R. Youngbluth
District Engineer, Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Attention Dr. Wayne Wright
Dear Colonel Youngbluth:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the draft Nahunta Swamp Wetland
Bank Forest Management Plan (plan), dated January 1, 1997, sent to you, and kindly copied to
us, by Mr. H. Frank Vick of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The
plan is part of a cooperative pilot project led by the North Carolina Division of Soil and Water
Conservation (NCDSWC) and the NCDOT. It is part of a larger program of water and land
quality improvement and conservation efforts in the Nahunta Swamp and watershed.
The Service has broad goals in any landscape based mitigation scheme: to restore and protect the
ecological integrity of native and endemic plant and animal communities. We base our goals on
the objectives of the Clean Water Act ("to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters"). Any mitigation derived from §§ 401 and 404 should
also be primarily based on those objectives. In our opinion, the plan probably meets the minimal
regulatory requirements but does not restore or protect native assemblages of plants and animals.
Based on the disjunction between our goals and the plan, we are withdrawing our support for the
conceptual Nahunta Swamp plan.
The plan manages the available woodlands for sawtimber and game species at the expense of
native communities of plants and animals. There are no permanently protected areas or habitats,
no restrictions on livestock, mechanical logging operations are authorized even on the banks of
perennial waterways, harvest rotation is a biologically unreasonable 50 to 60 years, and no
provisions are made for protecting the genetic integrity of the area. Further, it is our opinion that
the plan does not fully address economic alternatives which may provide important benefits for
participating landowners (e.g., property tax relief, estate tax exemptions, and forestry extension
support).
We offer the following specific comments:
4
Section 1. 1, line 10: "it is impractical to attempt to restore the dredged stream channels..." should
be revised to reflect our capacity to (1) install instream structures and materials which may mimic
the riverine habitat complexity and enhance thalweg meanders, (2) prohibit, by statute, any future
snagging, dragging, or other drain enhancing operations in the subject waters, and (3) plan and
initiate a multi-decade effort to elevate all roadways out of the floodplain so that any natural
channel restoration will not effect human travel corridors.
Section 4.0, paragraph 2, 3rd sentence: "Due to their proximity to natural drainages, bottomland
hardwood forests are at least seasonally flooded." should be revised to more accurately reflect the
nature of floodplains. They are the natural drainage. Stream channels, flood plain terraces, and
levees are all components of an integrated geomorphological feature. Floodplains are by
definition a part of the stream channel which hold and direct overbank flow. Floodplains in
systems like the Nahunta may at any given period in geologic time be the main channel - channels
historically meander throughout the floodplain. Certain species and guilds of flora and fauna
which can tolerate the conditions in each floodplain develop nonrandom communities and
associations. This includes game animals, woody plants, plants and animals with low economic
value (not necessarily related to their ecological value), and organisms within the soil. The
community dynamics influence the nutrient dynamics of the floodplain. Nutrient dynamics
influence water quality and quantity.
Floodplains are integral to ecosystem forms, functions, and structures. The plan partially
acknowledges that, but explicitly fails to protect the integrity of the f loodplain as a subunit of the
Nahunta Swamp ecosystem. The Service believes that this portion of the text should provide
insights into the biogeochemical functions of the floodplain, and how each silvicultural option
effects those functions. Ideally, this would provide clear linkages between the goals of the
proposed mitigation plan, the role of mitigation in the 404 process, and the various management
options.
Section 5.1: This section should be modified to ensure that any management regimes reflect
natural disturbances from a landscape perspective. Within each habitat type, a set of plants and
animals representative of the natural community should be managed for. Management units
should be such that patch dynamics and local perturbations are mimicked by management regimes.
For example, in an area which permits timber harvest, units should be randomly assigned a
management regime. That regime would hold in perpetuity. Among those regimes, no harvest
units would be between one fifth and one third of all units. Harvest schedules should be
scientifically based to ensure that we are not condoning nutrient mining. That may mean that
rotation schedules are 70, 90, and 150 years, or some other schedule. Fifty year rotations are
probably unsustainable, and would deplete soil nutrients. Every effort should be made to ensure
that depletion of the soils nutrient reserve and organic matter content does not result from any
aspect of the plan.
Section 5.2: In our opinion, this section does not greatly improve the protection of riparian
buffers offered by the state's politically developed management plan. It should be changed to
reflect a buffer of about 300' from the edge of the water for any waterway, and no harvest zones
should encompass eighty percent or more of the management units in this buffer. Further, harvest
should be selective, and either based on preserving key tree species or on density. Prescribed
burning may be a preferred management option in this habitat type. This area should be managed
as if the stream channels were uncontrolled, and subject to meandering (it is, in fact, our intent
to re-establish this important stream feature by creating instream habitat and current deflectors).
Section 5.5: We reiterate our concern that the mitigation site be managed by habitat type and a
set of representative species. The number and species of woody plants protected should be
determined based on factors other than game management.
Section 6.0: We reiterate the above. The mitigation bank should be managed for the restoration
and protection of native communities of plants and animals. If row cropping or timber harvest
are incidentally compatible with the management regime developed (and based on representative
plant and animal species) for a particular habitat type, then they should not be prohibited. Low
impact activities such as no till agriculture, livestock removal, and timber harvests which mimic
small disturbances should be encouraged where such activities can benefit the representative
species.
Summary of Service Concerns:
The Service believes the plan we have reviewed is contrary to the intent of the Clean Water Act.
We recommend the following modifications be made:
• Instream habitat modifications, including weirs, deflectors, log abatises, and corduroy
substrate, should be installed to redirect the thalweg into the last known configuration
prior to channelization efforts. No further drain enhancing activities, including, but not
limited to, snagging, dragging, and channelization, shall occur in the project area.
• The North Carolina Department of Transportation should ensure that no new, improved,
or upgraded roadways shall be constructed in the project area. Future maintenance
activities should include bridging all wetland or stream crossings in the project area, and
restoring impaired hydrologic continuity to the extent practicable. Other maintenance
activities should be limited to the extent practicable for safe and efficient motor vehicle
use.
• The forest management plan should be much more specific about site preparation, species
and spacing, cutting practices, etc., and should provide for salvage, chemical, and
mechanical operations as appropriate.
• The project area should be considered a landscape mosaic; public lands and conservation
easements in the mosaic will be expressly managed to restore and protect native
communities of fish and wildlife, water quality, and wetland functions and values.
Agricultural practices and timber management should be a tool which facilitates the
restoration and protection of the ecological integrity of Nahunta Swamp.

• Since little or no cash value may derive to property owners from such a mitigation plan,
the applicant should purchase the riparian corridors and obtain conservation easements on
other parcels deemed valuable from a landscape perspective. A procedure for the
identification and approval of land parcels not explicitly connected to the surface waters
of Nahunta Swamp should be developed. We envision such a procedure as eliminating
potential applicants (individuals or organizations applying for permits to fill wetlands or
otherwise discharge into waters of the United States) from this aspect of the mitigation
bank. Applicants are the bankroll, and should not be put in a position where they can
influence the outcome of the integrity of the mitigation site.
• The project area should consist of specific ecological zones based on hydrogeochemical
functions, native communities, and physical parameters, not on land ownership patterns
or potential yield of food and fiber. We envision three to five habitat types are attainable
in the project area. The types, frequency, and magnitude of disturbances permitted in each
habitat type should be developed with ecologically defined goals and objectives (we believe
the resultant management options would range from timber harvest/no till agriculture to
no anthropogenic manipulations).
• Habitat unit management should be developed to benefit a representative range of plant and
animal species. The species may include high value timber trees, gamefish, or game
animals, but only in so much as they are representative of portions of the native
community.
• Drainage ditches should be backfilled and graded to the extent practicable.
• A procedure which establishes perpetual monitoring, maintenance, and protection of the
mitigation properties should be established.
The Service has previously commented on this proposal (see the April 12, 1996 letter to Mr.
David Robinson (enclosed). In that letter, we stated that "we would like to have the maximum
number of ecological functions restored to Nahunta Swamp." We made the following
recommendations: (1) maximize riparian corridor contiguity, (2) maximize the functional or
ecological integrity of the riparian corridor, and avoid the use of boundaries defined by some fixed
spatial measure, (3) develop a core mitigation corridor first (along the surface waterways), and
examine other areas on a case by case basis, (4) mitigate by restoration, enhancement, and
preservation, (5) mitigation sites must be protected in perpetuity, and provide for monitoring and
enforcing provisions of easements in perpetuity (we recommended fee simple purchase of the
mitigation site), (6) ensure that their is no double dipping of Federal subsidies or responsibilities
by participating landowners, (7) allow some timber harvest, but develop no cut zones in the
ecologically valuable riparian corridor, and, (8) establish a range of mitigation ratios from 2:1 to
15:1.
We note that the letter, and most of the recommendations, were not acknowledged in the plan.
The plan undervalues fish and wildlife resources, and has essentially ignored our previous input.

The Service intends to discontinue devoting time and staff to this project. We do not wish to
mislead project proponents. The plan is, in our opinion, unsatisfactory.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. If you have any questions or
comments, please call Kevin Moody of my staff at [phone] extension 19.
Sincerely,
VY1-A-ft",
ohn M. Hefner
Field Supervisor
enclosure
cc: NCDOT, Raleigh, NC (H. Frank Vick, Robin Little)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (Eric Galamb)
NCWRC, Raleigh, NC (David Cox)
COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
COE, Washington, NC (Mike Bell)
EPA, Wetlands Regulatory Branch, Atlanta, GA (Thomas Welborn)
FWS/R4:KMoody:KM/02/11/97:919/856-4520 ext. 19:B:\km-373
car r

"Old
4,1? -?-- 12,0
sc)

,N
United States Department of the Interior
FISH .AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33 726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
April 12, 1996
FILE COPY
David Robinson, P.E., Permits and Mitigation Unit
N.C. Department of Tran=sportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: Proposed Nahunta Swamp Mitigation Bank
Greene/Wayne Coun=ies, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Robinson:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is writing tc fzllow up on the
interagency on-site tour of the Nahunta Watershed Project on January 23,
1995. This letter represents the views of the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) and =he N.C. Department of Environment, ealth and Natural
Resources - Division of Environmental Management (NCDE:_V-R - ==M) as well as
the Service. We appreciate your efforts to identify pctent-=1 compensatory
mitigation sites in advance as well as your interest in coo,-__nating with
resource agencies at an early stage. We support the concep= and have outlined
several scenarios regarding the project's use as a N.C. Depa__ment of
Transportation (NCDOT) mitigation bank that appear accepta_:,_= to us at this
time. We are interested in further discussion concerning to establishment of
a formal mitigation bars{ and the drafting of a Memorandum of Agreement among
agencies involved.
As stated in the Nahunta Swamp Watershed Plan and Environ-_ =al Assessment
(NCDEHNR - Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DS?iC) - ril 1995) the
Nahunta Swamp Watershed has been degraded by excessive eres_zn and nutrients
associated with agricu_ =al activities and swine operaticns. It is our
understanding that the main run of the swamp was dredged a= -he turn of the
century, however, no ac=ive maintenance has occurred in aoprcximately 50 years
or is proposed in the future. Much-of the riparian plant cc=unity has been
removed and the floodpiain corridor has been ditched, drain== and maintained
in agricultural production. Since much of the corridcr is designated as prior
converted cropland, the majority of wetlands associated wit= this swamp are no
longer considered jurisdictional. As stated in the P_sSess-:==_t, the DEM
basinwide management pi=n for the Neuse River ranked Greene and Wayne counties
high in need of additicnal Best Management Practices on crcp_and. Contentnea
Creek and Trent Creek subbasins ranked the highest in nutr;.er of stream miles
impaired by agriculture and Contentnea Creek is estima=ed as contributing 20
percent of the non-poi= source nutrient loading to the lower Neuse estuary.
The current degraded ccndition of Nahunta Swamp Watershed is characteristic of
many perennial stream systems throughout the state.
As resource managers, we would like to have the maximum r_u-per of ecological
functions restored to Nahunta Swamp. This can be achieved ?-? filling the
feeder drainage ditches and reestablishing a contiguous forested riparian
corridor along the stream bed. Such activities would enhanz:e water quality in
Nahunta Swamp and dowr_stream waterbodies by filtering nutr_e=:t and silt laden
stormwater runoff from adjacent agricultural lands through a vegetated buffer
area; naturally stabil-zing the soils and stream banks wit: -vegetative
structure; and absorbing and slowly releasing storm and flcc-d waters in a
APR 2 5 1996
naturalized floodplain. Furthermore, the forested riparian corridor would
provide cover, forage and/or nesting habitat for a variety of wildlife species
including resident and migratory birds, deer and small mammals, reptiles and
amphibians. Streambank vegetation with overhanging limbs reduces in-stream
temperatures and provides forage and cover for resident freshwater fish
species. Improved water quality and the provision of detritus from wetland
and riparian vegetation enhances downstream waterbodies and thus benefits a
variety of aquatic organisms, federal and state listed aquatic invertebrates,
and anadromous fish species dependent upon the ecosystem.
NCDOT's involvement in the restoration of Na--mta Swamp is contingent upon the
mitigation banking potential that can be derived. While acknowledging that
any level of effort to restore ecological functions is worthy, the resource
agencies are interested in a comprehensive effort to restore the system as a
whole if this is to be used as a mitigation hank. Because credits would be
debited for wetland impacts throughout the area of applicability, our
involvement in a formal mitigation banking agreement would require assurance
that NCDOT's efforts would result in significant individual and cumulative
contributions to enhanced ecological functions in the watershed.
With this in mind, we propose the following recommendations:
o Envhasis should be placed on providing maximum connectivity of the
forested riparian corridor to avoid a :atchwork of fragmented habitat.
o Ke prefer that restoration efforts be focused on maximizing a linear
riparian corridor along the swamp and its tributaries rather than
focusing on horizontal distance from t_:e stream centerline.
o =forts should be concentrated within a 300-foot zone from the stream
centerline based on minimum buffer wid.h requirements for neotropical
migratory birds and optimal water qualir_y maintenance functioning.
Yeas outside of this zone would be reviewed on a case by case basis.
o Ne foresee that the mitigation bank wo•--ld consist of restoration,
enhancement and preservation components. We do not think that wetland
creation would be appropriate.
o is extremely important to ensure the protection of the mitigation
sites in perpetuity through conservation easement. It is equally
important to have an endowment held in escrow for use to monitor the
mitigation sites and enforce the terms of the easement.
o It is important to ensure that participating private landowners are not
receiving benefits from any other government conservation program for
the same parcel of property. Equally important, participation in this
initiative should not enable the landc•.,,ners to achieve compliance with
nest management practices or other regulations for which they are
otherwise responsible.
We have come up with a variety of scenarios, with commensurate mitigation
ratios, that we consider acceptable. Because several private landowners would
be involved and existing site conditions vary, we felt that offering flexible
mitigation scenarios would increase the likelihood of landowner participation
in this initiative. Since we would like to maximize the contiguity of the
riparian corridor we would encourage preservation of existing forested wetland
and upland buffers in addition to restoratic?. We are trying to offer the
greatest possible incentive for NCDOT to purchase the riparian corridor
outright, disallow timbering activities, and thus preclude enforcement
complications. However, we understand the reed to provide incentive for
landowner participation and, therefore, scenarios have been devised to allow
timbering with an approved timber management plan. The provisions of a timber
management plan have not yet been finalized, however, we anticipate that a no-
,1
cut zone would be designated adjacent to the stream bed. At this time we are
proposing the following mitigation scenarios that can be varied site by site:
Proposed Mitigation Protection
Ratio Scenario
2:1 Restoration via planting and filling ditches; NCDOT
purchases property fee simple title; property then
donated to conservation organization or conservation
easement granted to a land trust; and, no timbering
allowed unless the trees are diseased or are e>:oosed
to other emergency measures. Other exceptions*may be
granted on a case by case basis.
2:1 Restoration via planting and filling ditches; DSWC
holds conservation easement; NCDOT provides endowment
to be held in escrow for monitoring and enforcement;
and, no timbering allowed unless the trees are
diseased or are exposed to other emergency measures.
Other exceptions may be granted on a case by case
basis.
4:1 Restoration via planting and filling ditches; DSWC
holds conservation easement; NCDOT provides endowment
to be held in escrow for monitoring and enforcement;
and, timbering rights, in accordance with an approved
timber management plan, maintained by private
landowner.
8-10:1 Preservation of existing forested wetlands along
corridor; NCDOT purchases property fee simple title
and property then donated to conservation organization
(or conservation easement granted to a land trust), or
DSWC holds conservation easement and NCDOT provides
endowment to be held in escrow for monitoring ad
enforcement;- and no timbering allowed. High end of
mitigation ratio if timbering rights, in accordance
with an approved timber management plan, maintained by
private landowner.
12-15:1 Preservation of existing forested uplands along
corridor; NCDOT purchases property fee simple title
and property then donated to conservation orgar_ization
(or conservation easement granted to a land trust), or
DSWC holds conservation easement and NCDOT provides
endowment to be held in escrow for monitoring and
enforcement; and no timbering allowed. High en of
mitigation ratio if timbering rights, in accordance
with an approved timber management plan, maintained by
private landowner.
The DEM supports the general approach outlined above with the following
caveats. The N.C. Environmental Management Commission passed revised rules
for the 401 Certification process in March 1996. Many of these changes will
be in effect when some of the wetland fills which are anticipated to be
credited to this bank are permitted. The mitigation portion of the rules will
normally require a minimum cf. 1:1 restoration (or creation) of wetland for
unavoidable wetland loss. =c is DEM's understanding that the majority of this
project involves restoration. Therefore, this may not be a concern. The
other ratios listed above are generally consistent with these new rules. In
some unusual cases, the 401 Certification will have to be conditioned to
require mitigation in the sa=ne watershed as the impact instead of to this (or
any other) bank.
The Service, NCWRC and NCDE=?TR-DEM are optimistic that, based on -he
partnerships involved and the degree of flexibility proposed, this initiative
could yield a high level of participation among private landowners within the
Nahunta Swamp Watershed. !tie think this initiative has excellent potential to
serve as a model for other watersheds in the state of North Carolina. Please
continue to advise us of the progress made on this initiative and thank you
for the opportunity to coordinate at an early stage. If the Ser-:ice can
supply any additional information or clarification, please contact Katherine
Doak, the biologist reviewing this project, at (919)-856-4520, exr- 19.
Sincerely yours,
John Hefner
J Field Supervisor
USFWS
Frank McBride
Manager, Habitat Conservation Program
NCWRC -
Joh Dorney
Bio ogical Supervisor
NCDEHNR - DEM
JH/KHD
CC: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCDEHNR-DCM
NCDEHNF,-DSWC
NCDEHNR-DFR
NCWRC
USACE
USEPA
NMFS
FHWA
N.C. Cooperative Exchange Service
Greene Soil and Water Conservation District
Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District
Conservation Trust for North Carolina
North Carolina Coastal Land Trust
FWS/R4/KDoak/.CHD:4-12-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:Nahunta.mit
Ok RECEIVED
JAN i 199
704??
rek:31f '7 'MrrR0NMENt
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
KV DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY 5?oA dZ_
as
January 2, 1997 v,r. V\,® -
.415

Dr. Wayne Wright
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers 1
Regulatory Branch l wor
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Subject: Nahunta Swamp Wetland Mitigation Bank Preliminary Package; Conservation
Easement, Forest Management Plan and Generic Mitigation Plan.
Dear Dr. Wright:
On April 21, 1994, a new concept in wetland mitigation was presented at the monthly NCDOT
interagency meeting. The cooperative pilot project was proposed by David Harrison and Carroll
Pierce of NCDEHNR Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC) as wetland restoration
in farmed floodplains of the Nahunta Swamp within the larger context of the Nahunta Watershed
Plan. The Nahunta Watershed Plan is a watershed-wide water and land quality conservation
project, using proven elements such as improved tillage practices, livestock management and
wetland restoration in the floodplain of Nahunta Swamp. The DSWC was to be responsible for
the funding of the agricultural conservation practices and NCDOT agreed to pay for the
acquisition of land and the implementation for the wetland restoration sites.
On January 23, 1996, an interagency review team visited various representative sites and
discussed the remaining issues; forest management, acquisition processes and long-term
management issues. All agencies were enthusiastic about the potential values of such a scheme.
In April , 1996, a joint letter from USFWS, DEM, NCWRC to NCDOT addressed issues raised
in the on-site review meeting and discussed conditions for approval of a wetland mitigation bank
within the context of the watershed project. In June, 1996, Triangle Wetland Consultants was
authorized to prepare a Forest Management Plan, which was submitted in draft form to NCDOT
in early November, 1996. (A complete chronology of the project to date is attached.)
Enclosed are three documents which are integral parts of the Nahunta Swamp Wetland
Mitigation Bank Project. The draft Conservation Easement language, the draft Forest
Management Plan and a generic mitigation plan have been assembled into one "package" for
inter-agency review. Comments by the appropriate regulatory personnel will result in a finished
0
04 1
product which can then be provided to the landowners within the Nahunta Watershed. This will
begin the process of actually discussing easement acquisition with the landowners and is
expected to provide a list of candidate sites for appropriate study and review. Please review the
enclosed documents and submit written comments by February 3, 1997.
This project has taken two years of multi-disciplinary effort by NCDOT staff and by regulatory
agencies. Further coordination is required to bring the actual sites to implementation, but with
continued cooperation we feel that this project can result in the restoration of significant wetland
acreage and thus improve the water quality of the Nahunta Swamp, Contentnea Creek and
eventually the Neuse River, while providing NCDOT with mitigation credits. Thank you for
working with us towards this goal.
Sincer
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: w/attachment
Dave Lekson/USCOE
Mike Bell/USCOE
Ken Jolly/USCOE
Eric Alsmeyer/USCOE
John Dorney/DEHNR/DWQ
Eric Galamb/DEHNR/DWQ
David Cox/NCWRC
Howard Hall/USFWS
David Harrison/DSWC
Carroll Pierce/DSWC
Patty Gabriel/NRCS
Wayne/Greene SWCD
David Robinson/NCDOT
Dave Foster/DEHNR
Roy Shelton/FHWA
Wendy Gasteiger/FHWA
Dennis Pipkin/NCDOT
Robin Little/NCDOT

NAHUNTA WATERSHED PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
April 21, 1994: Cooperative pilot project was proposed by David Harrison and Carroll Pierce of
NCDEHNR Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC) as wetland restoration in farmed
floodplains of the Nahunta Swamp within the larger context of the Nahunta Watershed Plan.
October 20, 1994: Representatives of the COE, DEM, NCDOT and the DWSC discussed the
project in relation to COE guidelines regarding acceptable compensatory mitigation for NCDOT
wetland impacts.
October, 1994: A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed by the Wayne and Greene
County Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) and the N.C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) within the larger context of the Nahunta Watershed Plan. Both parties
entered into a cooperative pilot project whereby conservation easements would be procured and
mitigation plans implemented subject to USACOE approval by NCDOT and the SWCDs for up
to 500 acres of potential wetland restoration. The final acreage is largely dependent on
landowner participation, although NCDOT has purchased and developed a 172 acre mitigation
site and has contacted other interested landowners within the watershed.
December 27. 1994: The draft Nahunta Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment was
submitted to the COE for comment. The final draft was completed in April, 1995. The
Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment (EA) addressed the reduction of erosion and
nutrient run-off due to agricultural practices, and was prepared under the authority of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act - Public Law 83-566 and under Section
102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190 by the Wayne
and Greene County Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD), the NCDEHNR Division of
Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC), the US Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources
Conservation Service and the USDA/Forest Service.
March, 1995: Attempts to establish a fixed price per acre for conservation easements resulted in
a proposal in June by NCDOT to the SWCDs to establish prices on a case by case basis.
Review of the Conservation Easement language was completed by the NCDOT Attorney
General's office in late April, 1995.
October, 1995: The SWCD responded to the NCDOT proposal on individual negotiation with
landowners on easement or fee-simple purchase price.
January 23. 1996: An interagency review team visited various representative sites and discussed
the remaining issues; forest management, acquisition processes and long-term management
issues.
June. 1996: Triangle Wetland Consultants was authorized to prepare a Forest Management Plan,
which was submitted in draft form to NCDOT in early November, 1996.
January 3, 1997: Preliminary Package of draft Forest Management Plan, draft Conservation
Easement and generic Mitigation Plan distributed to agencies for comments.

Post Office Box 33604
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
WETLAND CONSULTANTS
NAHUNTA SWAMP WETLAND BANK
FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prepared For:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Permits and Mitigation Section
Highway Building
1 South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
Prepared By:
Triangle Wetland Consultants
P.O. Box 33604
Raleigh, NC 27636
January 1, 1997

1.0 Introduction
The Nahunta Swamp watershed encompasses approximately 60,378 acres (24,444 hectares) in
parts of Johnston, Greene, and Wayne Counties, NC within the Coastal Plain physiographic
province (Figure 1). Nahunta Swamp is a tributary to Contentnea Creek in the lower Neuse River
basin. Land use within the watershed includes cropland (52%), grassland (2%), and
woodland/misc. (46%) (NCDEHNR, 1995).
The entire Neuse River basin has been designated as "nutrient sensitive" by the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission and the Nahunta Swamp/Contentnea Creek watershed is
a major source of nutrient and sediment inputs to the lower Neuse River. Major causes for these
nutrient and sediment inputs within the Nahunta Swamp watershed include the lack of a vegetated
stream buffer, agricultural drainage improvements, and cultivation of bottomland fields. Due to
the severity of agricultural (nutrient and sediment) runoff and sensitivity of the lower Neuse River
basin, a watershed plan was prepared by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources and the U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NCDEHNR,
1995). Some of the recommendations contained in this plan included conversion of 1,000 acres
(405 ha) of cropland to permanent vegetation and restoration of 500 acres (202 ha) of prior
converted wetlands. For a more detailed discussion of the watershed plan refer to Nahunta
Swamp Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment (NCDEHNR, 1995).
1.1 Wetland Restoration
Forested wetland restoration efforts within Nahunta Swamp watershed would focus on existing
agricultural fields adjacent to the main channel of Nahunta Swamp, The Slough, and other
tributaries. There are approximately 1,200 acres (486 ha) of prior converted wetlands (mapped as
Johnston soil series) within the 100 year floodplain along Nahunta Swamp and its tributaries
(NCDEHNR, 1995). Most of these areas and the associated stream channels have been
extensively modified to facilitate agricultural production. The main channels were previously
dredged and channelized, and the associated floodplain fields were drained by installation of
subsurface tiles and surface ditch systems. The latter modifications were probably implemented in
the 1940's through the 1960's although the exact dates have not been determined. While it is- " ?-)
impractical to attempt to restore the dredged stream channels, restoration of wetland hydrology
within the adjacent fields is possible. The Johnston soil series (Cumulic Humaquepts) is
characterized by a seasonally high water table and frequent flooding in an undrained condition
(Barnhill, 1990; Barnhill et al., 1974; S.C.S., 1991). Therefore, hydrologic restoration would
focus on the removal/destruction of subsurface tile fields and plugging existing surface ditches to
restore the seasonally high water table. These activities would result in retention of upland runoff
and periodic overbank flooding within the floodplain of the stream. /J
Composition of the original bottomland forests within the study area can only be inferred since
much of these forests were cleared for agricultural production. The few remaining stands within
the study area have been substantially modified due to selective logging practices. The
predominant site types within the study area probably supported Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwoods as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The description of this natural
2
V

\ ?T C $, - "' l') YY AYY? OOOM1Yx °~
?/ Ctl ONYI ' :•? ? IOOI? ? ? ? - NYP1 ND ? - ?-: ? Ce` I ` oY
Iwo £.roe _ ?-v?+?`'? _ OY eO°s \ _ \?i?°Y ?xy13???a_? : .V
\ 0 _
') b x?]yyp MY?_ + ° Otl X01305 u ' LACNIP t
30 le ? '1 0 FF P ?o
75
0
`•. ?-: ?° 'rk ° ?? o? ',d• bar. ; I-
OJ 3NAVfA
35 4? o Oy '-? r EIAC Eon
? 1 ? ?ylb)EPV 1ENbNC" ;)1rR 3 OI bI 1 "S?j. Oy ` `-°T\ ..
a
to -c N 1 ? ` \ ___
1f Y3MYE
.31
IN 1
c 1 " I ? b s?
J+>
/ AJYOx _ E 'j E < J U?J O. _??? JYl U ? •''t'
??yy £ c ?aJ yt \ . \ Ip yc
ag,
ILI
'? °t ? 7 Mm ? •?7
Figure 1: Nahunta Swamp Watershed and Project Area
Johnston, Greene, and Wayne Counties, NC Scale: 1" = 12,500'
3
community type includes the following dominant species: laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), overcup
oak (Quercus lyrata), willow oak (Quercus phellos), water oak (Quercus nigra), red maple (Acer
rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), and
sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifZua). The understory may include red maple, red bay (Persea
palustris), American holly (Ilex opaca), and sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana) (Schafale and
Weakley, 1990). Natural floodpiain depressions and backswamps may have supported Cypress-
Gum Swamps which would be dominated by baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) and water tupelo
(Nyssa aquatica). Associated species might include black willow (Salix nigra), swamp
cottonwood (Populus herterophylla), and water hickory (Carya aquatica) (Schafale and
Weakley, 1990). Recent data from a relatively undisturbed bottomland hardwood stand along
Contentnea Creek near Hookerton indicates the dominant overstory species at that location
included sweetgum, swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), overcup oak, swamp chestnut oak (Quercus
michauxii), and willow oak (Beissel, 1996). Brown (1993) indicated that the most extensive
bottomland forest associations in the Southern Coastal Unit of North Carolina (including Greene
and Wayne Counties) were Sweetbay-blackgum-red maple (687,565 ac [278,366 ha]) and
Sweetgum-water oak-willow oak (357,789 ac [144,854 ha]). Broadfoot (1976) indicated that
green ash, baldcypress, laurel oak, overcup oak, swamp chestnut oak, water oak, persimmon,
sweetgum, sycamore, swamp tupelo, water tupelo, and yellow poplar should be favored by forest
management activities on Johnston soils in the Midsouth region.
Based on the latter data, the bottomland hardwood community types to be restored would include
the mixed hardwood type and the cypress-tupelo type (Johnson and Shropshire, 1983). Cypress-
tupelo community types would be restored on the wettest sites where flooding and anaerobic soil
conditions would limit the establishment of a mixed hardwood stand. The mixed hardwood
community that would be established on most sites would include a substantial component (i.e.
>50%) of oak (Quercus) species. A list of potential tree species for use in restoration efforts is
presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Potential species for use in mixed hardwood and cypress-tupelo
wetland restoration in the Nahunta Swam watershed
-
Plant Species-
ecies Common Name Shade Tolerance Planting density
mixed hardwood type (730 trees/acre)
uercus michauxii swam chestnut oak intolerant 146 trees/acre
uercus ni ra water oak intolerant 146 trees/acre
uercus hellos willow oak intolerant 146 trees/acre
Fraxinus enn lvanica green ash tolerant 146 trees/acre
N ssa hi ora swam black m intolerant 146 trees/acre
cypress-tupelo type (730 trees/acre)
uercus l rata overcu oak intermediate 365 trees/acre
N ssa a uatica water tupelo intolerant 183 trees/acre
Taxodium distichum bald cypress intermediate 183 trees/acre
'Shade tolerance values from Burns and Honkala (1990)
4
2.0 Bottomland Hardwood Forest Products
The primary commercial products produced by bottomland forests include hardwood fiber (from
deciduous tree species) and hardwood sawtimber. However, landowners may also realize income
from hunting leases as well. According to market statistics, the production of hardwood
roundwood in the southern U. S. has increased by 44% in the last decade (Johnson and
Steppleton, 1996). Hardwood species now account for approximately 30% of the total
consumption of roundwood by the pulp industry in the Southern U.S., as compared with 11% in
1952 (Bechtold and Sheffield, 1991; Johnson and Steppleton, 1996). By the year 2000,
hardwood use in pulping is projected to increase to 40% of the total roundwood consumption
(Kellison et al., 1988). Hardwood roundwood consumption for pulping in the southeast U.S. is
expected to increase from 576 million ft3 (16.3 million m) in 1990 to a peak of 821 million ft3
(23.2 million m) in 2010 (Haynes et al., 1995). In general, the southern U.S. produces more
hardwood roundwood for pulp than any other region in the country, with 1986 production
exceeding 106 billion ft3 (30 billion m) (Bechtold and Sheffield, 1991). In addition, increased
timber supplies from the southeast U.S. are expected to compensate for decreased supplies of
timber from the Pacific Northwest (Haynes, 1990).
Hardwood pulpwood production in North Carolina increased from 266,000 cords in 1953 to
2,032,000 cords in 1993 (Johnson, 1996). Hardwood pulpwood production from Greene and
Wayne Counties, NC was 15,500 and 30,100 cords, respectively, in 1995 (Johnson and
Steppleton, 1996). Hardwood products produced in Greene and Wayne Counties, NC could be
utilized by the Celotex Corporation mill at Goldsboro, NC, which has a capacity of 100 tons
pulp/day (Johnson and Steppleton, 1996). In addition, Johnson and Steppleton (1996) indicated
that at least three mills compete for hardwood roundwood products from Green and Wayne
Counties, NC. Although most of the hardwood roundwood (58%) produced in North Carolina
was utilized by mills within the state, a substantial market exists for export of pulpwood to other
states (Johnson and Steppleton, 1996). Average 1992 pulpwood prices for hardwood roundwood
and hardwood chips in North Carolina were $16.95 and $19.90 per green ton, respectively
(Howell, 1994).
3.0 Forest Harvesting Effects on Wetland Functions and Values
Wetland functions can be defined as the physical, chemical, and biological properties of a wetland
contributing to the overall integrity of the ecosystem. Examples of wetland functions include
primary productivity, litterfall, decomposition, organic export, sediment deposition/retention,
nutrient transformation and retention, wildlife habitat, and surface water storage (Mitsch and
Gosselink, 1993; Taylor et al., 1990; Wilkinson et al., 1987). Wetland values can be defined as
the monetary worth or importance of a wetland characteristic as determined by society. Examples
of wetland values include forest products (i.e. timber, pulp, etc.), hunting, fishing, flood
desynchronization, water quality protection, aesthetics, and recreation (Richardson, 1994; Smith
et al., 1995). Wetland values are determined by societal trends; however, the magnitude of a
particular wetland value is regulated by the associated wetland functions. For example, timber
harvest is considered to be a wetland value. The value of timber harvest in a particular wetland is
determined by society through economic factors (i.e. supply and demand), but the magnitude of
that value is also dependent upon a variety of wetland functions including primary productivity,
litterfall, decomposition, and biogeochemical cycling. In addition, wetland functions are affected
by a variety of ecological processes and characteristics. For example, the primary productivity of
a particular wetland is affected by other wetland functions including decomposition, litterfall, and
biogeochemical cycling. These functions are regulated by a variety of ecological processes and
characteristics including hydroperiod, nutrient mineralization, soil hydraulic conductivity, soil bulk
density, sedimentation rates, microrelief, and plant community composition.
Forest management practices may result in a variety of direct physical alterations that impact
wetland functions and values in bottomland forests (Waldbridge and Lockaby, 1994). The
primary physical alterations resulting from forest management activities include the removal of
overstory and understory tree species and changes in soil properties and microrelief as a result of
equipment traffic (Rust and Lea, 1992; Freese, 1994; Perison et al., 1993; Trettin, 1992). These
physical alterations may result in a variety of indirect effects to soil physical and chemical
properties, hydrologic characteristics, and biological communities (Table 2).
Table 2: Potential direct and indirect effects of forest harvesting
on wetland functions in bottomland forests
Forest harvesting Direct (indirect) effects
activity
Equipment traffic 1. Rutting due to traffic (increased microrelief and surface roughness resulting in
increased sediment and surface water retention, altered surface flows)
2. Root system disturbance (reduced vigor and increased mortality of stump sprouts
resulting in decreased primary productivity, altered species composition, and
reduced regeneration)
3. Reduced soil hydraulic conductivity (altered hydroperiod and lower soil redox
potential resulting in anaerobic conditions, lowered productivity, and reduced
nutrient mineralization
4. Increased soil bulk density (reduced root growth near soil surface and reduced
infiltration resulting in reduced productivity and increased surface runoff
Overstory removal 1. Increased solar radiation at soil surface (temporary increase in evaporative losses
from soil surface and increase in organic matter decomposition resulting in
increased export of nutrients and organic carbon from the system and increased
natural regeneration of shade intolerant species)
2. Decrease in mature overstory species (temporary decrease in hard and soft mast
production, decrease in litterfall, altered overstory species composition, reduction in
specific habitat features such as dead snags and cavity/den trees, and temporary
reduction in vertical stratification)
Equipment traffic on wetland sites may result in a variety of soil physical alterations. The type of
equipment, intensity of trafficking, and season of harvest (i.e. wet vs. dry) affect the magnitude
6
of the disturbance. The use of tracked skidders resulted in less soil compaction as compared with
compaction due to the use of rubber-tired skidders in a Mississippi bottomland (Murosky and
Hassan, 1988). Aust and Lea (1992) found that the operation of rubber-tired skidders on an
Alabama bottomland site resulted in reduced saturated hydraulic conductivity and resulted in
prolonged waterlogging and reduced soil aeration. The effects of rubber-tired skidders on soil
physical properties can be reduced somewhat by limiting traffic and using wider tires (McDonald
et al., 1995; Jackson and Stokes, 1991). Soil physical alterations due to machine traffic are also
dependent on season (i.e. wet vs. dry). In general, wet season harvesting results in displacement
of the soil, rutting, and reduced hydraulic conductivity while dry season harvesting may result in
increased bulk density (Murosky and Hassan, 1988; Karr et al., 1987; Gent et al., 1983).
However, the specific effects of machine traffic are highly dependent on soil type and soil texture.
Equipment traffic may also affect the survival, growth, and regeneration of desirable overstory
species. Zaebst et al. (1995) found that species regeneration was altered seven years after skidder
and helicopter harvest in an Alabama tupelo-cypress wetland. Aboveground biomass of
regenerating water tupelo was greater and aboveground biomass of regenerating Carolina ash
(Fraxinus caroliniana) was lower on skidder harvested plots as compared with the aboveground
biomass for those species on helicopter harvested plots (Zaebst et al., 1995). The altered species
composition was explained by the reduced hydraulic conductivity and reduced soil aeration on the
skidder harvested plots which favored regeneration of water tupelo (Zaebst et al., 1995). The fine
root systems of bottomland tree species are concentrated near the soil surface in the aerobic zone.
Machine traffic on wet sites can potentially damage these fine root systems and directly affect
stump sprouts by physical damage. Lloyd et al. (1992) found that 86% of all species resprouted
within a low traffic harvest area but only 60% resprouted within a high traffic harvest area in an
Alabama headwater swamp. Hart et al. (1995) found that stump sprouting from oak species in
Mississippi stream bottoms was reduced by intensive logging with ground based equipment (i.e.
skidders). In addition to a reduction in stump sprouting, excessive equipment traffic may alter the
species composition of the regenerating forest. Freese (1994) found that certain undesirable
species such as Cyrilla racemiflora (red titi) and Cliftonia monophylla (black titi) accounted for a
greater proportion of the aboveground biomass on skidder harvested plots in an Alabama
headwater swamp. The latter studies indicate that intensive trafficking by ground based
equipment may alter species composition of regenerating bottomland forests.
Overstory removal during forest harvesting operations may also affect wetland functions and
values. Removal of relatively mature overstory species is analogous to ecological retrogression
and results in altered energy flows within the ecosystem. Odum (1969) contrasted the
developmental and mature stages of ecosystem development and indicated that the mature stages
are characterized by low net community production, closed biogeochemical cycles, slow nutrient
exchange, large internal organic pools, high species diversity, and good nutrient conservation. In
contrast, developmental stages are characterized by high net community production, open
biogeochemical cycles, rapid nutrient exchange, small internal organic pools, lower species
diversity, and poor nutrient conservation. Large scale overstory removal (i.e. clearcutting) can
result in temporary, rapid losses of nutrients and subsequent reduction in wetland functions
(Vitousek and Reiners, 1975; Gorham et al., 1979). However, these losses are generally small
7
and temporary for accepted forest harvesting practices (Binkley and Brown, 1993; Blackburn and
Wood, 1990).
Overstory removal also affects the spatial characteristics of the forest and specific habitat features
such as cavity trees and dead snags. These changes may benefit some wildlife species dependent
on early successional habitats, but may negatively affect species dependent on relatively mature
forest habitat. In general, forest harvesting at the stand level is compatible with the maintenance
of most wildlife species (Wigley and Roberts, 1994). The response to forest harvesting and
interactions among diverse assemblages of wildlife species are too numerous to summarize in this
document; however, the implementation of an uneven-aged silvicultural system (i.e. group
selection) combined with the retention of specific habitat features (i.e. cavity trees and snags) is
believed to provide a good balance between timber harvest and maintenance of diverse wildlife
habitat (Thompson et al., 1992; Pashley and Barrow, 1992).
4.0 Silvicultural Options for Bottomland Forests
Silviculture can be defined as the theory and practice of controlling forest establishment,
composition, and growth (Smith, 1962) and the term silvicultural system connotes a group of
forest management activities ranging from establishment or regeneration through harvest (Burns,
1983; Smith, 1962).
At least 19 different bottomland forest cover types have been described for the United States
(Eyre, 1980). Bottomland forests can be found along rivers and streams, backwater and
headwater swamps, and minor drainages throughout the Eastern U. S. Due to their proximity to
natural drainages, bottomland forests are at least seasonally flooded. Some backswamp or deep
swamp areas may remain flooded throughout most of the growing season. The soil types typically
found on floodplains and the nutrient subsidy present in floodwaters create conditions conducive
to high productivity; however, the saturated or flooded soils in these bottomland forests present
unique management challenges. The proposed hydrology and plant community composition of
the restored bottomland forests within the study area were described in a previous section of this
report.
Historically, access to most bottomland forests has been limited due to flooding and/or saturated
soils. Although bottomland forests encompass a diverse assemblage of plant community types,
past management activities have been relatively similar. Limitations to the operation of ground
based equipment and a historically low demand for hardwood pulp have resulted in selective
harvest of only high quality sawtimber from many bottomland stands. This type of harvesting
activity has led to "high grading" of many bottomland forests. Many "high graded" stands are
currently dominated by shade tolerant species with poor form and low commercial value;
therefore, the typical silvicultural prescription is a clearcut. Clearcutting results in the removal of
all desirable and undesirable stems and regeneration of both shade tolerant and intolerant species
through a variety of natural sources including residual desirable saplings, stump sprouts, seedling
sprouts, and seed sources.
8
Based on the site characteristics and existing data on the forest composition within the study area,
the proposed bottomland forest restoration would be primarily classified as the mixed hardwood
type, with cypress-tupelo established on only the wettest site types (Johnson and Shropshire,
1983). The typical silvicultural system for even-aged bottomland forests is a clearcut followed by
natural regeneration from residual stems, stump sprouts, and seedling sprouts (Lea, 1988;
Kellison et al., 1988; McKevlin, 1992; Walker and Watterson, 1972). Alternate silvicultural
systems for both even-aged and uneven-aged stands may include shelterwood cuttings, group
selection, and single tree selection (Kellison et al., 1988).
4.1 Clearcutting Method
Clearcutting followed by natural regeneration is the most commonly used silvicultural system for
bottomland hardwoods. The clearcut method involves the complete removal of all desirable and
undesirable growing stock from a stand. Most hardwood species are prolific sprouters; therefore,
the stand is naturally regenerated by stump sprouts or coppice growth as well as seed and seedling
sprouts. The advantages of this system include limiting equipment traffic (usually during harvest
only), removal of undesirable growing stock, regeneration of desirable shade intolerant species
(i.e. bottomland oak species), and maximizing economic returns for the landowner. Hart et al.
(1995) indicate that satisfactory oak regeneration on minor bottoms throughout Mississippi is
dependent on large [> 1 ft (0.3 m)] advance oak reproduction in the understory followed by
complete clearcutting of the overstory. Oak regeneration following harvest in this study
originated from stump sprouts and advance reproduction (Hart et al., 1995). Hook (1988)
indicated that opportunities for regeneration of cypress-tupelo swamps by techniques other than
clearcutting are quite limited. Zaebst et al. (1995) and Gardiner et al. (1995) found that cypress-
tupelo swamps in Alabama regenerated successfully following clearcut harvest with skidder and
helicopter removal of logs. However, both studies indicate substantial decreases in saturated
hydraulic conductivity of the soil on sites harvested with skidders (Gardiner et al., 1995; Zaebst et
al., 1995). Toliver and Jackson (1989) recommend clearcut sizes of at least 3 ac (1.2 ha) to
ensure regeneration of shade intolerant species, and retention of at least two cavity/den trees per 5
ac (2 ha) block.
Disadvantages of this system include undesirable aesthetic impacts and alteration of wildlife
habitat features including temporary reduction of horizontal and vertical forest stratification,
cavity/den trees, and food sources. Large scale clearcuts are more likely to result in temporary
reduction of wetland functions and increase of non-point source pollution from sediment and
nutrient losses (Binkley and Brown, 1993).
4.2 Shelterwood Method
The shelterwood method involves the gradual removal of both desirable and undesirable trees
from a stand through a series of partial cuttings over a relatively short fraction of the rotation age
(Smith , 1962). The shelterwood method generally involves a series of cuttings beginning with a
preparatory cutting (low thinning) or seed cut to provide growing space and favor natural
reproduction of desirable species in the understory. The preparatory cut and/or seed cut is
followed by one or a series of removal cuttings to provide economic return and remove mature
9
trees. The advantages to a shelterwood system include a high degree of control over regeneration
of a stand, favored production of large diameter trees, maintenance of forest cover (i.e., reduced
aesthetic impact), and maintenance of certain wildlife habitat features. Hook (1988) indicated that
the shelterwood method was useful for promoting advanced oak reproduction and preventing
wildlife habitat fragmentation. Barry and Nix (1993) found that removal of 16% to 33% of
overstory basal area resulted in substantial increases in new oak seedlings in the understory of
Congaree River bottomland hardwood stands in South Carolina. Toliver and Jackson (1989)
recommend removal of all undesirable understory stems and approximately 50% of the overstory
basal area. Approximately 40-50 seedlings and/or sprouts per acre are sufficient to ensure an
adequate oak component in the regenerating stand (Aust et al., 1985).
Disadvantages of the shelterwood method include repeated machine traffic during a rotation,
potential damage to standing trees, increased technical demand (i.e. data collection and technical
input during cutting cycle), and decreased economic returns due to intermediate treatments.
4.3 Selection Method
The selection methods (single tree and group) generally apply to the maintenance of uneven-aged
stands and are generally employed to extract some economic return and promote regeneration
within the existing stand. As the name implies, single tree selection results in the removal of
individual trees while the group selection results in the removal of groups of trees. The size of
these groups may vary, but a minimum area of 1 to 5 ac (0.4 to 2.0 ha) is recommended to ensure
regeneration of shade intolerant species (Golden, 1993; Golden, 1995; Toliver and Jackson,
1989). In some instances, a group selection may resemble a series of small scale clearcuts.
Improperly applied single tree selection, that is the removal of only high quality merchantable
trees, results in "high grading" and is not recommended for regeneration of shade intolerant
species. Single tree selection cuttings may be applicable in sensitive areas such a streamside
management zones (SMZ's). The group selection method combined with cavity tree/snag
management and adequate riparian buffers is well suited to maintain a diversity of wildlife habitat
and features, reduce forest fragmentation, and provide economic returns for the landowner
(Hook, 1988; Pashley and Barrow, 1992; Wigley and Roberts, 1994). Several oak species were
successfully regenerated in a variety of Alabama bottomland hardwood stands using group
selection cuttings between 0.75 and 3.8 ac (0.3 and 1.5 ha) (Golden, 1993; Golden, 1995). After
two growing seasons, Golden (1993) reported that the number of established water and willow
oak stems in group selection cuttings increased from 6% (preharvest) to 45% after cutting in an
Alabama River floodplain stand dominated by sweetgum and sugarberry (Celtis laevigata). Post
harvest seedling density of water oak increased 78% in group selection cuttings harvested in the
summer along the Tombigbee River in Alabama (Golden, 1995). Goelz and Meadows (1995)
reported that oak species should comprise a substantial portion of overstory basal area prior to
cutting for successful regeneration after selection cuttings in Mississippi.
Disadvantages of both single tree and group selection include limited ability to regenerate shade
intolerant species, increased technical demands to properly employ this method, and decreased
economic return for landowners. Shaffer et al. (1993) found that the harvesting costs for group
10
selection cuttings in the Jefferson National Forest, Virginia increased 15% to 25% as compared
with conventional clearcut harvests.
Table 3 provides a brief comparison of different silvicultural systems. Regardless of the
silvicultural system employed, it is likely that bottomland oak species will compose a substantial
proportion of the overstory basal area of relatively mature stands if adequate advance
regeneration is present prior to harvest. Recently harvested stands are generally dominated by
fast growing pioneer species such as green ash and sweetgum. Oak species gradually assume a
more dominant position as the stand ages (Kennedy and Meadows, 1993; Nix and Lafaye, 1993).
Clearcutting is reported as the most suitable silvicultural system for cypress-tupelo stands
(Gardiner et al., 1995; Hook, 1988; Zaebst et al., 1995). However, we found no studies that
addressed the use of alternate silvicultural systems in cypress-tupelo stands.
Table 3: Comparison of Silvicultural Systems for Restored Bottomland Hardwoods
Characteristic of
Silvicultural System Clearcut
Method Shelterwood
Method Group
Selection
Method Single Tree
Selection
Method
Technical requirements/difficulty low moderate moderate high
Net economic returns high moderate moderate low
Frequency of equipment traffic low moderate moderate high
Maintenance of forest cover low high moderate high
Regeneration of shade intolerant
bottomland oakspecies high moderate high low
Maintenance of specific habitat features
(i.e. cavity trees/snags) flexible flexible flexible flexible
maintenance of a specific density of cavity/den trees may be incorporated into all silvicultural systems
5.0 Proposed Forest Management Guidelines
Restored bottomland hardwood stands are dynamic systems similar to natural forests. Multiple
use management of these systems requires flexibility of management guidelines. Forest managers
must be able to respond to changing conditions within a stand and manage large tracts of land
according to accepted forest management procedures. Landowners are concerned about
economic returns on their investment, preservation of wildlife habitat for hunting, and
maintenance of additional wetland values for recreation and aesthetics. Therefore, the proposed
forest management guidelines for Nahunta Swamp have been formulated specifically to maintain
the functions and values of restored wetlands and ensure the necessary flexibility for landowners
and forest managers.
11
5.1 Allowable Harvest and Silvicultural Systems
Forest managers need the flexibility of a variety of silvicultural tools in order to respond to the
dynamic conditions found within bottomland forests. Therefore, there will be no restrictions
placed on the type of silvicultural system used for managing the restored bottomland forests
within the Nahunta Swamp Wetland Mitigation Bank (NSWMB). However, restrictions will be
placed on the allowable size and location of management units within a particular tract.
Management units (i.e. areas to be thinned, harvested, or otherwise manipulated during
silvicultural operations) will be limited to 5 ac (2 ha). Individual landowner parcels may be
irregularly shaped; therefore, there will be no restrictions on the shape of management units.
Silvicultural activities (particularly thinning and harvesting operations) on adjacent management
units will be restricted to ten (10) year intervals. Therefore, no two adjacent management units
will be thinned or harvested within 10 years of each other (Figure 2).
The purpose of limiting management unit size and frequency of activity is to promote a mosaic of
interconnected, uneven aged stands across the project area. Landowners may harvest or thin a
maximum of approximately 50% of the restored forest area within their tract. However,
harvested blocks are limited to 5 ac (2 ha) and may not be adjacent to one another. The
remaining 50% of the restored forest area may be harvested or thinned at a ten (10) year interval.
The latter example is not intended to encourage landowners to maximize thinning and/or
harvesting operations on their tracts. Landowners may choose to promote values other than
timber harvest such as hunting.
5.2 Streamside Management Zones (SMZ's)
p Streamside management zones (i.e. riparian buffers) will be maintained along every intermittent
and perennial stream according to best management practices for forestry in North Carolina's
wetlands (NCDEHNR, 1993). The size of the SMZ will be dependent on the type and size of the
adjacent stream (Table 4). The specific operational guidelines within SMZ's are as follows:
• Only selective cutting of trees greater than 8 in (20 cm) DBH will be allowed
e No more than 30% of the basal area should be removed within a ten (10) year period. This
allows for the extraction of valuable sawtimber trees, firewood, and cull trees, but maintains a
fully vegetated SMZ
• At least two cavity/den trees will be maintained for every 5 ac (2 ha)
• No equipment traffic will be permitted within SMZ's, except for stabilized stream crossings
which should be constructed according to state BMP guidelines (NCDEHNR, 1989)
Table 4: Guidelines for width of SW's within NSWMB'
Perennial Streams
Stream Width SMZ width
>30ft(9m) 100ft(30m)
<30ft(9m) 50ft(15m)
Intermittent Streams
All 50 ft (15 m
Source: NCDEHNR (1993)
12
5.3 Timing of Silvicultural Activities
All traffic associated with Silvicultural activities (i.e. thinning, harvesting, etc.) will be limited to
dry periods. All equipment traffic should be limited when the soil is saturated or flooded. These
equipment traffic limitations do not include normal traffic associated with recreational activities,
firewood cutting, or site inspection by the landowner.
5.4 Road Construction
Construction of additional permanent roads within the NSWMB will be prohibited. Stabilized
stream crossings and skid trails may be utilized during harvest. Specifications for stabilized
stream crossings are available in the Forestry Best Management Practices Manual (NCDEHNR,
13
(INTERMITTENT
STREAM
is :;
!ii!�iiiii!!
i'liil!i! il!iil
.. �
j!II!i NMI
! yid
I:
i!i:i!iai!!i+"I
I.i.:.. ! HillIM€ i°o ° 60 FOOTS MZ
li yra!
n u:aiia^:a
ii �ijriaa:,ill
i:,�,,:::•r,,s:::
! iiiii' r:iili jii ii!!:al u:ia !!�II,j:.:G ut
a,r:I:r!:�! a�,,,,� ,:,.� � ":
ilaii'!°
j's.rirr• ...i r:„:i:I...:a!l;rl'i�a,r:.
4
!jjl ir!
1
0 y
ciiilt!'ii!!
:1
::::::::.1
i...i
r...:;::
:::,�i::� �::a::r:::�:!:e::a::.�.ssa:aa::a•:a-a,�::,
0
Z
r
O1•
U J
y l
4•
1
l 4
l
FKi(!lillilli!ii3
;•ter
.I .
i .
i!!li!'is iiir!!i!„e`
I
I.,
!
y
u
r.
Ir.
!
l
.:.... _..—NAHU itTAF.-
C5112..
------_
_.. �......�..—.—
swAMe.
_.._.._.._.._.._.._..__ PROPERTY BOUNDARY
_ EVEN #
=ODD #
—
— SMZ (RIPARIAN BUFFER)
UNITS
D
UNITS
Figure 2: Example of Management Units and Streamside Management Zones for
Nahunta Swamp Wetland Mitigation Bank SWMB
5.3 Timing of Silvicultural Activities
All traffic associated with Silvicultural activities (i.e. thinning, harvesting, etc.) will be limited to
dry periods. All equipment traffic should be limited when the soil is saturated or flooded. These
equipment traffic limitations do not include normal traffic associated with recreational activities,
firewood cutting, or site inspection by the landowner.
5.4 Road Construction
Construction of additional permanent roads within the NSWMB will be prohibited. Stabilized
stream crossings and skid trails may be utilized during harvest. Specifications for stabilized
stream crossings are available in the Forestry Best Management Practices Manual (NCDEHNR,
13

1989). A sufficient road network currently exists within the project area to provide access for
harvesting operations and recreational activities.
5.5 Cavity/Den Tree Management
At least two cavity/den trees for every 5 ac (2 ha) will be maintained throughout the NSWMB
across all management units. Preferably, these cavity/den trees will be large bottomland oak
species in order to maintain hard mast production and oak seed sources throughout the NSWMB
project area.
The proposed forest management guidelines for the Nahunta Swamp restoration plan were
formulated to meet specific objectives. These objectives include: preserve and perpetuate the
anticipated functions and values of the restored bottomland forests, provide participating
landowners with reasonable economic incentives through future allowable timber harvests, and
maintain throughout the rotation specific wildlife habitat features such as hard mast producing
species (i.e. bottomland oak species), cavity/den trees, and forested riparian corridor. The specific
provisions contained in this plan regulate the frequency, timing, and extent of harvest and address
the maintenance of wetland functions and values. Wetland functions and values of the restored
bottomland forests are preserved by maintenance of specific wildlife habitat features such as
riparian corridors, cavity/den trees, and hard mast producing species and preservation of water
quality functions by limiting wet season equipment traffic, prohibiting new road construction, and
establishing a riparian buffer (Table 5).
6.0 Potential Economic Returns on Wetland Forest Restoration
The following example analysis outlines potential forest growth and yield and potential economic
returns for landowners participating in the Nahunta Swamp restoration program. This analysis is
intended to illustrate the maximum potential economic returns for the landowner. Individual
landowners participating in this program may not wish to follow the aggressive thinning and
harvesting schedule we outlined. Our analysis assumes projected yields from mixed bottomland
Table 5: Components of Proposed Forest Management Plan for Nahunta Swam
Specific Provision of Plan Effect on Wetland FunctionNalue
harvest area limit (5 ac (2 ha) limit) maintains wildlife habitat values by providing
continuous forest cover, reduces fragmentation effect
prohibit wet season harvest reduces risk of rutting and soil disturbance from
equipment traffic
maintain 50-100 ft (15-30 m) riparian buffer maintains continuous riparian buffer important for
nutrient and sediment retention
maintain 2 cavity/den trees per 5 ac (2 ha) maintains specific habitat features for cavity nesting
species and seed trees for hard mast production
prohibit new road construction reduces erosion and potential hydrologic alterations
from new road construction
mandate state approved BMPs ensures that landowners will follow state recommended
procedures for forest practices in wetlands
14
plantations according to the Bottomland Yield Projection System (Mengel and Young, 1993).
Growth projections of bottomland plantations is based on data from bottomland oak plantations
and natural bottomland stands (Frederick, 1996; Kennedy and Meadows, 1993; Bowling and
Kellison, 1983; McClure and Knight, 1984; Walker and Watterson, 1972; Aust et al., 1985; Stine
et al., 1995) (Figure 3). Measured site index for mixed bottomland oaks on Johnston soils ranges
between 90-110 (Broadfoot, 1976). Actual growth and yield of these plantations may exceed our
estimates. Landowners should evaluate their individual needs and balance the production of
commercial forest products, wildlife habitat/hunting, and recreation within the framework dictated
by this plan. This example analysis prescribes thinnings at 25 and 35 years followed by sawtimber
harvests at 50 and 60 years (Figure 4). Thinnings should be conducted primarily for timber
stand improvement and should favor desirable oak growing stock. At ages 25 and 35 planted oak
species will be at reproductive maturity (Burns and Honkala, 1990), therefore, thinnings should
promote acorn production and establishment of advance oak regeneration in the understory.
Thinnings outlined in this analysis were based on stocking guides for Southern bottomland
hardwoods (Goelz, 1995). Individual 5 acre management units will be clearcut harvested at ages
50 (all even # units) and 60 (all odd # units) for quality oak sawtimber.

ii'z}•

w::.vv:.:x::::::avw: x,•.•. v
:vi?:v
ii`iti
i?vvii>
>
ti,:?,
a,
Yiii:?•`
`.:
iiii`
iyiktuu.
•`y`::::

yY<
>
`
iy?ii»i? iiii.?uu``
?``
i$??

.
,
.
•
.: „
i
.
,
.
.
.
}
t
avii,:..
i?i:•.,i
iiiiii
•• va: :v .v...titi? tiiii,xv
.,.::i;:isii::ii::ii`vii::•`.i•::.:•.:. •.:v.::, , ::: .,,:: •.a,ti?,,:,;::.:.:..:`•.,.,...
:x, j •vx:::::; ::.{: •vvv:iYy;.}:.
:v:v,?xvv:y::v.:,iLi{?vii•:iiCiti{?{{iiti{ti ti?itiL{?>.tii?i?::iii?vi?(i?ii•
::.t,va•.w:.a:vvv.: .a. ,
`i'
t. Y. vn
vM1•}ti: •i }iititi>.{:?iiii•}"+iiiii iiii:siiiii::i iiY.`,Yvi'Vi: ••p; v.:;
•va:vw:.vavxx: ,
.,? ? vvvvvaxvaavvvav.•n{a{aiavi?v{v?iiti`viiiiiiiitiii{{ii
ii i
''
v???
??????

vv .. vvv: :a•: •va . v ..
iii::ii<iiiiiC:iiiii;;:ii;:<v i?•iii::iii;:?iy>i iii::iiii
F
:, w:.,::.,,:,,,, `iiw i2 ci..i,xi<a:uiu.u•.,.:ittiiti{'L'
•}ni tiiii{Y,{i•:tyiy{ii :w xxvw:....
i• ik ..
. } }}:• i} }i }}:q}v:axw:::..:..v...axvv.:,avx
^
xi\,iiitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiintii.`, vi`viiii
,
atiiiii}
`
'
i
'
'

?ii iiii::tiiiiiiiiiiiiiLkiii'c'<

i ui:y}}x:.vyv:::•.vvav,a
{.
:} :v.}} :v:.aty.
•}
}:•ti•}.
}}
ti•
,` viti•...
:: \:,:::•.\
`

ii;
}x2;;i
`iiai
`

.?
x\:x
vvS,v:
.ii
`yii"i`:i:2•`.ik`iii`v`i"•
ii`
`? .>i
i;
Y}\-k
:ii:tiiiv:i4::iiitvv,v:?+Si•,
iii\`i •`2:l\`\`Yit`i•. a.
v:vxv:v:::ni{•YYYY::•YY,v.v:.::.::.av. .;; .::vw:.v,vxvvv.,.n..v::.::.:;:. v}..w:: vr. n:k.•.aa..:x .4:
a.?...i..:a,:.;}.; .::....}.:
x?•
{,
t:
a
vv
a
,av
i
.?
\ .
a
i
i
ii
i
•
,•v
.
„ ,,,,:,,,,,,.,,„:,,,..::,..:,,::
y
}
y ..
,
,..:
:
..,,,:,,v:
,
,,,<
ti
a
::::,,
:,, .,
\:a„{
{i<
ta:iv,v,,:.:a,v.:v.::i.:i:: {ti {:
:,Y:..`iii.,:,,,,,,:.,,.,,:,,.,,.•. w.a
iiiii, ,::•
?•n:xvvxvw:
M1,vv
:v:
v:•
:\:•: .
aa:aa,
v.:axav:iiitii`,riiiiix•.aaa:v
.•
vaxx:w
w
,:: ,v:v
,a,vva
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.

.:..:v x4•.:vv:::.:v:::::>vvv: :}• ............ ........................................... ...................
?................. ........................................................ i •}C' {, ................. ...
yy v: .v.. ? av :
.......... .... a ,a
4
`,`ii14yk?}ii%`.4 ivriii•'`ry?+.i'i<iiiiiY
:.:x.::.::.i :•w.v. ::.vvx
x::}
'i ivv?iii:
:v.
i
:xt}x::v:w}?x•.xi::v.:: tl ----------------- .......... ..................................................................
--------- ------ ---- ----------

wu:
::::n/?.Yi3<}i;;iii•'•:i`n,.y..` ....................................:.-.-.-...-..................--.....,.-...-.}......-,......--......... ,. -...---. - .-...A.....--.?.-..-..-..-.-..-- -------

:nva:: ',
nw:.. : vata:: ..
x::..v 3+.v. vvi ..
?

:iiv`
-- .......- - .--
i:vua•
«,
..,v
?
n
.•.?C
to{iii'''
.Sv:.v ...}v: •.w.titi•.v:•:::.•.`:vv3a.
.: avv ': :::•.::xw.vnv.: vii ................. .......
v: , ::iiivFi ii iiiii•{'• ............. ............... ... ....... .... - ...... ....... .-.......................... .....-.......- -.-.-
v.{•. i ..:... . : i• \v':i'
,\,v

-........ --..--

M1• ?:j?i?:ri
::.: '..w:: /{>.>.{•:t iiiii },::
: ??hi,

i
....
.....•v..:.:•.:v
- ---------------

va

h?•}:v >
%
%m k.

?....
................... ...... - .......-..... .... ...........- ................. ............. ..........................
.:

__
........... ...
vvv.. `a, •{}i`?;?y
k+:•`.iii a:•:?%•. ? iii
'\?.tiii :vtv,:xv, ?.uviiiix
.vn}}•. ,tttx:t::ti.` ,i . .................:.... ....... ............. ............. ............. ............................ ....... ............. ............. ............. ...

..
•tt:•. •:.,:: iii:' }„
L'
t
.:..{i
.,
.:,, •:.,,:;;,,i:::!•i:::•.:}
•
:;ii. `
iii?:i3.ii::iri ............ ....................:................ - ....
........... ---------- .------ ................. .................... .......... ... ........... .
vwvaatxvxxav:.v ? „ayav
ii
......... ... ?
v?
}iiu
`' :
{Jri??LL,Ynvava}vva3iiti'`'' .:: ..... ......... ?----- -............;.............---- ......... ............................ ..-.... -...- ..... ..-- ------------------ .................
tt
,v,vv:::vvx:,:avn .:M vnvxv
iY
vG
u
{LYri'•{t
biv'u:•-`x :'iii
ti
L'-
i
4
4
?
,
.
i
iiii
? v^?
':..\i'ti ii iii}\ti•i:}}i}ii. Y
yiii, v ••
:<•:tn i:::.:.:. ::v:::?": :{}iiiii ;:i}}}iii
„y
:vvA `::v n{{iiiii v ?t ? :. iiiin'i
•4?i^ x:4 •v: .. i
t ?
a •
l
M1

i

`
} •}}:
4?'?,a
"{iii::ii}.ii3.i,:.....:: .tt??'Lir:<`?
i it }.. RlFlh?•.?ti{iv,:ivvx +. ? ,..?i
%
a. ...vvv aa:t:•.,,v ..,,•.:::;:::•
2i:
^•
{iil}':iii`}:::ii}}v.,hi?::ti?>
a•
i
„
`
` iivti+ vx

"i,?`iv ,tv
iitiiJ?Y[!?{i,x,?

'
?'
.
,
.
•
Y};•:
.
.,iii;;:,;:.}:.:;.yt•.3 •.:,
a:vii•.::::•:>::<iaL•:i{v:?iii,,....,,,ai:t.:.w:.::.:....: } .. {,Y }}..
•i \ `
•.v.\\.,..,..i...a :::ii%:ii ii:}.,,•}.{.r i:.a: }:.•:•.:M1,,.,.:..,::ii
:iii}i::t:::,:\•: ?::..:a•.a,aa :•::,., ,,.:„ a ;:LC{•:ii{i•:i<ii`iiiii}}.,.,.... ,:':t:\,:,.::....,aa,...:t.:\::'".i??iia{•iir.`
{iii}{iiiiiaii'.}}iii'{ iY}
.vv:Y ..... ... }?)}Y`}Y}y}}• •.Yvi<Y.{n. •.'t:i•\}:•Y:•.1••uy}}}}}}:uvx:.n:;::t.x ,: ia:x•vvn::.. :4:'ii,:\vv:: nv ryi: v. .n,,,:a,v. t'i?iiii4'Si^?:iv?v
4.:a}•.}yy.};n:}:y:;.}• „ ., ....%.v....n....t......f{:.v.:%.:..Lt`:,..........':,nx:...... n:::::..v:..:::::,Y,•:Y}}}3}.}: \v :.r ...... .. .\ avb}}}\v;3':v,:..3}•.}:Y`.:.L}:,::.}`?nvry•}•p3:v;:{::?i.r::,vv
...i..}; •::...v.:};.}t%::.. n?wn,vvva,......v.i?.. n...u:..t?a..a.x.: n.:..: ..v..r,.i?iii:
v
:t
::v
::•
vtt:•
txn
v
•
•
ii
:
i
`
}
.
y
.
.
.
v
: v:vv::
n::
.v::::a:
??j{i•:?
:v.}:vuvvv:•::.vv
;
%:j
i?i{
,;:{ii{{iiiiiiiiii iiiiiitiii
};:
}: ?,c..:.,a..va:::::?::v:::..::a..v.:v.:ii:;>:;:r;^•.::ii:nii ii{i::v
ii'i4iiii:•i: ia'ii`Yi?n}{' ?vii\i\i •.v..:,.
v..iivx \\:
ii{yy:::y}:.iS`siiiSii' t::i'{'{'{22'ti}ii}:yi}i}:• iii?t;:
: v::.iiiiia a..:v:..:::..,v." .`}Y:4a}}::x}:}::.v:,:,.. i:.:.{} •.: v. ' `? • ` `" }
.:•}n•}:^}+:'-}::::iii•::viii,>.{!2iiiiii::iiiii:.. n ,}v v3
iiCitiya{:v..v::i: } ::•.w.xw.v.::vv v,v:•.a•: }:.'ti
.a:axx\i::..:vi{`:Y•.x ::iiiii?i {i?i<i'? '
t,::•.,v:,:.vv{:v.•n:}titi• ::v,i:xv.:::.; iitij'itiiix?' i??:i<iii:;;`::i
v
n.:3
a
'
'
i
>iiiiii:'
i
'
'
?
l
,}
?
?
?
?
•a
y
•3:-
.v.}::
33.
;::v}}}:}v::}i: }
?.:::}. } }
?
•M1 .. \ ti ..
iiiiix}::.}•v.}:;.....:n ;.. •.v.0.av.:`?.
.?.a:.v:...tai.::,...:.i.,....t.. :t.x..:N.:µ..{::M1N:tiiM1.::?i:Y.tli :x:3 .}::}}}{.
}v; iiy}n,:..:.:.txv:;...S,.y43ry.}xa :
i.•++• i2{•:i{iv
vi \4:{<ii`i:'Y:? iiiii::iiii•:i:} ...ttxxty:A?4:?vi'iiiiiiiii{ii{i?Li?'tiii
:::::•:.,•:.,:,.:::::::::v::: •••• :::::,:•. •
;.v{}t}xvryh:•.:vY3:}..yx}} {{;;•ti }}.S: a:{.ax:a xxvn:v.iv:.. n.:.:.t::}i:v.:vvtty x:
.a..:
v
•.v
.v •.•.:vvav,,:v:a
ivxv::xx .:
:
•
:
ta
::::•
,:::::vv:
,,,,t:.
?
ii
i }::4v:•Y:•:•}:y:: •. 4
v
hvx :
?iii'{L{{{{i ••, •Y`
a,.:`i,::,:.,i:
iii
i
i
?
..
.
.
..
.
.
.
.:t:::v::
.v
::.
4.. kx.,.w:::.x
w::: nv: ?.. ,
:.v.4 •.v:v:.:•.•a'•a .xtitiv:
''' : x.v.. , '•}n::vvv:..v:: :v.•; •••. :x•.vvvvvxv...:.:tuv.}:x•. w:.vv.:t:.xt,•:.:tx•
.L•:j{.:':.:{':{{iiiii tii::tiiiiti ni{{:{i: {i: i<{{iii•:{ifi,{:it•:iti::i:.,:x:vv:..vv.,:•.v:.:v.:vnvn.:.::L':,v: v: ryv:•
.. .... .. } .... .. .... .. ... ....y„vv»v.:vvxhu::yxv.,u:{:,t3{Li:ii'u::y vv} y}v}v,:•n:3t}t}v::xi4::}x}},:,}SV•;.}xtxy}x:: < .:,,:
v::.v.,
:.:
a t::.:,
\
••.. ...
i:iii{{,{.:L;• i?ji{?,{Yti ii?iiii•
Figure 3: Estimated Growth of Restored Bottomland Hardwood Stands
in Nahunta Swam Wetland Mitigation Bank
15
Economic forecasts are based on current pulpwood prices of $18.00/cord and sawtimber prices
for mixed oak of $225.00/MBF (International '/a" rule) (Howell, 1994). The value of hunting
leases is assumed to be $3.00/acre/year.
The schedule of silvicultural activities, forecasted expenditures, and forecasted economic returns
is outlined in Table 6. It should be noted that the forecasted economic expenditures for
restoration, maintenance, and monitoring of the mixed bottomland stands will be absorbed by
NCDOT. Estimated restoration (i.e. establishment) costs for the mixed bottomland stands within
NSWMB include hydrologic restoration (ditch plugging, etc.), site preparation costs (disking,
subsoiling, herbicide application), seedling costs, and planting costs. Maintenance and monitoring
include data collection and remedial measures to ensure the success of the restoration effort
within an initial limited time period (usually 3-5 years). Estimated returns do not include
incidental costs to the landowner such as consulting forestry professionals, harvesting costs, and
transportation costs.
16
Table 6: Schedule of Silvicultural Activities and Forecasted Economic Return for Example Analysis of
Restored Bottomland Hardwood Stands at NSWMB
Stand Management Silvicultural Activity Estimated Economic Comments
Age Units Return 1996 dollars
0 all stand establishment - $750 - $1,000/ac' includes site preparation, herbicide
application, planting, hydrologic
modifications, seedlings, etc.
0-5 all stand monitoring - $100 - $200/ac 1 routine monitoring & remedial
action (replanting, etc.)
25 even # units TSI - improvement + $198/ac pulpwood harvest of I Icords/ac,
(5 ac. blocks) thinning thinning should favor high quality
oakspecies
35 odd # units TSI - improvement + $252/ac pulpwood harvest of 14 cords/ac,
(5 ac. blocks) thinning thinning should favor high quality
oakspecies
50 even # units clearcut harvest w/ + $216/ac pulpwood remove all stems to 2" DBH,
residual cavity/den + $3713/ac sawtimber pulpwood harvest of 12 cords/ac,
trees @ 2 trees/5 ac oak sawtimber harvest of 16.5
MBF/ac
60 odd # units clearcut harvest w/ + $144/ac pulpwood remove all stems to 2" DBH,
residual cavity/den + $5400/ac sawtimber pulpwood harvest of 8 cords/ac,
trees @ 2 trees/5 ac oak sawtimber harvest of 24
MBF/ac
60 all single tree selection + $1575/ac sawtimber remove 30% of basal area in large
harvest in SMZ's w/ diameter oak species, oak
residual cavity/den sawtimber harvest of 7 MBF/ac
trees 2 trees/5 ac
0-60 all hunting leases + $3/ac/ misc. huntin leases
Costs paid by NCDOT
6.0 Conclusions
Most of the natural bottomland hardwood forests within the Nahunta Swamp watershed have
been cleared for agriculture, ditched, and drained. Due to the conversion of these forests to
agriculture, Nahunta Swamp has become a major source of nutrient and sediment pollution to the
lower Neuse River basin. Restoration of bottomland forests within the Nahunta Swamp
watershed would improve the functions and values attributed to these sites including water quality
improvement, wildlife habitat restoration, and recreational opportunities. The key to a successful
restoration program within the Nahunta Swamp watershed is landowner cooperation. Many
landowners are concerned about limitations placed upon their parcels and resource regulatory
agencies are concerned about the restoration and maintenance of wetland functions and values.
Many landowners within Nahunta Swamp watershed currently derive annual income from their
parcels through the production of agricultural commodities. Successful implementation of a large
scale forested wetland restoration program within the watershed is contingent upon multiple use
management of the restored wetlands. Landowners may derive periodic income from their parcels
through timber harvest and hunting leases. In addition, landowners may cut firewood and use
17
their parcels for a variety of recreational activities. Minor restrictions placed on forest
management activities ensure the maintenance of wetland functions and values including diverse
wildlife habitat.
7.0 Literature Cited
Aust, W.M., J.D. Hodges, and R.L. Johnson, 1985. The Origin, Growth, and Development of
Natural, Pure, Even-Aged Stands of Bottomland Oak. Pages 163-177 in Proceedings of the 3`a
Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Forest
Experiment Station, General Technical Report SO-54, New Orleans, LA.
Aust W.M. and R. Lea. 1992. Comparative Effects of Aerial and Ground Logging on Soil
Properties in a Tupelo-Cypress Wetland. For. Ecol. Mgmnt. 50:57-73.
Barnhill, W.L. 1974. Soil Survey of Wayne County, North Carolina. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation
Service in cooperation with the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Washington,
D.C.
Barnhill, W.L. 1990. Soil Survey of Greene County, North Carolina. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation
Service in cooperation with North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina
Agricultural Extension Service, and Greene County Board of Commissioners. Washington D.C.
Barry, J.E. and L.E. Nix. 1993. Impact of Harvesting Activities on Oak Seedling Establishment in
a Bottomland Hardwood Forest. Pages 155-158 in Proceedings of the 7th Biennial Southern
Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station,
General Technical Report SO-93, New Orleans, LA.
Bechtold, W.A. and R.M. Sheffield. 1991. Hardwood Timber Supplies in the United States. Tappi
Journal 74(5):111-116.
Beissel, K. 1996. A Comparison of Vegetational, Edaphic and Hydrologic Characteristics of
Riverine Forested Wetlands of the North Carolina Coastal Plain. MS Thesis, North Carolina
State University, College of Forest Resources, 57pp.
Binkley, D. and T.C. Brown. 1993. Management Impacts on Water Quality of Forests and
Rangelands. U. S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,
General Technical Report RM-239, Fort Collins, CO.
Blackburn, W.H. and J.C. Wood. 1990. Nutrient Export in Stormflow Following Forest
Harvesting and Site Preparation in East Texas. J. Environ. Qual. 19:402-408.
Bowling, D.R. and R.C. Kellison. 1983. Bottomland Hardwood Stand Development Following
Clearcutting. S. J. Appl. For. 7:110-116.
18
Broadfoot, W.M. 1976. Hardwood Suitability for and Properties of Important Midsouth Soils.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Research Paper SO-127. New
Orleans, LA. 84 p.
Brown, M.J. 1993. North Carolina's Forests. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southeastern Forest
Experiment Station, Resource Bulletin SE-142. Asheville, NC.
Burns, R.M. 1983. Silvicultural Systems for the Major Forest Types of the United States.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Agricultural Handbook No. 445. Washington, D.C.
Burns, R.M. and B.H. Honkala. 1990. Silvics of North America. U. S.D.A. Forest Service,
Agricultural Handbook 654, Washington D.C.
Eyre, F.H. 1980. Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada. Society of American
Foresters, Washington, D.C. 148 pp.
Frederick, D.J. 1996. Unpublished forest inventory data for hardwood plantations in a Piedmont
Stream Bottom. Department of Forestry, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Freese, D.A. 1994. Timber Harvesting Effects on Ecosystem Functions in Headwater Forested
Wetlands of Southwestern Alabama. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Forestry, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC. 166 pp.
Gardiner, E.S., J.D. Hodges, and S.H. Schoenholtz. 1995. Effects of Harvesting Methods on Site
and Regeneration in Cypress-Tupelo Swamps. Pages 216-219 in Proceedings of the 8"' Biennial
Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Research Station,
General Technical Report SRS-1, Asheville, NC.
Gent, J.A., R. Ballard, and A.E. Hassan. 1983. The Impact of Harvesting and Site Preparation on
the Physical Properties of Lower Coastal Plain Forest Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47:595-598.
Goelz, J.C.G. 1995. A Stocking Guide for Southern Bottomland Hardwoods. S. J. Appl. For.
19(3):103-104.
Golden, M. S. 1993. Establishment of Regeneration in Small Patch Clearcut Openings in am
Alabama River Floodplain Forest. Pages 161-167 in Proceedings of the 7t' Biennial Southern
Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station,
General Technical Report SO-93, New Orleans, LA.
Golden, M. S. 1995. Establishment of Oak Regeneration in Group Selection Openings in a River
Floodplain Forest. Pages 413-418 in Proceedings of the 8`h Biennial Southern Silvicultural
Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, General Technical
Report SRS-l, Asheville, NC.
Gorham, E., P.M. Vitousek, and W.A. Reiners. 1979. The Regulation of Chemical Budgets over
the Course of Terrestrial Ecosystem Succession. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10:53-84.
19
Hart, C.P., J.D. Hodges, K. Belli, and J. Stanturf. 1995. Evaluating Potential Oak and Ash
Regeneration on Minor Bottoms in the Southeast. Pages 434-442 in Proceedings of the 8t'
Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern
Research Station, General Technical Report SRS-1, Asheville, NC.
Haynes, R.W. 1990. An Analysis of the Timber Situation in the United States: 1989-2040.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General
Technical Report RM-199, Fort Collins, CO. 268 p.
Haynes, R.W., D.M. Adams, and J.R. Mills. 1995. The 1993 RPA Timber Assessment Update.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General
Technical Report RM-GTR-259, Fort Collins, CO. 65 p.
Hook, D.D. 1988. Alternatives to Clearcutting in Lowland Hardwood Forests. Pages 34-43 in
Proceedings of the 16'h Annual Hardwood Symposium of the Hardwood Research Council:
Hardwood Supply - Feast or Famine, Cashiers, NC.
Howell, M. 1994. Pulpwood Prices in the Southeast, 1992. U.S.D.A. Forest Service,
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Research Note SE-369. Asheville, NC.
Hutchins, C.C. 1991. Southern Pulpwood Production, 1989. U.S.D.A. Forest Service,
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Resource Bulletin 5E-119, Asheville, NC. 28 p.
Jackson, B.D. and B.J. Stokes. 1991. Low Impact Harvesting Systems for Wet Sites. Pages 701-
709 in Coleman, S.S. and D. G. Neary (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial Southern
Silviculture Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station,
General Technical Report SE-70, Asheville, NC.
Johnson, R.L. and F.W. Shropshire. 1983. Bottomland Hardwoods. Pages 175-179 in R.M. Burns
(ed.), Silvicultural Systems for the Major Forest Types of the United States. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Agricultural Handbook No. 445. Washington, D.C.
Johnson, T.G. 1996. Trends in Southern Pulpwood Production, 1953-1993. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Southern Research Station, Resource Bulletin SRS-3, Asheville, NC.
Johnson, T.G. and C.D. Steppleton. 1996. Southern Pulpwood Production, 1995. U.S.D.A.
Forest Service, Southern Forest Station, Resource Bulletin SRS-8. Asheville, NC.
Kellison, R.C., J.P. Martin, G.D. Hansen, and R. Lea. 1988. Regenerating and Managing Natural
Stands of Bottomland Hardwoods. Bottomland Hardwood Management Taskforce, Southeastern
Technical Division, American Pulpwood Association, APA 88-A-6, Washington, D.C.
20
Kennedy, H.E. and J.S. Meadows. 1993. Species Composition and Stand Development 21 Years
After Clearcutting in a Bottomland Wetland Forest. Pages 49-56 in Proceedings of the 7"'
Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Forest
Experiment Station, General Technical Report SO-93, New Orleans, LA.
Lea, R. 1988. Management of Eastern United States Bottomland Hardwood Forests. In the
Ecology and Management of Wetlands, Volume 2: Management, Use, and Value of Wetlands.
Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Lloyd, S.M., R.H. Jones, B.,G. Lockaby, and L. Reyneud. 1992. Effects of harvesting activity on
tree regeneration in three Alabama branch-bottom forests. Pages 869-873 in Proceedings of the
13'h Annual Conference of the Society of Wetland Scientists, New Orleans, LA.
McClure, J.P. and H.A. Knight. 1984. Empirical Yields of Timber and Forest Biomass in the
Southeast. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Research Paper
5E-245, Asheville, NC.
McDonald, T.P., B.J. Stokes, and W.M. Aust. 1995. Soil Physical Property Changes After
Skidder Traffic with Varying Tire Widths. J. For. Engr. 6(2):41-50.
McKevlin, M.R. 1992. Guide to Regeneration of Bottomland Hardwoods. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report SE-76, Asheville,
NC.
Mengel, D.L. and M.J. Young. 1993. A User's Guide to the Bottomland Yield Projection System
(BYPS). College of Forest Resources, Hardwood Research Cooperative Series No. 8, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, second edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, NY 722 pp.
Murosky, D.L. and A.E. Hassan. 1988. Impact of Machine Traffic on a Wetland Hardwood Site.
Paper Number 88-7545, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
NCDEHNR. 1989. Forestry Best Management Practices Manual. North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Raleigh, NC.
NCDEHNR. 1993. Best Management Practices for Forestry in North Carolina's Wetlands
(DRAFT). North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and
U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Raleigh, NC.
21
NCDEHNR. 1995. Nahunta Swamp Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment. North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and U.S.D.A. Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Raleigh, NC.
Nix, L.E. and A. Lafaye. 1993. Successful Regeneration of Quality Oaks in a Red River
Bottomland Hardwood Stand of South Carolina. Pages 81-85 in Proceedings of the 7"' Biennial
Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Forest
Experiment Station, General Technical Report SO-93, New Orleans, LA.
Odum, E.P. 1969. The Strategy of Ecosystem Development. Science 164:262-269.
Pashley, D.N. and W.C. Barrow. 1992. Effects of Land Use Practices on Neotropical Migratory
Birds in Bottomland Hardwood Forests. Pages 315-320 in Status and Management of
Neotropical Migratory Birds. U. S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-229, Fort Collins, CO.
Perison, D.M., R. Lea, and R. Kellison. 1993. The Response of Soil Physical and Chemical
Properties and Water Quality to Timber Harvest and Soil Disturbance: Preliminary Results. Pages
143-146 in Proceedings of the 76' Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A.
Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report SO-93, New
Orleans, LA.
Richardson, C.J. 1994. Ecological Functions and Human Values in Wetlands: A Framework for
Assessing Forestry Impacts. Wetlands 14 (1): 1-9.
Schafale, M.P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
SCS. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service,
Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491. Washington, D.C.
Shaffer, R.M., K.R. Brummel, and B.J. Stokes. 1993. The Impact of Group Selection Silviculture
on Timber Harvesting Productivity and Cost in the Southern Appalachians. Pages 651-653 in
Proceedings of the 7"' Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report SO-93, New Orleans,
LA.
Smith, D.M. 1962. The Practice of Silviculture. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 578 pp.
Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M. Brinson. 1995. An Approach for Assessing
Wetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands, and Functional
Indices. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research
Program, Technical Report WRP-DE-9, 71 pp. plus appendices.
22
Stine, M., J.L. Chambers, M. Wilson, and K. Ribbeck. 1995. Twenty-Year Survival and Growth
of Six Bottomland Hardwood Species. Pages 500-502 in Proceedings of the 8t` Biennial Southern
Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, General
Technical Report SRS-1, Asheville, NC.
Taylor, JR., M.A. Cardamone, and W.J. Mitsch. 1990. Bottomland Hardwood Forests: Their
Functions and Values. Pages 13-86 in Ecological Processes and Cumulative Impacts Illustrated by
Bottomland Hardwood Wetland Ecosystems, J.G. Gosselink, L.C. Lee, and T.A. Muir (eds.),
Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI. 708 pp.
Thompson, F.R., J.R. Probst, and M.G. Raphael. 1992. Silvicultural Options for Neotropical
Migratory Birds. Pages 353-361 in Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General
Technical Report RM-229, Fort Collins, CO.
Toliver, J.R. and B.D. Jackson. 1989. Recommended Silvicultural Practices in Southern Wetland
Forests. Pages 72-77 in D.D. Hook and R. Lea (eds.) The Forested Wetlands of the Southern
United States, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, General
Technical Report SE-50, Asheville, NC.
Trettin, C.C. 1992. Silvicultural Effects on Functional Processes of a Boreal Wetland. Ph.D.
Dissertation. Department of Forestry, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Vitousek, P.M. and W.A. Reiners. 1975. Ecosystem Succession and Nutrient Retention: A
Hypothesis. Bioscience 25(6):376-381.
Waldbridge, M.R. and B.G. Lockaby. 1994. Effects of Forest Management on Biogeochemical
Functions in Southern Forested Wetlands. Wetlands 14(1):10-17.
Walker, L.C. and K.G. Watterson. 1972. Silviculture of Southern Bottomland Hardwoods.
Bulletin 25, School of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX.
Wigley, T.B. and T.H. Roberts. 1994. A Review of Wildlife Changes in Southern Bottomland
Hardwoods Due to Forest Management Practices. Wetlands 14(1):41-48.
Wilkinson, D.L., K. Schneller-McDonald, R.W. Olson, and G.T. Auble. 1987. Synopsis of
Wetland Functions and Values: Bottomland Hardwoods with Special Emphasis on Eastern Texas
and Oklahoma. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 87(12), Washington D.C.
Zaebst, T.W., W.M. Aust, S.H. Schoenholtz, and C. Fristoe. 1995. Recovery Status of a Tupelo-
Cypress Wetland Seven Years After Disturbance: Silvicultural Implications. Pages 229-235 in
Proceedings of the 8`'' Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Southern Research Station, General Technical Report SRS-1, Asheville, NC.
23
M
D R A F T - SUBJECT TO REVISION - MARCH, 1996
CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT dated this - - - day of - - - - - - -, 199-, by
and between __ _______ ____ __ ____ _ ___
herein referred to as the "Grantor" or "Landowner", and the Wayne Soil and
Water Conservation District, herein referred to as the "Grantee". The
designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties,
their heirs, successors, and assigns.
The Grantor covenants with the Grantee, that Grantor is seized of the premises
described below in section I in fee simple, has the right to convey the same
in fee simple, that title is marketable and free and clear of all
encumbrances, and that Grantor will warrant and defend the title against the
lawful claims of all persons whomsoever except for the exceptions hereinafter
stated. Title to the property hereinbelow described is subject to the
following exceptions:
(LEAVE SPACE FOR EXCEPTIONS)
(NEED EXAMPLES OF EXCEPTIONS)
This easement is under the authority and furtherance of the provisions of
State and Federal law, including the Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law
of 1937 (State), Conservation and Historic Preservation Act (Federal), section
1462 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Federal),
the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Federal),Federal
Executive Order 11988 - Flood Plain Management (May 24, 1977), and Federal
Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands (May 24, 1977). The
restrictions and covenants contained in this easement constitute a perpetual
servitude on and run with the property. The Grantor, all successors, and
assigns ("landowner") under this deed covenant with the Grantee to do or
refrain from doing, severally and collectively, the various acts mentioned
later in this easement. The Grantee is conveyed the rights enumerated in this
easement for itself, its successors, agents and assigns.
WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the
Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has and by these
presents does grant bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee, an appurtenant
conservation easement in, over and under the lands described hereafter with
the appurtenant right of access. This conservation easement is created
pursuant to the N.C. Historic Preservation and Conservation Agreements Act and
in furtherance of Purposes of State and Federal Law set forth above and is
granted in perpetuity. This appurtenant conservation easement and right of
access is located on land situated in --------------- Township, Wayne County,
North Carolina and more particularly described below in section I.
A7
D R A F T - SUBJECT TO REVISION - MARCH, 1996
I. Description of the Easement Area and Access Thereto:
The area subject to the Conservation Easement, referred to herein as the
"easement area" is described as follows:
(DESCRIPTION - EASEMENT SHOULD STOP AT NCDOT RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND
AT LEAST 100 FEET FROM NCDOT BRIDGES)
The property hereinabove described was acquired by Grantor by instrument
recorded in -------------------------------------------------------
2
D R A F T - SUBJECT TO REVISION - MARCH, 1996
II. Covenants by the Landowner.
A. No dwellings, barns, outbuildings, or other structures shall be
built within the easement area.
B. The vegetation and hydrology of the described easement area will be
established for the landowner according to a Wetland Restoration Plan
developed between the Grantee and cooperating Federal and State
agencies. Said plan will be consistent with the preservation and
enhancement of floodplain and wetland functional values. After the plan
is implemented, the easement area will not be altered in any way or by
any means or activity on the property conveyed by this deed, or property
owned or under the control of the landowner, including (1) cutting or
mowing; (2) cultivation; (3) grazing; (4) burning; (S) placing of
refuse, wastes, chemicals, sewage, or other debris; (6) draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, discing, pumping, diking,
impounding, or related activities; or (7) diverting or affecting the
natural flow of surface or underground waters into, within, and out of
the easement area except as noted in this easement.
C. The landowner will be allowed to selectively harvest timber in
accordance with a Wetland Timber Management Plan developed with
concurrence of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Said plan will be
consistent with the preservation and enhancement of floodplain and
wetland functional values.
D. Notwithstanding the provision of paragraph II-B above, the landowner
shall be responsible for compliance with all federal, state, and local
laws for the control of noxious or other undesirable plants on the
easement area. The responsibility for such plant control may be assumed
in writing by and at the option of the Grantee where the control or
manipulation of such plants is deemed by the Grantee to affect easement
management programs or policies.
E. Cattle or other stock shall not be permitted on the easement area,
except that the Grantee shall permit access to and use of waters within
the area necessary for stock watering under such terms and conditions as
the Grantee deems necessary to protect and further the purposes of this
easement, provided:
(1) the Grantor bears the costs of building and maintaining
fencing or other facilities reasonably necessary to preclude stock
from entering the easement area; and
(2) access for stock watering need not be permitted where other
waters are reasonably available from other sources outside the
easement area.
3
j.
D R A F T - SUBJECT TO REVISION - MARCH, 1996
III. Rights Conveyed to Grantee.
The Grantee and its successors or assigns, is conveyed the rights, at its sole
discretion, to manage the easement area including the following authorities:
A. The rights of reasonable ingress and egress on and across any and
all lands and easements of the landowner ("servient estate") as of the
date of this instrument, whether or not adjacent or appurtenant to the
easement area, for access to the easement area in order to conduct
wetlands management, monitoring, and easement enforcement activities.
The Grantee may utilize vehicles and other reasonable modes of
transportation for access purposes overland or on any right of way
described in paragraph I. In the event that the use of the described
access over the servient estate is not practical for any reason, the
Grantee may utilize any convenient route of access to the easement area
over the servient estate.
B. The rights to install, operate, and maintain structures for the
purpose of reestablishing, protecting, and enhancing wetland functional
values including the taking of construction materials to and from said
sites.
C. The right to establish, alter, and otherwise control vegetation
through seedings, plantings, or natural succession.
D. The right to alter or otherwise control vegetation, topography and
hydrology on the easement area through diking, pumping, water
management, excavating, island construction, burning, cutting, pesticide
application, fertilizing, and other appropriate practices.
E. The right to prevent grazing or other types of encroachment on the
easement area.
IV. Easement Management and Administration.
A. All rights, title and interests of the Grantee in this easement are
administered by the Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District. The
Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District may enforce all the terms and
conditions of this easement, along with exercising all rights and powers
conveyed in this easement through such general or specific regulations
or orders as have been or may be, from time to time, promulgated under
the authority of the Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law of 1937.
Notwithstanding the above rights in paragraph III, conveyed to the
Grantee, the Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District may permit the
landowner to pursue such activities on said sites as would be consistent
with the preservation and enhancement of floodplain and wetland
functional values.
B. As used in this easement, the term "Grantee" shall refer to the
authorized official of the Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District.
4
?,
D R A F T - SUBJECT TO REVISION - MARCH, 1996
V. General Provisions.
A. The agreed upon purposes of this easement are the restoration,
preservation, and maintenance of the wetland and floodplain areas
including protection and enhancement of plant and animal habitat and
populations. A "Wetland" is defined by reference to section 7(c) of
Federal Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands and a
"floodplain" is defined by reference to section (6)c of Federal
Executive order 11988 - Flood Plain Management. Any ambiguities in this
easement shall be construed in a manner which best effectuates wetland
preservation.
B. Any subsequent amendment to or repeal of any federal or state law or
order which authorizes this easement shall not affect the rights
conveyed to the grantee or subsequently held by its successors or
assigns.
C. For purposes of this easement, wetland management rights conveyed to
the grantee include, but are not limited to, inspection for compliance
with the terms of this easement and any other activity consistent with
the preservation and enhancement of wetland functional values.
D. The Grantee, its successors and assigns shall have the right to make
surveys, take photographs, and prepare such other documentation as may
be necessary or desirable to administer the provision of this easement.
Any such map, plat, or other suitable document may be recorded in the
land records of the respective county in which the property is located.
E. The easement does not authorize public entry upon or use of land.
The landowner may permit it at the landowner's discretion.
F. The landowner and invitees may hunt and fish on the easement area in
accordance with all Federal, State, and local game and fishery
regulations.
G. The North Carolina Department of Transportation holds any rights to
the use of the restored wetland area for compensatory mitigation.
H. This easement shall be binding on the Grantor, their heirs,
successors, or assigns. The Grantor covenants to warrant and defend
unto the Grantee, its successors, or assigns, the quiet and peaceable
use and enjoyment of the land and interests in the land constituting
this easement against all claims and demands.
I. In the performance of any rights of the Grantee under this easement,
the Grantee may permit, contract, or otherwise provide for action by
employees, agents, or assigns which may include the landowner.
5

D R A F T - SUBJECT TO REVISION - MARCH, 1996
VI. Enforcement and Remedies.
A. Upon any breach of the terms of this conservation Easement by the
Grantor, their heirs, successors, or assigns, which comes to the
attention of the Grantee, the Grantee shall notify the Grantor in
writing of such breach. The Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after
receipt of such notice to undertake actions that are reasonably
calculated to promptly correct the conditions constituting such breach.
If the breach remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the grantee may
exercise any or all of the following remedies:
1. Institute suits to enjoin any breach or enforce any covenant
by temporary an/or permanent injunction either prohibitive or
mandatory and/or to recover any damages from injury to any
conservation values protected by this Conservation Easement,
including damages for the loss of scenic, aesthetic, historic, or
environmental values and attorneys fees if Grantee prevails; and
2. Require that the land be restored promptly to the condition
required by this Conservation Easement.
B. The Grantee has the right to prevent any activity on or use of the
Property that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation
Easement. Grantee's remedies shall be cumulative and shall be in
addition to any other rights and remedies available to Grantee at law or
equity. If Grantee, in its sole discretion, determines that
circumstances require immediate action to prevent or mitigate
significant damage to the conservation values of the Property, the
Grantee may pursue its remedies without prior notice to Grantor, but
shall exercise reasonable efforts to notify Grantor.
C. No failure on the part of Grantee to enforce any covenant or
provision hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any
other covenant, condition, or provision hereof or affect the right of
Grantee to enforce the same in the event of a subsequent breach or
default.
D. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed
to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or
change in the Property resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's
control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, war, acts of
God or third parties, except Grantor's lessees or invitees; or from
prudent action taken in good faith by Grantor under emergency conditions
to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, damage to
property or harm to the Property resulting from such causes, in
accordance with the provisions of Paragraph II.B. hereunder.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the herein described interests in land unto the Grantee
forever.
WITNESS, the signature of the Grantor.
WITNESS, the signature of the authorized officer of the Grantee.
Chairman, Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District
6

NAHUNTA SWAMP WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN OF OPERATION
The primary goal in this wetland restoration plan is the restoration of
bottomland hardwood habitat adjacent to Nahunta Swamp and it's tributaries
(riparian areas) to improve water quality and improve wildlife and aquatic
habitat. All restoration work will be done on Johnston soils. The vegetation
to be established will trap sediment and nutrients from adjoining cropland as
well as provide food and cover for both game and non-game species. The
restored riparian area will also provide valuable wildlife travel corridors
along the stream.
Field No. 2 represents a typical prior converted wetland in Nahunta
Swamp Watershed. The field consists of 8 acres of Johnston loam soils
currently being farmed. Johnston soils in a natural state are very poorly
drained, nearly level soils on wide, flat, low flood plains along large
drainageways. The seasonal high water table is at the surface. Flooding is
very frequent (more often than once in two years) and of long duration (seven
days to one month from November through July). A representative profile near
the junction of Exum Mill Branch and Nahunta Swamp includes:
Ap - 0 to 10 inches, very dark-grey (10YR 3/1) loam
Al - 10 to 28 inches, black (10YR 2/1) loam
Blg - 28 to 32 inches, grey (10YR 5/1) sandy loam
B2g - 32 to 45 inches, grayish-brown (10YR 5/2) sandy loam
Cg - 45 to 65 inches, light-grey (10YR 7/1) sand
There are no restrictive layers in the soil. Hydrology is a function of
landscape position and frequent flooding.
There is an intercepter ditch (Ditch 1) running parallel with Nahunta
Swamp, separating the upland area from the flood plain. This ditch controls
most of the hydrology for the field by intercepting the overland and
subsurface flow from the upland areas. There is a property line ditch (Ditch
2) that directs the flow from Ditch 1 to Nahunta Swamp. Ditch 2 has a limited
effect on the hydrology but must remain open for the adjoining landowner
unless he can be persuaded to cooperate with the wetland restoration program.
A major goal of the Soil & Water Conservation Districts will be to have as
many adjacent landowners cooperating as possible to increase the effectiveness
of the project.
NRCS's standards and specifications for wetland restoration' will be
followed except that the US Army Corps of Engineers' recommendations' for
species composition and survival rates will take precedence. The US Army
Corps of Engineers recommends a minimum of 6 hardwood species with no more
than 20% of any one species. Planting will be on a 10 foot by 10 foot spacing
(435 tree er acre). The goal will be a minimum of 320 trees per acre
survivin years after the wetland hydrology has been reestablished. Pine
will no planted and should account for less than 10% of the total site
speci
'Natural Resources Conservation Service Technical Guide, Section IV,
Practice Code 657, Wetland Restoration, (July, 1992)
2Com ensator Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines, US Army Corps of Engineers,
December, 1993
?mk4
G
? MARCH 28, 1996
D R A F T
Tree planting will be done before the hydraulic modifications are made
to reduce seedling mortality. The wetland hydrology will be reestablished in
as simple a manner as possible to reduce operation and maintenance costs. It
is anticipated that earthen plugs, 100 feet in length, can be used to block
the drainage ditches and restore the hydrology. The number of plugs and their
location will be determined during individual field planning. In some
situations it may be necessary to fill the entire length of the drainage
ditch. overland flow from the adjacent slopes and the periodic flooding of
Nahunta Swamp will be sufficient to restore the wetland hydrology. There will
be no need for diking, levees, or other ponding structures or the artificial
introduction of additional water. Local reference wetlands will be used to
compare progress in restoration.
Timber harvesting will be permitted in accordance with a wetland timber
management plan developed with the concurrence of the US Army Corps of
Engineers. The plan will maintain the hydrology, vegetative community, and
other wetland functions and values. Clear cutting will not be allowed.
The NC Department of Transportation will provide funds for purchase of
the conservation easements and restoration of the wetland areas. A wetlands
mitigation plan will be developed with the concurrence of the US Army Corps of
Engineers. Best Management Practices on critically eroding cropland adjacent
to the restored wetland areas will reduce sedimentation. Provisions in the
conservation easements will protect the restored wetland areas from
destruction by human/animal actions (4-wheel drive vehicles, livestock
grazing, etc.).
The US Army Corps of Engineers' Mitigation Planning Checklist will be
followed at each step of the planning process. The mitigation plan will
include success criteria, a description of a local reference wetland site,
monitoring plans for vegetation and hydrology, and an analysis of the restored
hydrology including water budgets. As-built plans of the wetland restoration,
random sampling of the vegetation on each tract, and monitoring reports will
be prepared and submitted to the appropriate agencies by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation.
MARCH 28, 1996
D R A F T

WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN/SCHEDULE OF OPERATIONS
NAME: EXAMPLE COUNTY: WAYNE STATE: NC CONTRACT NO: 1-T-5431 TOTAL ACRES UNDER
CONTRACT: 8.18
SUMMARY OF WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN OF OPERATION (WRPO)
PURPOSE AND FUNCTION:
This Wetland Restoration Plan will restore a palustrine forested wetland
(bottomland hardwood). Wetland values that will be restored include wildlife
habitat, water quality improvement, recreation, and forest resources.
SUMMARY:
The 8.18 acres shown on the attached Plan of Operations map will be placed
under a perpetual easement. The WRPO will:
1. Restore the bottomland hardwood community by planting hardwood trees on
a 10 foot by 10 foot spacing (435 trees per acre).
2. Restore the wetland hydrology by installing a ditch plug (100 feet long)
where shown on the Plan of Operations map.
3. Allow the NC Department of Transportation to secure mitigation credits
with the US Army Corps of Engineers.
COMPATIBLE USES:
The following uses have been determined to be compatible with the purpose for
which this Wetland Restoration Plan of Operation and Conservation Easement is
established:
1. Hunting, fishing, trapping, birdwatching, and recreational hiking that
is fully consistent with state and federal regulations, including the
leasing of such rights to others.
2. Selective timber harvesting in accordance with a wetland timber
management plan developed with the concurrence by the US Army Corps of
Engineers. The plan will maintain the hydrology, the vegetative
community, and other wetland functions and values. Clear cutting will
not be permitted. Streamside Management Zones will be established
adjacent to Nahunta Swamp and its tributaries.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE:
1. Adequate maintenance will be provided to facilitate establishment of
woody vegetation. This may require the suppression of weeds and pine
species. The area will be considered established to woody vegetation if
320 stems per acre are surviving for three growing seasons after the
wetland hydrology has been reestablished. Species composition will
include at least 6 hardwoods with no single species accounting for more
than 20% of the population.
2. The ditch plugs will be maintained for the life of the easement.
MARCH 28, 1996
D R A F T
46
4pc
Air
loc,
- .? E' dir.. ? 'mil t• _?ct? ? •.k . _ ? `...'h, a S,r. t. ?y ?`4y,
",=+_4 ?,;'y'• :^':-{?? ?•'.-?,.? •J K ?y l?1.4' , .1 ? icn •?>?-?""'k '-:_'?;- V. _v ',{.:4 ? j1•
'f•ti5"'e'd"tiY'' c %=:?s•."*??`?'+ _ `?!• V(4 ?' ?•? r?'(KrX.v?:;r.=?. •.- ? '? ? t ? • a ?•NC ..,r•• -'•"•r ?,yr
.-.' } . yM-yyr? •: ? 'r rs YYaa.?? r'-•?,' `•2 \ ?.t ??`' y ^ ,a•. r1M;-?•• a' r i 1'..?,. ?'?
a ` Y ( Y`•t+? , -+1..?? f'i •• ! : ;%7" ?'sN`l- f ?? .L? l+r? ` `v .,.1?',???, + > •..rr?j`.' i . ?t't; ` y?tii.,,-y ??'
' I ' ,?..+?;? f T?.? ? ...JJ.._7/`?? t_. - r Y .? ? alt -?:,?."'?• ?f?-C.??,; ?•,C?.•.?? ??,lfne• 7ly »-
1 f ??,. ?? 3? ?„j _ ??.ai'?c-?i.`hT:' .{.? ?%?--',r?C,?? ?' cj,,?j1a•f?3-?,.,-...,,.T...?K?:??;,«y..,? .? ;?:'w::.
IIE
? t7• ,: 7r• - ?o .'/? -'S ate' '?-+?• ?'. • - ?i.! „LY •r a•(•'.?.i. r, r: T.?-. - ._•?
t ?,.? A ' ? - * •!'?r : ?4?1 ???- d`•'?$•±Jl.,t .t"? .:?'4 T rr':?t yam: +r : ?Gy 5-.:-:.?;?i7.? ? ;? ie `? ? i
' i . \ l t +?' ;4`7}^ . srs - +. - iT ^? t -•? -c? '.•30..
''? 'r \{??? ? ? .,d? ?. l't RT. :'I a }. rte, J G-•a .??.f ?"f??l..:. i^.a.. ?,'.w' uy`y+t: :`-'^? -?. ?
\? ?3•'{r / ??\ ? (V r1. .•?•O'',,?`/eji F7' -. yrY:a„"; 1:?y r• .?,: 1i ?• l' L:.:ar=-•?,r..
- , J r• ? ` ? J: ?l A ! i fY•• - „{< a'x!- 1. ?:3?` ^M1•? •?•.?`r ? ZG? l ?1• . `??""Kasf.Y??a:s?.•
. R _. ?3 '`-??'yi 1'=r :?,?.. ,?:«•lv.,' - (;-a-•a\` ? ? Z•"1 ?+..E -IC?°-i'.v:?•r_;.
V -SI. ". ???yf :•4''.Ir - - ` 1 l-rar.. 'y^."•-+e,;.?r'„s?^ •?L,?o,.•.?y?,?..•.:-
?? ? tit , , ?`,?;`:s` ,r?,? , ?\.?<;??_?-? ^' ?L.3o ? ,'??,• ? S ? .
J' ? ? j • ? ? '•. '., - '•^'., / is ''.Z`4
. 1.7i
mbL
.-! O ? \: •v ? •? {.??ya? r mow(, ?...?111 ? ? ? Y , , •^a:
' .=. • - ? ~' - Lpµ? ?i r•?.. `?? rr.y?C• `t•'} ' 1 r Z. O 7. ? ?? -•' .p a.oi.?y. , ... ?1
x "tom' -\ ,? ~ '} L aft
;1`..-.', '" +=.SI?'?r. -ct:a Sys `+,•r'+ r. ,
:. ?.? . err,. L ? I \. -?. "'. ? (? L •, --: •;
,?: ?.1 ?? -?_ .• ? 3 X416 Q ? • _ . ,
?: • q • ? .? /. ' ••,? ? .? ti gbh, ?.-?-- ? ;. ?-?-- ,.. :r.
wad /w?.i JS we ?-• ' of j? (( `off _
Nrac ••t.V•c 3-=s (?'\ ??= NoAY•' ,row
? _ Nod `=F,==°=' ,
tr1NaA ?Lu
frraz ?-' tl Nos
Crag ?/ O Nad \ / r x Wa9
/ as
A JS . j? r Was 4 Nr,
b Tr Cr821
AYe ..voC Ly w ?' .. rJ OC ?_.... ?_..,. r w,a ' Rud
Ay- Cre ° Or
Nr82 ! / _ ta /
NoA _ was a Go ? .`
Noe was was
NoA Bb 9b \ oC =
-T, Ly
lv Ex Antioch Nraz was / .?
L6 •I C2turch AyA ab Nob/ NoA LY. NoA .•as? J•, \r?
y was
Js Nos LJ y J Go Q
I W? / G
I AyA No9 /
I ' Was Na ?,.. _ Was VAR a'
4GA ' No8
LY Ave Nos aL \ NoA
was. ?-
k•,e Y / No9 d 0
wo Js
a Nr E:
o -X•'?? r Na AyA 6k9 N 1 ' We was
\1 \,
was a8 W
Wa9 NoA Cr81 d N Rn' ¢?LY
d
I _ 20 • NoA - Nac Or Ga
Or ?e9 Y ?. J: Li..
Co
LY \ . CrIM2
do Ra RYa2 Nod - ??' \ .r V ( Or We
1. , /) t• ~ was Ls ;?::? doe c
Wag VoA Wa9 r I i Wag 0. Ja `L Tr \ ?To? T%
:6 :? ? ?' \ Js I
Noc . B o9 O +Ye
c N ri Nod vae n KaA I Ke ...,--? SLvaTTIP
::Noc t. Js
we Dr
II c' / v Ke Nca
ur i -'`? ?c r 9b Js Wag /
??rrr•••^^-.. ",,, _ La
t'.. eb.
ISc
L3 wac Or
•• I La Js 3` 09 K° i wa-
Waa Wnd I ' v Tr wad a -
= He Or
I Wa9 La Dr La r WaC'cy? :•?' ?e91 i•_ ??
Or Go' Ke
Was la
I
i
waa
Lv \? :1 I Waa v Wa9 'a
d 1
?Q Dr ' 0r Wa8
7s
2S Lv lv L• a. ??- We was Or
Wad La
i
a
was N°A Or 7r Q/ Go Was
/.
45 ate' KaA / \•. 6° \ '';'?! Go Yf° L Was
l: y S \\ •','Wa9
No9 WaC Y Wa8 No9 Waa ` G AY9 i a
,Bb us CrC7
NrS2
AyR
r ''Bb ?• B 4 ``G AyA ' ..
V Ex 7 Wa9 Wat
a? CrR1 A A
?^ \J Was %1, AYA P BD C,li
T. WaB:.,r V AyaZ • AY9 AY81 \\ ll/
Lu AyA 0. My AyA
Bb RuA Ex Na
JJ o Jti
L Tr y MY Ny AyA ?y
Yt? 1 Rud AYA Ar82
Rua RuA 4r?ll ------ gg
y
C , Ex g------ pp
M1, ` y4a c Ayd J
A AYA va\I?
'!Aya RuA Es
t?•
AyA
Yq aYA Na RuA
AYa I\J 9.7 - i _.. '
16) -1
i
o?PQS?ENT OF Ty?ym
9
vi
7 0
ARCM 3
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 9, 1996
Mr. Mike Smith, North Section Chief
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Attn: Henry Wicker, Washington Office)
6512 Falls of the Neuse Rd., Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27615
Re: Action ID No. 199601506, Gustave A. Koch
Perquimans County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Smith:

o ?C)
Cr tQ
,? ,291N? ?Q+
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the above-
referenced Pre-construction Notification dated March 27, 1996. The
applicant is seeking verification that the proposed wetland fill activity
is authorized under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 26. This is the report of
the Department of the Interior submitted in accordance with provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.). This report also serves as comments to state
resource agencies in their permitting and/or certification processes.
The proposed work involves the placement of fill material into
approximately three acres of wetlands associated with an unnamed.
tributary of Bethel Creek. The stated purpose of the proposed work is
"to prov' de area for [the] DOT ??c plac.P exoess ??" . No
mitigation is offered to compensate for this project.
This project has raised two interrelated issues of concern to the
Service: (1) inappropriate use of a NWP by an applicant, and (2) N.C.
Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) lack of permit compliance with an
issued Individual Permit.
We have serious concerns about the use of a NWP for a project of this
nature. In our opinion, the applicant has not identified a legitimate
purpose for the proposed project nor a justifiable reason as to why the
activity must be carried out in wetlands. According to the 33 CFR
330.6(C), Section 404 Only conditions, (4) Mitigation dated November 22,
1991, such discharges "must be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent
practicable at the project site" unless a compensatory mitigation plan
has been approved, in order for authorization by nationwide permit to be
valid. The permanent and unmitigated loss of three acres of palustrine
wetlands for the purpose of waste disposal is contrary to the public
interest and inconsistent with the referenced Final Rule for the
Nationwide Permit Program. Using wetlands for waste disposal is a relict
concept that is not supported by current wetland regulations. The fact
that the wetland area occurs "adjacent to [the] construction site -
providing easy access for disposing of excess material" does not justify
the elimination of upland alternatives nor does it legitimize the project
purpose. In our opinion, the proposed project involves adverse
environmental effects that are more than minimal and cumulatively would

result in excessive and indiscriminate degradation of aquatic resources.
We, therefore, recommend that this project not be authorized by
Nationwide Permit and that the District Engineer exercise discretionary
authority to elevate this project to the Individual Permit process if it
receives any further consideration.
We have serious reservations about NCDOT's ability to ensure that highway
construction complies with permit specifications and conditions,
particularly if this case is not an isolated incident but rather
indicative of a practice widespread in North Carolina. The project
proposed, including the one acre previously approved under NWP 26,
indicates NCDOT's lack of compliance with the Individual Permit issued
for R-2208, US 17 widening (Action ID No. 199401492). Special condition
"e." of this permit states, "Excavation, fill, or mechanized landclearing
activities will not occur at any time in any waters or wetlands outside
of the permitted construction limits." The NCDOT was not permitted to
place fill material outside the construction limits within the subject
wetlands owned by Gustave Koch (the NWP applicant). The fact that the
wetland fill activity is being requested by a private landowner, instead
of NCDOT, does not legitimize the activity as a separate project
independent of R-2208.
Undoubtably, the NCDOT should be responsible for all activities
undertaken in waters or wetlands for their transportation projects,
including and especially those activities performed by their contractors.
Any adverse environmental impacts associated with borrow areas, waste
disposal sites, access roads, or any other land disturbance activity a
contractor undertakes, must be accounted for up front in the
environmental documentation and Individual Permit application for a given
project. Any proposed deviation after the permit is issued should be
processed as a permit modification and be subject to a full public
interest review, 404(b)(1) Guidelines consistency, and compensatory.
mitigation requirements. We firmly object to processing such deviations
under NWPs after an Individual Permit has been issued because such a
practice demonstrates piecemealing and undermines the processes set forth
in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Clean Water Act
regulations.
According to Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 88-6, issued June 27, 1988,
there may be circumstances where it is appropriate to combine Nationwide
Permits with Individual Permits, however, "portions qualifying for a NWP
should be able to function or meet their purpose without the portion
requiring an individual permit". The project proposed does not fulfill
this criteria. Furthermore, the RGL states that,
Whether or not the activities qualifying for
nationwide permits are authorized to proceed
separately or are included in an individual permit
application, the decision documentation relative to
the individual permit will include a discussion of
the rationale for the course of action taken. Also,•
a discussion on the total impacts of the entire
project (i.e., both the portions authorized by
individual and nationwide permit) will be included
in the individual permit documentation.
To our knowledge, documentation for Individual Permit Action ID No.
199401492 did not address the subject of waste disposal of excess
material or provide for compensatory mitigation for the activity
requested under this NWP.

These issues place an undue burden on the regulatory agencies regarding
enforcement of permit conditions, sorting of applications, and processing
of superfluous permits and modifications for NCDOT-related work, when
total impacts should have been anticipated up front and addressed in NEPA
documentation. Fortunately, Mr. Mike Smith of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has brought this matter to NCDOT's attention in his letter
dated March 26, 1996. In accordance with the 1992 Memorandum of
Agreement between the Department of the Army and the Department of the
Interior Part 111 (2), we would consider the elevation of this procedure
in the event our concerns are not addressed.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. If
you have any questions regarding this information, please contact
Katherine Doak of my staff at [phone] ext. 19.
Sincerely yours,
John Hefn
Field Sup visor
JH/KHD
CC: USFWS Regional Office (Cherry Green)
COE (South Section Chief: Cliff Winefordner)
COE (All DOT Coordinators: Scott McLendon, Mike Bell,
Eric Alsmeyer, Steve Lund)
NMFS (Ron Sechler)
FHWA (Roy Shelton)
NCDEHNR-DEM (Eric Galamb)
NCDEHNR-DCM (Richard Watts)
NCWRC (David Cox)
NCDOT (Frank Vick)
FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:4-9-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:19961506.DEN
.. . k
PERMIT LETTERS
U S r-W 5 P-D - C • Cone SURNAME
CC: EPA-PELEJ EWA,
NMFS-HARDY
DCM-ATE V )&O-> ?:au cc, Jw
DCM-PJt=R
WRC-FRANK McBRIDE

elf/
_ e
i
r
*ff
STATE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
January 2, 1997
Dr. Wayne Wright
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
RECEIVED
JAN 13 1y9I
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
Subject: Nahunta Swamp Wetland Mitigation Bank Preliminary Package; Conservation
Easement, Forest Management Plan and Generic Mitigation Plan.
Dear Dr. Wright:
On April 21, 1994, a new concept in wetland mitigation was presented at the monthly NCDOT
interagency meeting. The cooperative pilot project was proposed by David Harrison and Carroll
Pierce of NCDEHNR Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC) as wetland restoration
in farmed floodplains of the Nahunta Swamp within the larger context of the Nahunta Watershed
Plan. The Nahunta Watershed Plan is a watershed-wide water and land quality conservation
project, using proven elements such as improved tillage practices, livestock management and
wetland restoration in the floodplain of Nahunta Swamp. The DSWC was to be responsible for
the funding of the agricultural conservation practices and NCDOT agreed to pay for the
acquisition of land and the implementation for the wetland restoration sites.
On January 23, 1996, an interagency review team visited various representative sites and
discussed the remaining issues; forest management, acquisition processes and long-term
management issues. All agencies were enthusiastic about the potential values of such a scheme.
In April, 1996, a joint letter from USFWS, DEM, NCWRC to NCDOT addressed issues raised
in the on-site review meeting and discussed conditions for approval of a wetland mitigation bank
within the context of the watershed project. In .Tune, 1996, Triangle Wetland Consultants was
authorized to prepare a Forest Management Plan, which was submitted in draft form to NCDOT
in early November, 1996. (A complete chronology of the project to date is attached.)
Enclosed are three documents which are integral parts of the Nahunta Swamp Wetland
Mitigation Bank Project. The draft Conservation Easement language, the draft Forest
Management Plan and a generic mitigation plan have been assembled into one "package" for
inter-agency review. Comments by the appropriate regulatory personnel will result in a finished

product which can then be provided to the landowners within the Nahunta Watershed. This will
begin the process of actually discussing easement acquisition with the landowners and is
expected to provide a list of candidate sites for appropriate study and review. Please review the
enclosed documents and submit written comments byN 7; 5, 1x997. 1
This project has taken two years of multi-disciplinary effort by NCDOT staff and by regulatory
agencies. Further coordination is required to bring the actual sites to implementation, but with
continued cooperation we feel that this project can result in the restoration of significant wetland
acreage and thus improve'the water quality of the Nahunta Swamp, Contentnea Creek and
eventually the Neuse River, while providing NCDOT with mitigation credits. Thank you for
working with us towards this goal.
Sincer
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: w/attachment
Dave Lekson/USCOE
Mike Bell/USCOE
Ken Jolly/USCOE
Eric Alsmeyer/USCOE
John Dorney/DEHNR/DWQ
Eric Galamb/DEHNR/DWQ
David Cox/NCWRC
Howard Hall/USFWS
David Harrison/DSWC
Carroll Pierce/DSWC
Patty Gabriel/NRCS
Wayne/Greene SWCD
David Robinson/NCDOT
Dave Foster/DEHNR
Roy Shelton/FHWA
Wendy Gasteiger/FHWA
Dennis Pipkin/NCDOT
Robin Little/NCDOT
"I? .
< NAHUNTA WATERSHED PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
April 21. 1994: Cooperative pilot project was proposed by David Harrison and Carroll Pierce of
NCDEHNR Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC) as wetland restoration in farmed
floodplains of the Nahunta Swamp within the larger context of the Nahunta Watershed Plan.
® e? r'T0?; 9T4: Representatives of the COE, DEM, NCDOT and the DWSC discussed the
project in relation to COE guidelines regarding acceptable compensatory mitigation for NCDOT
wetland impacts.
October, 1994: A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed by the Wayne and Greene
County Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) and the N.C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) within the larger context of the Nahunta Watershed Plan. Both parties
entered into a cooperative pilot project whereby conservation easements would be procured and
mitigation plans implemented subject to USACOE approval by NCDOT and the SWCDs for up
to 500 acres of potential wetland restoration. The final acreage is largely dependent on
landowner participation, although NCDOT has purchased and developed a 172 acre mitigation
site and has contacted other interested landowners within the watershed.
December 27. 1994: The draft Nahunta Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment was
submitted to the COE for comment. The final draft was completed in April, 1995. The
Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment (EA) addressed the reduction of erosion and
nutrient run-off due to agricultural practices, and was prepared under the authority of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act - Public Law 83-566 and under Section
102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190 by the Wayne
and Greene County Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD), the NCDEHNR Division of
Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC), the US Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources
Conservation Service and the USDA/Forest Service.
March, 1995: Attempts to establish a fixed price per acre for conservation easements resulted in
a proposal in June by NCDOT to the SWCDs to establish prices on a case by case basis.
Review of the Conservation Easement language was completed by the NCDOT Attorney
General's office in late April, 1995.
October, 1995: The SWCD responded to the NCDOT proposal on individual negotiation with
landowners on easement or fee-simple purchase price.
1aua`r'y 2'3: l'99An interagency review team visited various representative sites and discussed
the remaining issues; forest management, acquisition processes and long-term management
issues.
June, 1996: Triangle Wetland Consultants was authorized to prepare a Forest Management Plan;
which was submitted in draft form to NCDOT in early November, 1996.
January, 1997: Preliminary Package of draft Forest Management Plan, draft Conservation
Easement and generic Mitigation Plan distributed to agencies for comments.

Post Office Box 33604
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
WETLAND CONSULTANTS
NAHUNTA SWAMP WETLAND BANK
FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prepared For:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Permits and Mitigation Section
Highway Building
1 South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
Prepared By:
Triangle Wetland Consultants
P.O. Box 33604
Raleigh, NC 27636
January 1, 1997
1.0 Introduction
The Nahunta Swamp watershed encompasses approximately 60,378 acres (24,444 hectares) in
parts of Johnston, Greene, and Wayne Counties, NC within the Coastal Plain physiographic
province (Figure 1). Nahunta Swamp is a tributary to Contentnea Creek in the lower Neuse River
basin. Land use within the watershed includes cropland (52%), grassland (2%), and
woodland/misc. (46%) (NCDEHNR, 1995).
The entire Neuse River basin has been designated as "nutrient sensitive" by the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission and the Nahunta Swamp/Contentnea Creek watershed is
a major source of nutrient and sediment inputs to the lower Neuse River. *Maje cai &Ifor?these
ny, at no,,sediment inputs,within the Nahunta Swamp watershed` include-the -lack of a vegetated
stream buffer, agricultural drainage improvements, and cultivation of bottomland,fields' Due to
the severity of agricultural (nutrient and sediment) runoff and sensitivity of the lower Neuse River
basin, a watershed plan was prepared by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources and the U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NCDEHNR,
1995). Vie}-of the recommeridatioris contained in this plan included conversion of 1,000, acres
(405 ha) of cropland to permanent vegetation and restoration -of 500 acres (202 ha) of prior
ea ert,ed=wetlanift. For a more detailed discussion of the watershed plan refer to Nahunta
Swamp Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment (NCDEHNR, 1995).
1.1 Wetland Restoration
Forested wetland restoration efforts within Nahunta Swamp watershed wouldocns on ekisting
icultural-fields adjacent to the main: channel-of Nahunta- Swamp; The Slough, and other
tributaries. T1=?ue..a oximately..1,200 acres (486 ha) of prior converted wetlands (mapped as
Johnston soil series) within the 100 year floodplain along Nahunta Swamp and its fttbM, 'nes
(NCDEHNR, 1995). Most of these areas and the associated stream channels have been
extensively modified to facilitate agricultural production. -Thnffain channels were previously
.dredged"`and channelized, -arid 'the associated floodplain fields were drained by installation of
subsurface. tiles and surface ditch systems. The latter modifications were probably implemented in
the 1940's through the 1960's although the exact dates have not been determined. While it is
impractical to attempt to restore the dredged stream channels, restoration of wetland hyd o ogy r,(
within t e a latent ?e s ?s posse e. oPr 61i"sene (Cumulic Humaquepts) is,
characterized by a seasonally high water table and frequent flooding in an undrained condition
(Barnhill, 1990; Barnhill et al., 1974; S.C.S., 1991). Therefore restor-a6on-mould- .r'J !
focus on the removal/destruction of subsurface file fields and pluggi tiaagaurface-ditches to
re to e-the seasonally high water"ti-tbtb. These activities would result in retention of upland runoff
and periodic overbank flooding within the floodplain of the stream.
Composition of the original bottomland forests within the study area can only be inferred since
much of these forests were cleared for agricultural production. The few remaining stands within
the study area have been substantially modified due to selective logging practices. The
predominant site types within the study area probably supported Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwoods as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The description of this natural

ZT\ Ly M,N -??O /." WD/io;?u •`?\ -„ °b \ _
' i' Ob glbl '._?\ iMISJ Pf N ?/ - WPl ND ? "N \.: , Ob I ? Ob 4
x18 - .. ^'`. _ Ob ` C ND 1 \ bYr3???? ?`?` - •?•,1 \
01
' ° Gb CMI / '
'?'? r b N???'YOOM31i ???? ?,la? ? ? Otl NOLDS V ?\ y vPLPCNlP t 0l=ftL?O ?
` c ?\?6 ? pb3 300 \ ? Q_ ?? ° e
J,x
H a _
??MII_ PjSNt'O r 7?s ? ,i?"i?: vJ)3tlJ\ O ''Co°6 1\ ? - > 'LLf ? n
?`? : ??s1 ob Nuns ?' OJ LIB.
'Nu
? 'spa ?, e C
OD 3f3L3389_ )?C?J! ' P•'` 4r -- e
0:) 9MWM
? ? -t E• io
B\ -
-\
00,
I\? ??' tlL.l r nli ss o 1 ?F' ?u ?. E ?• .` J`p
I' .. iV?i? >t •\°\ fi4y •?: ?5 _ -__-- \ ?0tl_MJbnM A ? ? ? # \.
U01 a
00
•IN , I `,1 1. tl
r i 1 F? I 9 a M?y? S` s--?
-ILI 41
Figure 1: Nahunta Swamp Watershed and Project Area
Johnston, Greene, and Wayne Counties, NC Scale: F'= 12,500'
3
community type includes the following dominant species: laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), overcup
oak (Quercus lyrata), willow oak (Quercus phellos), water oak (Quercus nigra), red maple (Acer
rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), and
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). The understory may include red maple, red bay (Persea
palustris), American holly (Ilex opaca), and sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana) (Schafale and
Weakley, 1990). Natural floodplain depressions and backswamps may have supported Cypress-
Gum Swamps which would be dominated by baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) and water tupelo
(Nyssa aquatica). Associated species might include black willow (Salix nigra), swamp
cottonwood (Populus herterophylla), and water hickory (Carya aquatica) (Schafale and
Weakley, 1990). Recent data from a relatively undisturbed bottomland hardwood stand along
Contentnea Creek near Hookerton indicates the dominant overstory species at that location
included sweetgum, swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), overcup oak, swamp chestnut oak (Quercus
michauxii), and willow oak (Beissel, 1996). Brown (1993) indicated that the most extensive `
bottomland forest associations in the Southern Coastal Unit of North Carolina (including Greene 3 ?
and Wayne Counties) were Sweetbay-blackgum-red maple (687,565 ac [278,366 ha]) and 44?Q 1y,
Sweetgum-water oak-willow oak (357,789 ac [144,854 ha]). Broadfoot (1976) indicated that 1? '
t,
green ash, baldcypress, laurel oak, overcup oak, swamp chestnut oak, water oak, persimmon, a
sweetgum, sycamore, swamp tupelo, water tupelo, and yellow poplar should _wAby.&'rest
{
f4go
Bement activities on Johnston soils in the Midsouth region. F,
Based on the latter data, the bottomland hardwood community types to be restored would include
the mixed hardwood type and the cypress-tupelo type (Johnson and Shropshire, 1983). Cypress-
tupelo community types would be restored on the wettest sites where flooding and anaerobic soil
conditions would limit the establishment of a mixed hardwood stand. The mixed hardwood
community that would be established on most sites would include a substantial component (i.e.
>50%) of oak (Quercus) species. A list of potential tree species for use in restoration efforts is
presented in Table 1. J
I- jb
Table 1: Potential specie , in mixed hardwood and cypress-tupelo
wetland restoration in the Nahunta Swam watershed
Plant Species Common Name Shade Tolerance' Planting density
mixed hardwood tvve (73 0 trees/acre)
uercus michauxif swam chestnut oak intolerant 146 trees/acre
uercus ni ra water oak intolerant 146 trees/acre
uercus hellos willow oak intolerant 146 trees/acre
Fraxinus enn lvanica green ash tolerant 146 tree acre
N ssa N flora swam black gum intolerant 146 trees/acre
cypress-tupelo a (730 trees/acre)
uercus 1 rata overcu oak intermediate 365 trees/acre
N ssa a uatica water tupelo intolerant 183 trees/acre
Taxodium distichum bald cypress intermediate 183 trees/acre
made tolerance values from Burns and Honkala (1990)
4
2.0 Bottomland Hardwood Forest Products
,T art' commercial. products.-Troduced by bottomland forests include hardwood fiber (from
deciduous tree species) and.hardwood sawtimber. However, landowners-may also realize income
from hunting leases as well. According to market statistics, the production of hardwood
roundwood in the southern U. S. has increased by 44% in the last decade (Johnson and
Steppleton, 1996). Hardwood species now account for approximately 30% of the total
consumption of roundwood by the pulp industry in the Southern U.S., as compared with 11% in
1952 (Bechtold and Sheffield, 1991; Johnson and Steppleton, 1996). By the year 2000,
hardwood use in pulping is projected to increase to 40% of the total roundwood consumption
(Kellison et al., 1988). Hardwood roundwood consumption for pulping in the southeast U. S. is
expected to increase from 576 million ft3 (16.3 million m) in 1990 to a peak of 821 million ft3
(23.2 million m) in 2010 (Haynes et al., 1995). In general, the southern U. S. produces more
hardwood roundwood for pulp than any other region in the country, with 1986 production
exceeding 106 billion ft3 (30 billion m) (Bechtold and Sheffield, 1991). In addition, increased
timber supplies from the southeast U.S. are expected to compensate for decreased supplies of
timber from the Pacific Northwest (Haynes, 1990).
Hardwood pulpwood production in North Carolina increased from 266,000 cords in 1953 to
2,032,000 cords in 1993 (Johnson, 1996). Hardwood pulpwood production from Greene and
Wayne Counties, NC was 15,500 and 30,100 cords, respectively, in 1995 (Johnson and
Steppleton, 1996). Hardwood products produced in Greene and Wayne Counties, NC could be
utilized by the Celotex Corporation mill at Goldsboro, NC, which has a capacity of 100 tons
pulp/day (Johnson and Steppleton, 1996). In addition, Johnson and Steppleton996) indicated
that at least three mills compete for hardwood roundwood products from.C4eem nd Wayne -----
Counties, NC. Although most of the hardwood roundwood (58%) produced in North Carolina
was utilized by mills within the state, a substantial market exists for export of pulpwood to other
states (Johnson and Steppleton, 1996). Average 1992 pulpwood prices for hardwood roundwood
and hardwood chips in North Carolina were $16.95 and $19.90 per green ton, respectively
(Howell, 1994).
3.0 Forest Harvesting Effects on Wetland Functions and Values
Wetland functions can be defined as the physical, chemical, and biological properties of a wetland
contributing to the overall integrity of the ecosystem. Examples of wetland functions include
primary productivity, litterfall, decomposition, organic export, sediment deposition/retention,
nutrient transformation and retention, wildlife habitat, and surface water storage (Mitsch and
Gosselink, 1993; Taylor et al., 1990; Wilkinson et al., 1987). Wetland values can be defined as
the monetary worth or importance of a wetland characteristic as determined by society. Examples
of wetland values include forest products (i.e. timber, pulp, etc.), hunting, fishing, flood
desynchronization, water quality protection, aesthetics, and recreation (Richardson, 1994; Smith
et al., 1995). Wetland values are determined by societal trends; however, the magnitude of a
particular wetland value is regulated by the associated wetland functions. For example, timber
harvest is considered to be a wetland value. The value of timber harvest in a particular wetland is
determined by society through economic factors (i.e. supply and demand), but the magnitude of
that value is also dependent upon a variety of wetland functions including primary productivity,
litterfall, decomposition, and biogeochemical cycling. In addition, wetland functions are affected
by a variety of ecological processes and characteristics. For example, the primary productivity of
a particular wetland is affected by other wetland functions including decomposition, litterfall, and
biogeochemical cycling. These functions are regulated by a variety of ecological processes and
characteristics including hydroperiod, nutrient mineralization, soil hydraulic conductivity, soil bulk
density, sedimentation rates, microrelief, and plant community composition.
FQr&Uxn.,.n_agement practices may result in a variety of direct physical alterations that impact
wetland,-functions and values in bottomland forests (Waldbridge and Lockaby, 1994). The
primary physical alterations resulting from forest management activities include the removal of
overstory and understory tree species and changes in soil properties and microrelief as a result of
equipment traffic (Ault and Lea, 1992; Freese, 1994; Perison et al., 1993; Trettin, 1992). These
physical alterations may result in a variety of indirect effects to soil physical and chemical
properties, hydrologic characteristics, and biological communities (Table 2).
Table 2: Potential direct and indirect effects of forest harvesting
on wetland functions in bottomland forests
Forest harvesting Direct (indirect) effects
activity
Equipment traffic 1. Rutting due to traffic (increased microrelief and surface roughness resulting in
increased sediment and surface water retention, altered surface flows)
2. Root system disturbance (reduced vigor and increased mortality of stump sprouts
resulting in decreased primary productivity, altered species composition, and
reduced regeneration)
3. Reduced soil hydraulic conductivity (altered hydroperiod and lower soil redox
potential resulting in anaerobic conditions, lowered productivity, and reduced
nutrient mineralization
4. Increased soil bulk density (reduced root growth near soil surface and reduced
infiltration resulting in reduced productivity and increased surface runoff
Overstory removal 1. Increased solar radiation at soil surface (temporary increase in evaporative losses
from soil surface and increase in organic matter decomposition resulting in
increased export of nutrients and organic carbon from the system and increased
natural regeneration of shade intolerant species)
2. Decrease in mature overstory species (temporary decrease in hard and soft mast
production, decrease in litterfall, altered overstory species composition, reduction in
specific habitat features such as dead snags and cavity/den trees, and temporary
reduction in vertical stratification)
Equipment traffic on wetland sites may result in a variety of soil physical alterations. The type of
equipment, intensity of trafficking, and season of harvest (i.e. wet vs. dry) affect the magnitude
of the disturbance. The use of tracked skidders resulted in less soil compaction as compared with
compaction due to the use of rubber-tired skidders in a Mississippi bottomland (Murosky and
Hassan, 1988). Aust and Lea (1992) found that the operation of rubber-tired skidders on an
Alabama bottomland site resulted in reduced saturated hydraulic conductivity and resulted in
prolonged waterlogging and reduced soil aeration. The effects of rubber-tired skidders on soil
physical properties can be reduced somewhat by limiting traffic and using wider tires (McDonald
et al., 1995; Jackson and Stokes, 1991). Soil physical alterations due to machine traffic are also
dependent on season (i.e. wet vs. dry). In general, wet season harvesting results in displacement
of the soil, rutting, and reduced hydraulic conductivity while dry season harvesting may result in
increased bulk density (Murosky and Hassan, 1988; Karr et al., 1987; Gent et al., 1983).
However, the specific effects of machine traffic are highly dependent on soil type and soil texture.
Equipment traffic may also affect the survival, growth, and regeneration of desirable overstory
species. Zaebst et al. (1995) found that species regeneration was altered seven years after skidder
and helicopter harvest in an Alabama tupelo-cypress wetland. Aboveground biomass of
regenerating water tupelo was greater and aboveground biomass of regenerating Carolina ash
(Fraxinus caroliniana) was lower on skidder harvested plots as compared with the aboveground
biomass for those species on helicopter harvested plots (Zaebst et al., 1995). The altered species
composition was explained by the reduced hydraulic conductivity and reduced soil aeration on the
skidder harvested plots which favored regeneration of water tupelo (Zaebst et al., 1995). The fine
root systems of bottomland tree species are concentrated near the soil surface in the aerobic zone.
Machine traffic on wet sites can potentially damage these fine root systems and directly affect
stump sprouts by physical damage. -I1 `(1992)-found that 86% of all.species resprouted
within°a lovw,tTraf lh'arvest area but-only•6V/o •resprouted within a high traffic harvest area in an
Alabama headwater swamp. Hart et al. (1995) found that stump sprouting from oak species in
Mississippi stream bottoms was reduced by intensive logging with ground based equipment (i.e.
skidders). In addition to a reduction in stump sprouting, excessive equipment traffic may alter the
species composition of the regenerating forest. Freese (1994) found that certain undesirable
species such as Cyrilla racemflora (red titi) and Cliftonia monophylla (black titi) accounted for a
greater proportion of the aboveground biomass on skidder harvested plots in an Alabama
headwater swamp. The latter studies indicate that intensive trafficking by ground based
equipment may alter species composition of regenerating bottomland forests.
Overstory removal during forest harvesting operations may also affect wetland functions and
values. Removal of relatively mature overstory species is analogous to ecological retrogression
and results in altered energy flows within the ecosystem. Odum (1969) contrasted the
developmental and mature stages of ecosystem development and indicated that the mature stages
are characterized by low net community production, closed biogeochemical cycles, slow nutrient
exchange, large internal organic pools, high species diversity, and good nutrient conservation. In
contrast, developmental stages are characterized by high net community production, open
biogeochemical cycles, rapid nutrient exchange, small internal organic pools, lower species
diversity, and poor nutrient conservation. 'scale.,overstory MQyaL(i. a clearcuttingg) can
result in temporary. ; rapid: losses of nutrient&and subsequent reduction inwetland functions
(Vitousek and Reiners, 1975; Gorham et al., 1979). However, these losses are generally small

and temporary for accepted forestharvesting practices (Binkley and Brown, 1993; Blackburn and
Wood, 1990).
Overstory removal also affects the spatial characteristics of the forest and specific habitat features
such as cavity trees and dead snags. These changes may benefit some wildlife species dependent
on early successional habitats, but may negatively affect species dependent on relatively mature
forest habitat. In general, forest harvesting at the stand level is compatible with the maintenance
of most wildlife species (Wigley and Roberts, 1994). The response to forest harvesting and
interactions among diverse assemblages of wildlife species are too numerous to summarize in this
document; however, the implementation, of an uneven-aged silvicultural system (i.e. group ®-
selection) combined with..the retention of specific, habitat features (i.e. cavity trees and snags) is o
believed.to provide a good balance between timber harvest°and maintenance of-diverse wildlife habitat (Thompson et al., 1992; Pashley and Barrow, 1992). c?
4.0 Silvicultural Options for Bottomland Forests
Silviculture can be defined as the theory and practice of controlling forest establishment,
composition, and growth (Smith, 1962) and the term silvicultural system connotes a group of
forest management activities ranging from establishment or regeneration through harvest (Burns,
1983; Smith, 1962).
At least 19 different bottomland forest cover types have been described for the United States
(Eyre, 1980). Bottomland forests can be found along rivers and streams, backwater and
headwater swamps, and minor drainages throughout the Eastern U.S. Due to their proximity to
natural drainages, bottomland forests are at least seasonally flooded. Some backswamp or deep
swamp areas may remain flooded throughout most of the growing season. The soil types typically
found on floodplains and the nutrient subsidy present in floodwaters create conditions conducive
to high productivity; however, the saturated or flooded soils in these bottomland forests present
unique management challenges. The proposed hydrology and plant community composition of
the restored bottomland forests within the study area were described in a previous section of this
report.
Historically, access to most bottomland forests has been limited due to flooding and/or saturated
soils. Although bottomland forests encompass a diverse assemblage of plant community types,
past management activities have been relatively similar. Limitations to the operation of ground
based equipment and a historically low demand for hardwood pulp have resulted in selective
harvest of only high quality sawtimber from many bottomland stands. This type of harvesting
activity has led to "high grading" of many bottomland forests. Many "high graded" stands are
currently dominated by shade tolerant species with poor form and low commercial value;
therefore, the typical silvicultural prescription is a clearcut. Clearcutting results in the removal of
all desirable and undesirable stems and regeneration of both shade tolerant and intolerant species
through a variety of natural sources including residual desirable saplings, stump sprouts, seedling
sprouts, and seed sources.
8
Based on the site characteristics and existing data on the forest composition within the study area,
the proposed bottomland forest restoration would be primarily classified as the mixed hardwood
type, with cypress-tupelo established on only the wettest site types (Johnson and Shropshire,
1983). The-typical gilVicultural system for even-aged bottomland forests is a clearcut=followed by
naturafxegeneration>from residual stems, stump sprouts, and seedling sprouts (Lea, 1988;
Kellison et al., 1988; McKevlin, 1992; Walker and Watterson, 1972). Alternate silvicultural
systems for both even-aged and uneven-aged stands may include shelterwood cuttings, group
selection, and single tree selection (Kellison et al., 1988).
4.1 Clearcutting Method
Clearcutting followed by natural regeneration is the most commonly used silvicultural system for
bottomland hardwoods. The clearcut method involves the complete removal of all desirable and
undesirable growing stock from a stand. Most hardwood species are prolific sprouters; therefore,
the stand is naturally regenerated by stump sprouts or coppice growth as well as seed and seedling
sprouts. The advantages of this system include limiting equipment traffic (usually during harvest
only), removal of undesirable growing stock, regeneration of desirable shade intolerant species
(i.e. bottomland oak species), and maximizing economic returns for the landowner. Hart et al.
(1995) indicate that satisfactory oak regeneration on minor bottoms throughout Mississippi is
dependent on large [> 1 ft (0.3 m)] advance oak reproduction in the understory followed by
complete Clearcutting of the overstory. Oak regeneration following harvest in this study
originated from stump sprouts and advance reproduction (Hart et al., 1995). Hook (1988)
indicated that opportunities for regeneration of cypress-tupelo swamps by techniques other than
Clearcutting are quite limited. Zaebst et al. (1995) and Gardiner et al. (1995) found that cypress-
tupelo swamps in Alabama regenerated successfully following clearcut harvest with skidder and
helicopter removal of logs. However, both studies indicate substantial decreases in saturated
hydraulic conductivity of the soil on sites harvested with skidders (Gardiner et al., 1995; Zaebst et
al., 1995). Toliver and Jackson (1989) recommend clearcut sizes of at least 3 ac (1.2 ha) to
ensure regeneration of shade intolerant species, and retention of at least two cavity/den trees per 5
ac (2 ha) block.
Disadvantages of this system include undesirable aesthetic impacts and alteration of wildlife
habitat features including temporary reduction of horizontal and vertical forest stratification,
cavity/den trees, and food sources. Large scale clearcuts are more likely to result in temporary
reduction of wetland functions and increase of non-point source pollution from sediment and
nutrient losses (Binkley and Brown, 1993).
4.2 Shelterwood Method
The shelterwood method involves the gradual removal of both desirable and undesirable trees
from a stand through a series of partial cuttings over a relatively short fraction of the rotation age
(Smith , 1962). The shelterwood method generally involves a series of cuttings beginning with a
preparatory cutting (low thinning) or seed cut to provide growing space and favor natural
reproduction of desirable species in the understory. The preparatory cut and/or seed cut is
followed by one or a series of removal cuttings to provide economic return and remove mature
trees. The advantages to a shelterwood system include a high degree of control over regeneration
of a stand, favored production of large diameter trees, maintenance of forest cover (i.e., reduced
aesthetic impact), and maintenance of certain wildlife habitat features. Hook (1988) indicated that
the shelterwood method was useful for promoting advanced oak reproduction and preventing
wildlife habitat fragmentation. Barry and Nix (1993) found that removal of 16% to 33% of
overstory basal area resulted in substantial increases in new oak seedlings in the understory of
Congaree River bottomland hardwood stands in South Carolina. Toliver and Jackson (1989)
recommend removal of all undesirable understory stems and approximately 50% of the overstory
basal area. Approximately 40-50 seedlings and/or sprouts per acre are sufficient to ensure an
adequate oak component in the regenerating stand (Aust et al., 1985).
Disadvantages of the shelterwood method include repeated machine traffic during a rotation,
potential damage to standing trees, increased technical demand (i.e. data collection and technical
input during cutting cycle), and decreased economic returns due to intermediate treatments.
4.3 Selection Method
The selection methods (single tree and group) generally apply to the maintenance of uneven-aged
stands and are generally employed to extract some economic return and promote regeneration
within the existing stand. As the name implies, single tree selection results in the removal of
individual trees while the group selection results in the removal of groups of trees. The size of
these groups may vary, but a minimum area of 1 to 5 ac (0.4 to 2.0 ha) is recommended to ensure
regeneration of shade intolerant species (Golden, 1993; Golden, 1995; Toliver and Jackson,
1989). In some instances, a group selection may resemble a series of small scale clearcuts.
Improperly applied single tree selection, that is the removal of only high quality merchantable
trees, results in "high grading" and is not recommended for regeneration of shade intolerant
species. Single tree selection cuttings may be applicable in sensitive areas such a streamside
management zones (SMZ's). The group selection method combined with cavity tree/snag
management and adequate riparian buffers is well suited to maintain a diversity of wildlife habitat
and features, reduce forest fragmentation, and provide economic returns for the landowner
(Hook, 1988; Pashley and Barrow, 1992; Wigley and Roberts, 1994). Several oak species were
successfully regenerated in a variety of Alabama bottomland hardwood stands using group
selection cuttings between 0.75 and 3.8 ac (0.3 and 1.5 ha) (Golden, 1993; Golden, 1995). After
two growing seasons, Golden (1993) reported that the number of established water and willow
oak stems in group selection cuttings increased from 6% (preharvest) to 45% after cutting in an
Alabama River floodplain stand dominated by sweetgum and sugarberry (Celtis laevigata). Post
harvest seedling density of water oak increased 78% in group selection cuttings harvested in the
summer along the Tombigbee River in Alabama (Golden, 1995). Goelz and Meadows (1995)
reported that oak species should comprise a substantial portion of overstory basal area prior to
cutting for successful regeneration after selection cuttings in Mississippi.
Disadvantages of both single tree and group selection include limited ability to regenerate shade
intolerant species, increased technical demands to properly employ this method, and decreased
economic return for landowners. Shaffer et al. (1993) found that the harvesting costs for group
10
selection cuttings in the Jefferson National Forest, Virginia increased 15% to 25% as compared
with conventional clearcut harvests.
Table 3 provides a brief comparison of different silvicultural systems. Regardless of the
silvicultural system employed, it is likely that bottomland oak species will compose a substantial
proportion of the overstory basal area of relatively mature stands if adequate advance
regeneration is present prior to harvest. Recently harvested stands are generally dominated by
fast growing pioneer species such as green ash and sweetgum. Oak species gradually assume a
more dominant position as the stand ages (Kennedy and Meadows, 1993; Nix and Lafaye, 1993).
Clearcutting is reported as the most suitable silvicultural system for cypress-tupelo stands
(Gardiner et al., 1995; Hook, 1988; Zaebst et al., 1995). However, we found no studies that
addressed the use of alternate silvicultural systems in cypress-tupelo stands.
Table 3: Comparison of Si 'cultural Systems for Restored Bottomland Hardwoods
Characteristic of
Silvicultural System Clearcut
Method Shelterwood
Method Group
Selection
Method Single Tree
Selection
Method
Technical requirements/difficulty low moderate moderate high
Net economic returns high moderate moderate low
Frequency of equipment traffic low moderate moderate high
Maintenance of forest cover low high moderate high
Regeneration of shade intolerant
bottomland oak species high moderate high low
Maintenance of specific habitat features
(i.e. cavity trees/snags) flexible flexible flexible flexible
maintenance of a specific density of cavity/den trees may be incorporated into all silvicultural systems
5.0 Proposed Forest Management Guidelines
Restored bottomland hardwood stands are dynamic systems similar to natural forests. Multiple
use management of these systems requires flexibility of management guidelines. Forest managers
must be able to respond to changing conditions within a stand and manage large tracts of land
according to accepted forest management procedures. Landowners are concerned about
economic returns on their investment, preservation of wildlife habitat for hunting, and
maintenance of additional wetland values for recreation and aesthetics. Therefore, the proposed
forest management guidelines for Nahunta Swamp have been formulated specifically to maintain
the functions and values of restored wetlands and ensure the necessary flexibility for landowners
and forest managers.
11
5.1 Allowable Harvest and Silvicultural Systems
Forest.managers need the flexibility of a variety of silvicultural tools in order to respond to the
dynamic conditions found within bottomland forests. Therefore, there will be no restrictions , ?. .
placed on the type of silvicultural system used for managing the restored bottomland forests
within the Nahunta Swamp Wetland Mitigation Bank (NSWMB). However, restrictions will be
placed on the allowable size and location of management units within a particular tract.
Management units (i.e. areas to be thinned, harvested, or otherwise manipulated during
silvicultural operations) will be limited to 5 ac (2 ha). Individual landowner parcels may be
irregularly shaped; therefore, there will be no restrictions on the shape of management units.
Silvicultural activities (parti 'ng and harvesting operations) on adjacent management
units will be restricted to n 10)?e ntervals. Therefore, no two adjacent management units
will be thinned or harvested with n 10 years of each other (Figure 2).
The purpose of limiting management unit sie and frequency of activity is to promote a mosaic of
interconnected, uneven aged stands across the project area. Landowners may harvest or thin a
maximum of approximately 50% of the restored forest area within their tract. However, ' % [ R
harvested blocks are limited to 5 ac (2 ha) and may not be adjacent to one another. The "' ?? tt -vo
remaining 50% of the restored forest area maybe harvested or thinned at a ten (10) year interval.
The latter example is not intended to encourage landowners to maximize thinning and/or
harvesting operations on their tracts. Landowners may choose to promote values other than
timber harvest such as hunting.
5.2 Streamside Management Zones (SMZ's)
Streamside management zones (i.e. riparian buffers) will be maintained along every intermittent
and perennial stream according to best management practices for forestry in North Carolina's
wetlands (NCDEHNR, 1993). The size of the SMZ will be dependent on the type and size of the
adjacent stream (Table 4). The specific operational guidelines within SMZ's are as follows:
• Only selective cutting of trees greater than 8 in (20 cm) DBH will be allowed
• No more than 30% of the basal area should be removed within a ten (10) year period. This
allows for the extraction of valuable sawtimber trees, firewood, and cull trees, but maintains a
fully vegetated SMZ
• At least two cavity/den trees will be maintained for every 5 ac (2 ha)
• No equipment traffic will be permitted within SMZ's, except for stabilized stream crossings
which should be constructed according to state BW guidelines (NCDEHNR, 1989)
Table 4: Guidelines for width of SMZ's within NSWMB'
Perennial Streams
Stream Width SMZ width
>30ft(9m)
1 100ft(30m)
m) 50ft(15m
Intermittent Streams
All 50 ft (15 m)
Source: NCDEHNR (1993)
12

5.3 Timing of Silvicultural Activities r?
?AA
All traffic associated with silvicultural activities (i.e. thinning, harvesting, etc.) will be limited to
dry periods. All equipment traffic should be limited when the soil is saturated or flooded. These
equipment traffic limitations do not include normal traffic associated with recreational activities,
firewood cutting, or site inspection by the landowner.
5.4 Road Construction
Construction of additional permanent roads within the NSWMB will be prohibited. Stabilized
stream crossings and skid trails may be utilized during harvest. Specifications for stabilized
stream crossings are available in the Forestry Best Management Practices Manual (NCDEHNR,
13
1989). A,sufficient road network currently exists within the project area to provide access for
harvesting operations and recreational activities.
5.5 Cavity/Den Tree Management
At least two cavity/den trees for every 5 ac (2 ha) will be maintained throughout the NSWMB
across all management units. Preferably, these cavity/den trees will be large bottomland oak
species in order to maintain hard mast production and oak seed sources throughout the NSWMB
project area.
The proposed forest management guidelines for the Nahunta Swamp restoration plan were
formulated to meet specific objectives. These objectives include: preserve and perpetuate the
anticipated functions and values of the restored bottomland forests, provide participating
landowners with reasonable economic incentives through future allowable timber harvests, and
maintain throughout the rotation specific wildlife habitat features such as hard mast producing
species (i.e. bottomland oak species), cavity/den trees, and forested riparian corridor. The specific
provisions contained in this plan regulate the frequency, timing, and extent of harvest and address
the maintenance of wetland functions and values. Wetland functions and values of the restored
bottomland forests are preserved by maintenance of specific wildlife habitat features such as
riparian corridors, cavity/den trees, and hard mast producing species and preservation of water
quality functions by limiting wet season equipment traffic, prohibiting new road construction, and
establishing a riparian buffer (Table 5).
6.0 Potential Economic Returns on Wetland Forest Restoration
The following example analysis outlines potential forest growth and yield and potential economic
returns for landowners participating in the Nahunta Swamp restoration program. This analysis is
intended to illustrate the maximum potential economic returns for the landowner. Individual
landowners participating in this program may not wish to follow the aggressive thinning and
harvesting schedule we outlined. Our analysis assumes projected yields from mixed bottomland
Table 5: Components of Proposed Forest Management Plan for Nahunta Swam
Specific Provision of Plan Effect on Wetland FunctionNalue
harvest area limit (5 ac (2 ha) limit) maintains wildlife habitat values by providing
continuous forest cover, reduces fragmentation effect
prohibit wet season harvest reduces risk of rutting and soil disturbance from
equipment traffic
maintain 50-100 ft (15-30 m) riparian buffer maintains continuous riparian buffer important for
nutrient and sediment retention
maintain 2 cavity/den trees per 5 ac (2 ha) maintains specific habitat features for cavity nesting
species and seed trees for hard mast production
prohibit new road construction reduces erosion and potential hydrologic alterations
from new road construction
mandate state approved BMPs ensures that landowners will follow state recommended
procedures for forestry practices in wetlands
14
plantations according to the Bottomland Yield Projection System (Mengel and Young, 1993).
Growth projections of bottomland plantations is based on data from bottomland oak plantations
and natural bottomland stands (Frederick, 1996; Kennedy and Meadows, 1993; Bowling and
Kellison, 1983; McClure and Knight, 1984; Walker and Watterson, 1972; Aust et al., 1985; Stine
et al., 1995) (Figure 3). Measured site index for mixed bottomland oaks on Johnston soils ranges
between 90-110 (Broadfoot, 1976). Actual growth and yield of these plantations may exceed our
estimates. Landowners should evaluate their individual needs and balance the production of
commercial forest products, wildlife habitat/hunting, and recreation within the framework dictated
by this plan. This example analysis prescribes thinnings at 25 and 35 years followed by sawtimber
harvests at 50 and 60 years (Figure 4). Thinnings should be conducted primarily for timber
stand improvement and should favor desirable oak growing stock. At ages 25 and 35 planted oak
species will be at reproductive maturity (Burns and Honkala, 1990), therefore, thinnings should
promote acorn production and establishment of advance oak regeneration in the understory.
Thinnings outlined in this analysis were based on stocking guides for Southern bottomland
hardwoods (Goelz, 1995). Individual 5 acre management units will be clearcut harvested at ages
50 (all even # units) and 60 (all odd # units) for quality oak sawtimber.
:•};,,;,{..{•?X•:»,:
L•.v...
.vn,:,..,a..vv:.v'•:ixwii•}:•}.»:•y:;:i;`:ti v.,?k.:a::,a«a v' vtvn vn:a»a::««vt '
:•`.>.:4.......•`..ri..v,?»viii{«;?;; o`v`a. i,<ii.«,y }yavvayay}y},
::.v::.,;.•x.::v:iv• •:••• .vt::vv.•.•nvvti.'}:M1`^•`:'+i?Lti.':::iv,"»»,va»:v,M1...t.vvv.vv«,a:•.v„«•.v.,•.avtn:vaa,v.,v,t»„v«„a,.n,:.. •,"vv`iiv:,a«i
,ii:\::?:i>.iiii?i2•'.2{:ii'tL{i{ti`: ?:L«4n,,.v,«,::„»v»;iv?i??.....••
a.,ar>}}}},?}}}:«,},..t,y}}„{.•`.<}{..t« ta,::,a,a„tva. a :..«?t , ,t 2, tt„a\,,:.,t:,,:,,a ..,,,.:.^•.Y`>}::"?Si:{{{:{:? 'yi.:.
a,a.•.a,..,..,... a\,?'\...,,,,.\,ta,•.a„••},ta„a,a.,.,•:,,;. :.. a{,{; .y.`}`: }`:'^}}}'.?.{,
tiii}i::i{+ ,«?v \vvvv«v{ {.,»»v\»vvtv«va;;• •? ;: vv: v}:}..} t«...««
. y?.. yv?.vv :•: ntav
>G:,>.Q'::L::.<,::Li{::::i?iC?:?::?tiiitiiiii4• 4...
..,\:..,v,.«va«vav.«a ,,,\,.,,,,•;..a<ti:<i{`iiiJbc::•x•+,? ..i .L \ t,:.v„vv\;,t}:,••.«}:;v: ;•;:.v:•:i,'`i;iti'ti>i {ii:i.«
v}}y+vvn}},:...}»}}>.:•?iv»»»,v»\»«a«,iiv.,v.,»»v2 iii`t`i4ty avv«...:.,v4x.,: n, .}.v :.::.vx. \vnv.,t:?:>.
i2•``.Y..22't2,...,,,,•....„t...,...:..:.::.a,•.a,::•.Y,aaa,»,a,,..,:..a•., ,,:k„a,,.??:t}?y}a..y„y}yty,.a}}a}a.y„a..a:a„:,,,a,,,a..««,,.,
vv n\
i4 .`• n
a0a,..
` ...•a ``
M1M1:k.:..:.`a22.22.`a, „t„`A,,,a., •.aa„•:.,«;.>.vvtitiiitiiiiLa
t t
:•}:•.{,{, , ,:•::.:•.,aaa
:y;?::;2•:<•:aa'•:{:{•:;.?:::}.:;`:?>:?;:..::..:::•`.`.::::•`.;.::%.::::`.'::2}.;}`a..?:+:ia :.t`•k:.:.:::::\:•. , a, .•. „ „•.aa:.aa• :•
`}:{{aa{ : ,aa ,a«:«a«:: , a ,t.. .a:,;•::aa{a{:, ::,.
.,, E.«».a•.,,«:«« ,t„aa, ti«t,,,a., •.a aaa
aaa\t,,.•.a«„•.,,.,,:. }
.;.•.a•::.vvv..v :nvvv :vv,•.»:,}:v::., ..... .... .. ...... ..\^w,}}: ••'riy:;n}y ?:••, 4.........,.«,aav ??»tvaaavi??viiiini?i?>.i»v» v>.i?A a»»«.•n:iii<«xaa:•::.:vv,,.,.,2: v:'v^avn '?i» v
«,ti.: .;, .. .«ti.t«,..v,... .. n.v. v,,:\•.,,»l.vv•«8 :•.:v,w.,aw::.,v.,vvvv,:•a
Li{:tt{]]:i}\i'vti::vtitii>.{::?L?ti' i•:{{iiivv»t.v.v \•.;;i n?'i"? . i::.«? •vvv
;?;i;.•.,.,,,,aaa•:.,:taw,22•.{i...t.tk2•>:iYa•:;t\aata,\4;•:{{v}:{itiiti}::Y?i`.>Yia'.iiki`.??.Y?i?i?iiYii ,,.Yiv,a<vaa<a,:aax»av,»,«vavahva
as}y.}aaa..«}a,,;.y:;.;,:..a':::„•.a,aa:•:.«a«...a•:.a..::ataaa:a,,,a..,,a..,««:,aa,aaaa..aaaaaaa•.a„•a.,, ,,,,:;,aa??^••.,,...,....,,....., a,a\4at
:`v:::2:??::.:•`.a;::2•\`i\2?k"?::kk.`,:aa....a t1 .. 4 " ..\ \
...:.... a.,..,vvv....,. •.»•.,•.avv..v.,va•.v.,vv«
'"::':<:: «»..,,, \a.:xi:,i`i?:`:i'':.::2..??..A,\.a...\a.\,•.a„•.,::..,..,,a•.,•:.,,,aaaa:•:.t,•w?'.•.\`2.::2`.$....`...•
vvvv.,vaa„«».ri«..rivv:vav.,•.,•:.
v :
v
.y?,a:•::.aaw.«vnvv«vvvw.vvvv ::•. ::.v »
?y;;..:.,}:.?}a,,,,•.t,«,,,,,,,, • .... .................. ........... .............. -------------------- ------ ----..
x. v:.vav:.avvv,:\i?
Old=
------------------------------- ------------------ ---------------- --------------
u
......--'-' . . ............ ............. '----...... ............. ............ __--------------------------------- ..... •
. ,, -
---- ---------
"' : ««« v
,a„•.a?h la?a„•.
..,•.aav ..,..?wt ?««a,,,,•. ,
-------------------- --------
\
,,,Y•.\,:, .. i . <;;{i{.';:;: ?:::t;?'• ; ::k'::, aa,.a•.
v:,, •.vv.«;, ..w: ••», «,.. .:.\\\«v ..}}'.{va}w.vv ,;.,a;.a,{.ryw: ..v. :;.:,;v •`.?:.`»`vt,vvv vn, v.,:vavv v •,,,.a«ix«t. »••x. ,::kv: vv «^2,$v,}»y}}v» b. •nyvyv}y,, v,`vy:. v; v»;?y:}:.,{i"..'?'`?..; '{v'
. h
::.av.. • • a ,\a,a. rily.:.y`•??. i?.Y2rti2ii??, ,<??,'#!itl?R?<`Z4 :?,4 ?y,4
k:,'}:•:+:,?:•}}a},y,y,•:.,,,,.. „•..:::a•:.,•.?.,,,:av:.a,a,•.a•.,•:.,:.::.,.:: a,«,.,,•:.::,:.:.«,•.
.,.v::.}} •a:.v.,y..; ..,..:::.v,,,,..vv «i\•iiU`}}y,},a•.:?'•}`ti8'i:{?}}•.v v,:,..v
t:v:,v: :,... ,v,vvvvv.v:nai•:,•.«v;•:::nvn,•.?,a:•.v.}..>i..}}'•i}': alai>.:>.?::tiff :<vv.}.''i..i::i.•.vv.....,..n , a ., .. ..
\.. ,.. «.{..v\\,«,«x?. ,•.{.,.v?.v\hk\•}; vvvva::•.via:v.{.•:{`2}Si}ti}t<i2}v'tiQiti:2v2 i•:•:: {: •} vv »a}. .J. S «\..,.. n4 ,
, \a'„{«•.v«« »,«v v: v'\:vv„«.•.,v:::. •: }: vt;:v.n». a 4 .,: ?}v{ i...«v vv 444,...,«av\\,v , :.v.vv. «•:,?.,<i;i.ti{.{.;;•}:»? ..ava«, \a., 4'ii;v
:•?\y..ti:}?{..v« a.. ?... +. t... ..\ a },+yty}:L: }},;.};?.aw.v \{vvavnaK<v:.... vv{ii>•}•.vvxv.,, ..,va,x ?,}i.}}L}..,. }
«.?.: «•\,:,.a...«{:•},vv+n:v:::,,...a.. n..:...,. ? „k•..<i;L.ut}.\`\.,.... \... .?...`..i a«vv .aa: •}, a«:,v.««vv««:,«:«'{>. «, •. v
.. v.:.v ,•,i,'44,\v\, ,\.::..h::b•::.v: nvAAv.:•.w:::.,w::.:w:.w:::. , •. , 4
:..}} ««w:.a•.a••••a««vw:.v»::•n:•.a•.<"'•, a n.aa«« «x •v a«aa«w:.«v,tivav:•n};n, v
a„{aa•.vaava:aav.vv: a': iv`"\.,\`i<iiti}'':}}?"\
.?.... }; .,4,+}}yt;:•.,•:.:,•: ..{{;;iiit>::>..::.i.i..:ii}..^>::ti:$:"r'•.a .., }vv.,,
.«\\C\4'\h',.i2.{}?:i\L ,.v.....a. «vi4....vv vv.\ab. ..,v.«: •»v:::.v:.
:.,•.\„•: ,:a:•.<.`{.}y; .:„• t•.«';t,•.na•..i. ,.a:..;»vvv» «..2.`...
..}. ._::.,t,::,«h:a•.a:•:.,•:.,,,.,a:,a.. ? .. S:
«...y{.,,}r•:,,•.,a;:::.;;.,}.^,,:,t..tt,y„:, ,tt,}t,}ay,{.<{{tt:.{{:{;:{{;;'..;;;;£:i;:;.:.;>ii:{:.;;y;;;;•:111<.a..{;':\••:{:{;«
Figure 3: Estimated Growth of Restored Bottomland Hardwood Stands
in Nahunta Swam Wetland Mitigation Bank
15
Economic forecasts are based on current pulpwood prices of $18.00/cord and sawtimber prices
for mixed oak of $225.00/MBF (International '/a" rule) (Howell, 1994). The value of hunting
leases is assumed to be $3.00/acre/year.
The schedule of silvicultural activities, forecasted expenditures, and forecasted economic returns
is outlined in Table 6. It should be noted that the forecasted economic expenditures for
restoration, maintenance, and monitoring of the mixed bottomland stands will be absorbed by
NCDOT. Estimated restoration (i.e. establishment) costs for the mixed bottomland stands within
NSWMB include hydrologic restoration (ditch plugging, etc.), site preparation costs (disking,
subsoiling, herbicide application), seedling costs, and planting costs. Maintenance and monitoring
include data collection and remedial measures to ensure the success of the restoration effort
within an initial limited time period (usually 3-5 years). Estimated returns do not include
incidental costs to the landowner such as consulting forestry professionals, harvesting costs, and
transportation costs.
16
I
l
Table 6: Schedule of Silvicultural Acti ties and Forecasted Economic Return for Example Analysis of
R stored Bottomland Hardwood Stands at NSWMB
Stand Management Silviiultural Activity Estimated Economic Comments
Age Units Return 1996 dollars
0 all stand establishment - $750 - $1,000/ac' includes site preparation, herbicide
application, planting, hydrologic
modifications, seedlings, etc.
0-5 all stand monitoring - $100 - $200/ac' routine monitoring & remedial
I action (replanting, etc.)
25 even # units T §l - improvement + $198/ac pulpwood harvest of I Icords/ac,
(5 ac. blocks) thinning thinning should favor high quality
oak species
35 odd # units TSI - improvement + $252/ac pulpwood harvest of 14 cords/ac,
(5 ac. blocks) thinning thinning should favor high quality
oak species
50 even # units clearcut harvest w/ + $216/ac pulpwood remove all stems to 2" DBH,
residual cavity/den + $3713/ac sawtimber pulpwood harvest of 12 cords/ac,
trees @ 2 trees/5 ac oak sawtimber harvest of 16.5
MBF/ac
60 odd # units clearcut harvest w/ + $144/ac pulpwood remove all stems to 2" DBH,
residual cavity/den + $5400/ac sawtimber pulpwood harvest of 8 cords/ac,
trees @ 2 trees/5 ac oak sawtimber harvest of 24
MBF/ac
60 all single tree selection + $1575/ac sawtimber remove 30% of basal area in large
harvest in SMZ's w/ diameter oak species, oak
residual cavity/den sawtimber harvest of 7 MBF/ac
trees 2 trees/5 ac
0-60 all hunting leases + $3/ac/ misc. hunting leases
Costs paid by NCDOT
6.0 Conclusions
Most of the natural bottomland hardwood forests within the Nahunta Swamp watershed have
been cleared for agriculture, ditched, and drained. Due to the conversion of these forests to
agriculture, Nahunta Swamp has become a major source of nutrient and sediment pollution to the
lower Neuse River basin. Restoration of bottomland forests within the Nahunta Swamp
watershed would improve the functions and values attributed to these sites including water quality
improvement, wildlife habitat restoration, and recreational opportunities. The key to a successful
restoration program within the Nahunta Swamp watershed is landowner cooperation. Many
landowners are concerned about limitations placed upon their parcels and resource regulatory
agencies are concerned about the restoration and maintenance of wetland functions and values.
Many landowners within Nahunta Swamp watershed currently derive annual income from their
parcels through the production of agricultural commodities. Successful implementation of a large
scale forested wetland restoration program within the watershed is contingent upon multiple use
management of the restored wetlands. Landowners may derive periodic income from their parcels
through timber arvest and hunting leases. In addition, landowners may cut firewood and use
P
6
y?? ^! 17
'' `"?
their parcels for a variety of recreational activities. Minor restrictions placed on forest
management activities ensure the maintenance of wetland functions and values including diverse
wildlife habitat.
7.0 Literature Cited
Aust, W.M., J.D. Hodges, and R.L. Johnson, 1985. The Origin, Growth, and Development of
Natural, Pure, Even-Aged Stands of Bottomland Oak. Pages 163-177 in Proceedings of the 3rd
Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Forest
Experiment Station, General Technical Report SO-54, New Orleans, LA.
Aust W.M. and R. Lea. 1992. Comparative Effects of Aerial and Ground Logging on Soil
Properties in a Tupelo-Cypress Wetland. For. Ecol. Mgmnt. 50:57-73.
Barnhill, W.L. 1974. Soil Survey of Wayne County, North Carolina. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation
Service in cooperation with the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Washington,
D.C.
Barnhill, W.L. 1990. Soil Survey of Greene County, North Carolina. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation
Service in cooperation with North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina
Agricultural Extension Service, and Greene County Board of Commissioners. Washington D.C.
Barry, J.E. and L.E. Nix. 1993. Impact of Harvesting Activities on Oak Seedling Establishment in
a Bottomland Hardwood Forest. Pages 155-158 in Proceedings of the 7t' Biennial Southern
Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station,
General Technical Report SO-93, New Orleans, LA.
Bechtold, W.A. and R.M. Sheffield. 1991. Hardwood Timber Supplies in the United States. Tappi
Journal 74(5):111-116.
Beissel, K. 1996. A Comparison of Vegetational, Edaphic and Hydrologic Characteristics of
Riverine Forested Wetlands of the North Carolina Coastal Plain. MS Thesis, North Carolina
State University, College of Forest Resources, 57pp.
Binkley, D. and T.C. Brown. 1993. Management Impacts on Water Quality of Forests and
Rangelands. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,
General Technical Report RM-239, Fort Collins, CO.
Blackburn, W.H. and J.C. Wood. 1990. Nutrient Export in Stormflow Following Forest
Harvesting and Site Preparation in East Texas. J. Environ. Qual. 19:402-408.
Bowling, D.R. and R.C. Kellison. 1983. Bottomland Hardwood Stand Development Following
Clearcutting. S. J. Appl. For. 7:110-116.
18
Broadfoot, W.M. 1976. Hardwood Suitability for and Properties of Important Midsouth Soils.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Research Paper SO-127. New
Orleans, LA. 84 p.
Brown, M.J. 1993. North Carolina's Forests. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southeastern Forest
Experiment Station, Resource Bulletin SE-142. Asheville, NC.
Burns, R.M. 1983. Silvicultural Systems for the Major Forest Types of the United States.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Agricultural Handbook No. 445. Washington, D.C.
Burns, R.M. and B.H. Honkala. 1990. Silvics of North America. U. S.D.A. Forest Service,
Agricultural Handbook 654, Washington D.C.
Eyre, F.H. 1980. Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada. Society of American
Foresters, Washington, D.C. 148 pp.
Frederick, D.J. 1996. Unpublished forest inventory data for hardwood plantations in a Piedmont
Stream Bottom. Department of Forestry, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Freese, D.A. 1994. Timber Harvesting Effects on Ecosystem Functions in Headwater Forested
Wetlands of Southwestern Alabama. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Forestry, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC. 166 pp.
Gardiner, E. S., J.D. Hodges, and S.H. Schoenholtz. 1995. Effects of Harvesting Methods on Site
and Regeneration in Cypress-Tupelo Swamps. Pages 216-219 in Proceedings of the 8U' Biennial
Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Research Station,
General Technical Report SRS-1, Asheville, NC.
Gent, J.A., R. Ballard, and A.E. Hassan. 1983. The Impact of Harvesting and Site Preparation on
the Physical Properties of Lower Coastal Plain Forest Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47:595-598.
Goelz, J.C.G. 1995. A Stocking Guide for Southern Bottomland Hardwoods. S. J. Appl. For.
19(3):103-104.
Golden, M.S. 1993. Establishment of Regeneration in Small Patch Clearcut Openings in am
Alabama River Floodplain Forest. Pages 161-167 in Proceedings of the 7 h Biennial Southern
Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station,
General Technical Report SO-93, New Orleans, LA.
Golden, M.S. 1995. Establishment of Oak Regeneration in Group Selection Openings in a River
Floodplain Forest. Pages 413-418 in Proceedings of the 8`s Biennial Southern Silvicultural
Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, General Technical
Report SRS-1, Asheville, NC.
Gorham, E., P.M. Vitousek, and W.A. Reiners. 1979. The Regulation of Chemical Budgets over
the Course of Terrestrial Ecosystem Succession. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10:53-84.
19
Hart, C.P., J.D. Hodges, K. Belli, and J. Stanturf. 1995. Evaluating Potential Oak and Ash
Regeneration on Minor Bottoms in the Southeast. Pages 434-442 in Proceedings of the 8`h
Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern
Research Station, General Technical Report SRS-1, Asheville, NC.
Haynes, R.W. 1990. An Analysis of the Timber Situation in the United States: 1989-2040.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General
Technical Report RM-199, Fort Collins, CO. 268 p.
Haynes, R.W., D.M. Adams, and J.R. Mills. 1995. The 1993 RPA Timber Assessment Update.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General
Technical Report RM-GTR-259, Fort Collins, CO. 65 p.
Hook, D.D. 1988. Alternatives to Clearcutting in Lowland Hardwood Forests. Pages 34-43 in
Proceedings of the 16'h Annual Hardwood Symposium of the Hardwood Research Council:
Hardwood Supply - Feast or Famine, Cashiers, NC.
Howell, M. 1994. Pulpwood Prices in the Southeast, 1992. U.S.D.A. Forest Service,
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Research Note 5E-369. Asheville, NC.
Hutchins, C.C. 1991. Southern Pulpwood Production, 1989. U.S.D.A. Forest Service,
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Resource Bulletin SE-119, Asheville, NC. 28 p.
Jackson, B.D. and B.J. Stokes. 1991. Low Impact Harvesting Systems for Wet Sites. Pages 701-
709 in Coleman, S. S. and D. G. Neary (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial Southern
Silviculture Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station,
General Technical Report SE-70, Asheville, NC.
Johnson, R.L. and F.W. Shropshire. 1983. Bottomland Hardwoods. Pages 175-179 in R.M. Burns
(ed.), Silvicultural Systems for the Major Forest Types of the United States. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Agricultural Handbook No. 445. Washington, D.C.
Johnson, T.G. 1996. Trends in Southern Pulpwood Production, 1953-1993. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Southern Research Station, Resource Bulletin SRS-3, Asheville, NC.
Johnson, T.G. and C.D. Steppleton. 1996. Southern Pulpwood Production, 1995. U.S.D.A.
Forest Service, Southern Forest Station, Resource Bulletin SRS-8. Asheville, NC.
Kellison, R.C., J.P. Martin, G.D. Hansen, and R. Lea. 1988. Regenerating and Managing Natural
Stands of Bottomland Hardwoods. Bottomland Hardwood Management Taskforce, Southeastern
Technical Division, American Pulpwood Association, APA 88-A-6, Washington, D.C.
20
Kennedy, H.E. and J.S. Meadows. 1993. Species Composition and Stand Development 21 Years
After Clearcutting in a Bottomland Wetland Forest. Pages 49-56 in Proceedings of the 7t''
Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Forest
Experiment Station, General Technical Report SO-93, New Orleans, LA.
Lea, R. 1988. Management of Eastern United States Bottomland Hardwood Forests. In the
Ecology and Management of Wetlands, Volume 2: Management, Use, and Value of Wetlands.
Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Lloyd, S.M., R.H. Jones, B.,G. Lockaby, and L. Reyneud. 1992. Effects of harvesting activity on
tree regeneration in three Alabama branch-bottom forests. Pages 869-873 in Proceedings of the
13th Annual Conference of the Society of Wetland Scientists, New Orleans, LA.
McClure, J.P. and H.A. Knight. 1984. Empirical Yields of Timber and Forest Biomass in the
Southeast. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Research Paper
SE-245, Asheville, NC.
McDonald, T.P., B.J. Stokes, and W.M. Aust. 1995. Soil Physical Property Changes After
Skidder Traffic with Varying Tire Widths. J. For. Engr. 6(2):41-50.
McKevlin, M.R. 1992. Guide to Regeneration of Bottomland Hardwoods. U. S.D.A. Forest
Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report SE-76, Asheville,
NC.
Mengel, D.L. and M.J. Young. 1993. A User's Guide to the Bottomland Yield Projection System
(BYPS). College of Forest Resources, Hardwood Research Cooperative Series No. 8, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, second edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, NY 722 pp.
Murosky, D.L. and A.E. Hassan. 1988. Impact of Machine Traffic on a Wetland Hardwood Site.
Paper Number 88-7545, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
NCDEHNR. 1989. Forestry Best Management Practices Manual. North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Raleigh, NC.
NCDEHNR. 1993. Best Management Practices for Forestry in North Carolina's Wetlands
(DRAFT). North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and
U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Raleigh, NC.
21
NCDEHNR. 1995. Nahunta Swamp Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment. North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and U. S.D.A. Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Raleigh, NC.
Nix, L.E. and A. Lafaye. 1993. Successful Regeneration of Quality Oaks in a Red River
Bottomland Hardwood Stand of South Carolina. Pages 81-85 in Proceedings of the 7`h Biennial
Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Forest
Experiment Station, General Technical Report SO-93, New Orleans, LA.
Odum, E.P. 1969. The Strategy of Ecosystem Development. Science 164:262-269.
Pashley, D.N. and W.C. Barrow. 1992. Effects of Land Use Practices on Neotropical Migratory
Birds in Bottomland Hardwood Forests. Pages 315-320 in Status and Management of
Neotropical Migratory Birds. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-229, Fort Collins, CO.
Perison, D.M., R. Lea, and R. Kellison. 1993. The Response of Soil Physical and Chemical
Properties and Water Quality to Timber Harvest and Soil Disturbance: Preliminary Results. Pages
143-146 in Proceedings of the 7t' Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A.
Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report SO-93, New
Orleans, LA.
Richardson, C.J. 1994. Ecological Functions and Human Values in Wetlands: A Framework for
Assessing Forestry Impacts. Wetlands 14 (1): 1-9.
Schafale, M.P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
SCS. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service,
Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491. Washington, D.C.
Shaffer, R.M., K.R. Brummel, and B.J. Stokes. 1993. The Impact of Group Selection Silviculture
on Timber Harvesting Productivity and Cost in the Southern Appalachians. Pages 651-653 in
Proceedings of the 7"' Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. U. S.D.A. Forest
Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report SO-93, New Orleans,
LA.
Smith, D.M. 1962. The Practice of Silviculture. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 578 pp.
Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M. Brinson. 1995. An Approach for Assessing
Wetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands, and Functional
Indices. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research
Program, Technical Report WRP-DE-9, 71 pp. plus appendices.
22
Stine, M., J.L. Chambers, M. Wilson, and K. Ribbeck. 1995. Twenty-Year Survival and Growth
of Six Bottomland Hardwood Species. Pages 500-502 in Proceedings of the 8 h Biennial Southern
Silvicultural Research Conference. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, General
Technical Report SRS-1, Asheville, NC.
Taylor, JR., M.A. Cardamone, and W.J. Mitsch. 1990. Bottomland Hardwood Forests: Their
Functions and Values. Pages 13-86 in Ecological Processes and Cumulative Impacts Illustrated by
Bottomland Hardwood Wetland Ecosystems, J.G. Gosselink, L.C. Lee, and T.A. Muir (eds.),
Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI. 708 pp.
Thompson, F.R., J.R. Probst, and M.G. Raphael. 1992. Silvicultural Options for Neotropical
Migratory Birds. Pages 353-361 in Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General
Technical Report RM-229, Fort Collins, CO.
Toliver, J.R. and B.D. Jackson. 1989. Recommended Silvicultural Practices in Southern Wetland
Forests. Pages 72-77 in D.D. Hook and R. Lea (eds.) The Forested Wetlands of the Southern
United States, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, General
Technical Report SE-50, Asheville, NC.
Trettin, C.C. 1992. Silvicultural Effects on Functional Processes of a Boreal Wetland. Ph.D.
Dissertation. Department of Forestry, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Vitousek, P.M. and W.A. Reiners. 1975. Ecosystem Succession and Nutrient Retention: A
Hypothesis. Bioscience 25(6):376-381.
Waldbridge, M.R. and B.G. Lockaby. 1994. Effects of Forest Management on Biogeochemical
Functions in Southern Forested Wetlands. Wetlands 14(1):10-17.
Walker, L.C. and K.G. Watterson. 1972. Silviculture of Southern Bottomland Hardwoods.
Bulletin 25, School of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX.
Wigley, T.B. and T.H. Roberts. 1994. A Review of Wildlife Changes in Southern Bottomland
Hardwoods Due to Forest Management Practices. Wetlands 14(1):41-48.
Wilkinson, D.L., K. Schneller-McDonald, R.W. Olson, and G.T. Auble. 1987. Synopsis of
Wetland Functions and Values: Bottomland Hardwoods with Special Emphasis on Eastern Texas
and Oklahoma. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 87(12), Washington D.C.
Zaebst, T.W., W.M. Aust, S.H. Schoenholtz, and C. Fristoe. 1995. Recovery Status of a Tupelo-
Cypress Wetland Seven Years After Disturbance: Silvicultural Implications. Pages 229-235 in
Proceedings of the 8d' Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. U. S.D. A. Forest
Service, Southern Research Station, General Technical Report SRS-1, Asheville, NC.
23
k
D R A F T - SUBJECT TO REVISION - MARCH, 1996
CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT dated this - - - day of - _ - - - - -, 199-, by
and between
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
herein referred to as the "Grantor" or "Landowner", and the Wayne Soil and
Water Conservation District, herein referred to as the "Grantee". The
designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties,
their heirs, successors, and assigns.
The Grantor covenants with the Grantee, that Grantor is seized of the premises
described below in section I in fee simple, has the right to convey the same
in fee simple, that title is marketable and free and clear of all
encumbrances, and that Grantor will warrant and defend the title against the
lawful claims of all persons whomsoever except for the exceptions hereinafter
stated. Title to the property hereinbelow described is subject to the
following exceptions:
(LEAVE SPACE FOR EXCEPTIONS)
(NEED EXAMPLES OF EXCEPTIONS)
This easement is under the authority and furtherance of the provisions of
State and Federal law, including the Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law
of 1937 (State), Conservation and Historic Preservation Act (Federal), section
1462 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Federal),
the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Federal),Federal
Executive order 11988 - Flood Plain Management (May 24, 1977), and Federal
Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands (May 24, 1977). The
restrictions and covenants contained in this easement constitute a perpetual
servitude on and run with the property. The Grantor, all successors, and
assigns ("landowner") under this deed covenant with the Grantee to do or
refrain from doing, severally and collectively, the various acts mentioned
later in this easement. The Grantee is conveyed the rights enumerated in this
easement for itself, its successors, agents and assigns.
WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the
Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has and by these
presents does grant bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee, an appurtenant
conservation easement in, over and under the lands described hereafter with
the appurtenant right of access. This conservation easement is created
pursuant to the N.C. Historic Preservation and Conservation Agreements Act and
in furtherance of Purposes of State and Federal Law set forth above and is
granted in perpetuity. This appurtenant conservation easement and right of
access is located on land situated in --------------- Township, Wayne County,
North Carolina and more particularly described below in section I.

D R A F T - SUBJECT TO REVISION - MARCH, 1996
I. Description of the Easement Area and Access Thereto:
The area subject to the Conservation Easement, referred to herein as the
"easement area" is described as follows:
(DESCRIPTION - EASEMENT SHOULD STOP AT NCDOT RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND
AT LEAST 100 FEET FROM NCDOT BRIDGES)
The property hereinabove described was acquired by Grantor by instrument
recorded in ------------------------------------------
2

D R A F T - SUBJECT TO REVISION - MARCH, 1996
II. Covenants by the Landowner.
A. No dwellings, barns, outbuildings, or other structures shall be
built within the easement area.
B. The vegetation and hydrology of the described easement area will be
established for the landowner according to a Wetland Restoration Plan
developed between the Grantee and cooperating Federal and State
agencies. Said plan will be consistent with the preservation and
enhancement of floodplain and wetland functional values. After the plan
is implemented, the easement area will not be altered in any way or by
any means or activity on the property conveyed by this deed, or property
owned or under the control of the landowner, including (1) cutting or
mowing; (2) cultivation; (3) grazing; (4) burning; (5) placing of
refuse, wastes, chemicals, sewage, or other debris; (6) draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, discing, pumping, diking,
impounding, or related activities; or (7) diverting or affecting the
natural flow of surface or underground waters into, within, and out of
the easement area except as noted in this easement.
C. The landowner will be allowed to selectively harvest timber in
accordance with a Wetland Timber Management Plan developed with
concurrence of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Said plan will be
consistent with the preservation and enhancement of floodplain and
wetland functional values.
D. Notwithstanding the provision of paragraph II-B above, the landowner
shall be responsible for compliance with all federal, state, and local
laws for the control of noxious or other undesirable plants on the
easement area. The responsibility for such plant control may be assumed
in writing by and at the option of the Grantee where the control or
manipulation of such plants is deemed by the Grantee to affect easement
management programs or policies.
E. Cattle or other stock shall not be permitted on the easement area,
except that the Grantee shall permit access to and use of waters within
the area necessary for stock watering under such terms and conditions as
the Grantee deems necessary to protect and further the purposes of this
easement, provided:
(1) the Grantor bears the costs of building and maintaining
fencing or other facilities reasonably necessary to preclude stock
from entering the easement area; and
(2) access for stock watering need not be permitted where other
waters are reasonably available from other sources outside the
easement area.
3
w
D R A F T - SUBJECT TO REVISION - MARCH, 1996
III. Rights Conveyed to Grantee.
The Grantee and its successors or assigns, is conveyed the rights, at its sole
discretion, to manage the easement area including the following authorities:
A. The rights of reasonable ingress and egress on and across any and
all lands and easements of the landowner ("servient estate") as of the
date of this instrument, whether or not adjacent or appurtenant to the
easement area, for access to the easement area in order to conduct
wetlands management, monitoring, and easement enforcement activities.
The Grantee may utilize vehicles and other reasonable modes of
transportation for access purposes overland or on any right of way
described in paragraph I. In the event that the use of the described
access over the servient estate is not practical for any reason, the
Grantee may utilize any convenient route of access to the easement area
over the servient estate.
B. The rights to install, operate, and maintain structures for the
purpose of reestablishing, protecting, and enhancing wetland functional
values including the taking of construction materials to and from said
sites.
C. The right to establish, alter, and otherwise control vegetation
through seedings, plantings, or natural succession.
D. The right to alter or otherwise control vegetation, topography and
hydrology on the easement area through diking, pumping, water
management, excavating, island construction, burning, cutting, pesticide
application, fertilizing, and other appropriate practices.
E. The right to prevent grazing or other types of encroachment on the
easement area.
IV. Easement Management and Administration.
A. All rights, title and interests of the Grantee in this easement are
administered by the Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District. The
Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District may enforce all the terms and
conditions of this easement, along with exercising all rights and powers
conveyed in this easement through such general or specific regulations
or orders as have been or may be, from time to time, promulgated under
the authority of the Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law of 1937.
Notwithstanding the above rights in paragraph III, conveyed to the
Grantee, the Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District may permit the
landowner to pursue such activities on said sites as would be consistent
with the preservation and enhancement of floodplain and wetland
functional values.
B. As used in this easement, the term "Grantee" shall refer to the
authorized official of the Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District.
4

D R A F T - SUBJECT TO REVISION - MARCH, 1996
V. General Provisions.
A. The agreed upon purposes of this easement are the restoration,
preservation, and maintenance of the wetland and floodplain areas
including protection and enhancement of plant and animal habitat and
populations. A "Wetland" is defined by reference to section 7(c) of
Federal Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands and a
"floodplain" is defined by reference to section (6)c of Federal
Executive order 11988 - Flood Plain Management. Any ambiguities in this
easement shall be construed in a manner which best effectuates wetland
preservation.
B. Any subsequent amendment to or repeal of any federal or state law or
order which authorizes this easement shall not affect the rights
conveyed to the grantee or subsequently held by its successors or
assigns.
C. For purposes of this easement, wetland management rights conveyed to
the grantee include, but are not limited to, inspection for compliance
with the terms of this easement and any other activity consistent with
the preservation and enhancement of wetland functional values.
D. The Grantee, its successors and assigns shall have the right to make
surveys, take photographs, and prepare such other documentation as may
be necessary or desirable to administer the provision of this easement.
Any such map, plat, or other suitable document may be recorded in the
land records of the respective county in which the property is located.
E. The easement does not authorize public entry upon or use of land.
The landowner may permit it at the landowner's discretion.
F. The landowner and invitees may hunt and fish on the easement area in
accordance with all Federal, State, and local game and fishery
regulations.
G. The North Carolina Department of Transportation holds any rights to
the use of the restored wetland area for compensatory mitigation.
H. This easement shall be binding on the Grantor, their heirs,
successors, or assigns. The Grantor covenants to warrant and defend
unto the Grantee, its successors, or assigns, the quiet and peaceable
use and enjoyment of the land and interests in the land constituting
this easement against all claims and demands.
I. In the performance of any rights of the Grantee under this easement,
the Grantee may permit, contract, or otherwise provide for action by
employees, agents, or assigns which may include the landowner.
5
D R A F T - SUBJECT TO REVISION - MARCH, 1996
VI. Enforcement and Remedies.
A. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by the
Grantor, their heirs, successors, or assigns, which comes to the
attention of the Grantee, the Grantee shall notify the Grantor in
writing of such breach. The Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after
receipt of such notice to undertake actions that are reasonably
calculated to promptly correct the conditions constituting such breach.
If the breach remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the grantee may
exercise any or all of the following remedies:
1. Institute suits to enjoin any breach or enforce any covenant
by temporary an/or permanent injunction either prohibitive or
mandatory and/or to recover any damages from injury to any
conservation values protected by this Conservation Easement,
including damages for the loss of scenic, aesthetic, historic, or
environmental values and attorneys fees if Grantee prevails; and
2. Require that the land be restored promptly to the condition
required by this Conservation Easement.
B. The Grantee has the right to prevent any activity on or use of the
Property that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation
Easement. Grantee's remedies shall be cumulative and shall be in
addition to any other rights and remedies available to Grantee at law or
equity. If Grantee, in its sole discretion, determines that
circumstances require immediate action to prevent or mitigate
significant damage to the conservation values of the Property, the
Grantee may pursue its remedies without prior notice to Grantor, but
shall exercise reasonable efforts to notify Grantor.
C. No failure on the part of Grantee to enforce any covenant or
provision hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any
other covenant, condition, or provision hereof or affect the right of
Grantee to enforce the same in the event of a subsequent breach or
default.
D. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed
to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or
change in the Property resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's
control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, war, acts of
God or third parties, except Grantor's lessees or invitees; or from
prudent action taken in good faith by Grantor under emergency conditions
to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, damage to
property or harm to the Property resulting from such causes, in
accordance with the provisions of Paragraph II.B. hereunder.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the herein described interests in land unto the Grantee
forever.
WITNESS, the signature of the Grantor.
WITNESS, the signature of the authorized officer of the Grantee.
rman, Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District
6
01
NAHUNTA SWAMP WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN OF OPERATION
The primary goal in this wetland restoration plan is the restoration of
bottomland hardwood habitat adjacent to Nahunta Swamp and it's tributaries
(riparian areas) to improve water quality and improve wildlife and aquatic
habitat. All restoration work will be done on Johnston soils. The vegetation
to be established will trap sediment and nutrients from adjoining cropland as
well as provide food and cover for both game and non-game species. The
restored riparian area will also provide valuable wildlife travel corridors
along the stream.
Field No. 2 represents a typical prior converted wetland in Nahunta
Swamp Watershed. The field consists of 8 acres of Johnston loam soils
currently being farmed. Johnston soils in a natural state are very poorly
drained, nearly level soils on wide, flat, low flood plains along large
drainageways. The seasonal high water table is at the surface. Flooding is
very frequent (more often than once in two years) and of long duration (seven
days to one month from November through July). A representative profile near
the junction of Exum Mill Branch and Nahunta Swamp includes:
Ap - 0 to 10 inches, very dark-grey (10YR 3/1) loam
Al - 10 to 28 inches, black (10YR 2/1) loam
Blg - 28 to 32 inches, grey (10YR 5/1) sandy loam
B2g - 32 to 45 inches, grayish-brown (10YR 5/2) sandy loam
Cg - 45 to 65 inches, light-grey (10YR 7/1) sand
There are no restrictive layers in the soil. Hydrology is a function of
landscape position and frequent flooding.
There is an intercepter ditch (Ditch 1) running parallel with Nahunta
Swamp, separating the upland area from the flood plain. This ditch controls
most of the hydrology for the field by intercepting the overland and
subsurface flow from the upland areas. There is a property line ditch (Ditch
2) that directs the flow from Ditch 1 to Nahunta Swamp. Ditch 2 has a limited
effect on the hydrology but must remain open for the adjoining landowner
unless he can be persuaded to cooperate with the wetland restoration program.
A major goal of the Soil & Water Conservation Districts will be to have as
many adjacent landowners cooperating as possible to increase the effectiveness
of the project.
NRCS's standards and specifications for wetland restoration' will be
followed except that the US Army Corps of Engineers' recommendations' for
species composition and survival rates will take precedence. The US Army
Corps of Engineers recommends a minimum of 6 hardwood species with no more
than 20% of any one species. Planting will be on a 10 foot by 10 foot spacing
(435 trees per acre). The goal will be a minimum of 320 trees per acre
surviving 3 years after the wetland hydrology has been reestablished. Pine
will not be planted and should account for less than 10% of the total site
species.
'Natural Resources Conservation Service Technical Guide, Section IV,
Practice Code 657, Wetland Restoration, (July, 1992)
'Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines, US Army Corps of Engineers,
December, 1993
MARCH 28, 1996
D R A F T
Tree planting will be done before the hydraulic modifications are made
to reduce seedling mortality. The wetland hydrology will be reestablished in
as simple a manner as possible to reduce operation and maintenance costs. It
is anticipated that earthen plugs, 100 feet in length, can be used to block
the drainage ditches and restore the hydrology. The number of plugs and their
location will be determined during individual field planning. In some
situations it may be necessary to fill the entire length of the drainage
ditch. Overland flow from the adjacent slopes and the periodic flooding of
Nahunta Swamp will be sufficient to restore the wetland hydrology. There will
be no need for diking, levees, or other ponding structures or the artificial
introduction of additional water. Local reference wetlands will be used to
compare progress in restoration.
Timber harvesting will be permitted in accordance with a wetland timber
management plan developed with the concurrence of the US Army Corps of
Engineers. The plan will maintain the hydrology, vegetative community, and
other wetland functions and values. Clear cutting will not be allowed.
The NC Department of Transportation will provide funds for purchase of
the conservation easements and restoration of the wetland areas. A wetlands
mitigation plan will be developed with the concurrence of the US Army Corps of
Engineers. Best Management Practices on critically eroding cropland adjacent
to the restored wetland areas will reduce sedimentation. Provisions in the
conservation easements will protect the restored wetland areas from
destruction by human/animal actions (4-wheel drive vehicles, livestock
grazing, etc.).
The US Army Corps of Engineers' Mitigation Planning Checklist will be
followed at each step of the planning process. The mitigation plan will
include success criteria, a description of a local reference wetland site,
monitoring plans for vegetation and hydrology, and an analysis of the restored
hydrology including water budgets. As-built plans of the wetland restoration,
random sampling of the vegetation on each tract, and monitoring reports will
be prepared and submitted to the appropriate agencies by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation.
MARCH 28, 1996
D R A F T
WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN/SCHEDULE OF OPERATIONS
NAME: EXAMPLE COUNTY: WAYNE STATE: NC CONTRACT NO: 1-T-5431 TOTAL ACRES UNDER
CONTRACT: 8.18
SUMMARY OF WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN OF OPERATION (WRPO)
PURPOSE AND FUNCTION:
This Wetland Restoration Plan will restore a palustrine forested wetland
(bottomland hardwood). Wetland values that will be restored include wildlife
habitat, water quality improvement, recreation, and forest resources.
SUMMARY:
The 8.18 acres shown on the attached Plan of operations map will be placed
under a perpetual easement. The WRPO will:
1. Restore the bottomland hardwood community by planting hardwood trees on
a 10 foot by 10 foot spacing (435 trees per acre).
2. Restore the wetland hydrology by installing a ditch plug (100 feet long)
where shown on the Plan of operations map.
3. Allow the NC Department of Transportation to secure mitigation credits
with the US Army Corps of Engineers.
COMPATIBLE USES:
The following uses have been determined to be compatible with the purpose for
which this Wetland Restoration Plan of Operation and Conservation Easement is
established:
1. Hunting, fishing, trapping, birdwatching, and recreational hiking that
is fully consistent with state and federal regulations, including the
leasing of such rights to others.
2. Selective timber harvesting in accordance with a wetland timber
management plan developed with the concurrence by the US Army Corps of
Engineers. The plan will maintain the hydrology, the vegetative
community, and other wetland functions and values. Clear cutting will
not be permitted. Streamside Management Zones will be established
adjacent to Nahunta Swamp and its tributaries.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE:
1. Adequate maintenance will be provided to facilitate establishment of
woody vegetation. This may require the suppression of weeds and pine
species. The area will be considered established to woody vegetation if
320 stems per acre are surviving for three growing seasons after the
wetland hydrology has been reestablished. Species composition will
include at least 6 hardwoods with no single species accounting for more
than 20% of the population.
2. The ditch plugs will be maintained for the life of the easement.
MARCH 28, 1996
D R A F T

00
ae_ Tr y :.:yU. ,x
.?Y I n' T y!3 eR•
;Liz
SOS
-? ?+'?- cu -f •? 'ate ?.???y?_ ?? -
4..r, ?%'• ? ,.. _ .+.?au°' .?K?'1.J5£'axfi --k2 eat
" ? •?w ? '?"?-ss '-. t:: :_?:;;...i'1?+t+t .?•:? ? is •? .... -...
- .:?- ,' ? ?. ? ` ,1 .C i fJ?rh?4. ` f Y .n -6,'-S ? t ? „?T i I --.?? 2?' [ '• Y'''.•k-*Y?. "•"' "'S.-r
^ :` ??? ?. ?lNEi?C•+ '; ?.?'' fN?i.., '):•S Ate"-•, '.??• -? t?? ? ? - ?'
. r' ._ •. 1. ? ? lr•r t? •'..• .i P•.:? psi. ?~?S?'••;' I ? ???'---ttt ,.. 1:."?. I
•r' - ? < ??? fir, "' '-;,, `1 2.Sb ? !._` ? .e ''
;ki 3 _ .? ? - `=•ti •• tii Ji ? ._. l?`10 ° LY?•r?".?++? 1 .? '?4.? r '? ? F? -
Y a ,ft._. _ ,l ? L 1 } ` ;Y1 ? ? .? ? _ ,. .. J? ,•2?y '?: _ '4 ?; ?: .y ?a ,?t ,
'A 16
0.0
`LTA _ 1 _
?. 8N?-
a

.[ Js we +ad
vo"?-.- Wad a
_ Noall 'F==== L/
NCA
/1 I
r,,az _. ?- ?• do :vaa? Nod
Craz \\ as ../ / Wad I• Waa
q,
C: H
NAyo NOCb LY Tr W '... Js f • NOC Bb??.... `_ .... _.,? W ya ' Run'
Ay. Cr8 / Ex _7 6y
rr R
Nr82 I ? /. ? _ ?o? / Or
NOA _ Was u Go
NoA Nob ?•' was was^ _
=3
8b gb \ rO •
Antioch Nfaz Was
?s4.{ lY Es •I Church AyA ? `a 8b WaB NOS NOA LY.• NOA s GO o J?
I I N Ex ?1? W/
? \ Js /Y j/(i NOB Ly
C
. ? •• _ / No8 ?... f
I AyA Go
?'-^,• ` /
I ' was Na \_.. _ Was as a. ::
Nob
NoA 1 ?
I Ly AY8 Nab o? ?`.. • • ._
waa, c \ f ?c NOA
? h?a •• I Y i ! ? c', 1y.. "C Nob f'''•
a1' X90
n 9 ' Nr We is
O 3] I Na AyA gkds "YaB WaB 11 1We waa
s?,Wa8 NcA was Tr +? N Rm ¢11Y \
I •• o Crag _ _' : z •. ???I
NcA 0 vac Or Go
b [.•
Or is
Ra Or
LY r Cr82 RY82 Nod 'r \. .' J< V We
La _ og C.
WaB NoA Waa / I Ly Waa , Jo a a Tr \ tr To
C No w
No3 ^o? NOS {a t Ke ^r4 Js- __? .:?amP
ICI C ?? Nod i 1 _' !t /.
W Cr?1'°? \./ '.NOC c. is.
b / ^\ nx4 ?1 Js we Ka ?r I vc3 Dri,,?
B _/...• \ / ^I
I `G= ?. \ _ INLI Js? b G. /WaCr
Was
II Way ~ y/:'6b' / .. / I T = La _
NaC r _ Or ?
,?'•?• b? wa_
I i? / 1 l Js a• ag K.
Waa Tr Wna 1 ?_ We Or Wad • / `
I Was La Or GL " - 9) i
Was La
Lv was WAS WaB n?
v d
Or 1 Or
152 rd? wa8
Lv Lv V
' _ L• ?? ?~ We Wa8 D ••\r 1 ?7
Wad L3
r.
Was r NaA Or Tr Go Wa8
:_ KaA /.j ?•• 0c ?4i'1! Go tie yNyaB
NOS tiVa /
WaCNo8 WaB r, 8 Cr
AY8 i 3
Y8 Bb v
.rl 'fib: •? V 8 ci H L`L AyA ,
s. kffi Es ?_._. 7 Wa8
AyA Wa!
s? - •r . • '=,?.L}i?\ ro/. u • ? t
Wa8 J ^`•l^; AYA N 8b I G62/
*.•Wa8._. La .L *. 0 AYA Ay8 2+ _ AYa2
Lu
c /• RUA AYA 0. , MY AYA .
8b E•c Na
O
J Ay
-// J1 Tf
Y
y AYH2 -
Y@ ( RuB C n My AYA AYA
_ 11 AY rr2ggpp
RuA RuA Ex 9O Rraz) RYa2
25I i9 Rya2 NoC / .I My 1 a.?.
c ,ya a
I o
Q'?: Vale A
uiAYa • RuA r\Z' Ex . AyA •?Sy
/\\\\\\
R uA aYA
-•/ \••1 AYA i. _ Nd P\
_?
Na (A

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 12, 1996
David Robinson, P.E., Permits and Mitigation Unit
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: Proposed Nahunta Swamp Mitigation Bank
Greene/Wayne Counties, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Robinson:
vice (Service) is writing to follow up on the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser
The U
interagency on-site tour of the Nahunta Watershed Project held on January 23,
1996. This letter represents the views of the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Health and Natural
Commission (NCWRC) and the N.C. Department of Environment,
Resources - Division Environmental
effortsManagement
identify potential Mcompensatory
the Service. We appreciate your
mitigation sites in advance as well as your interest in coordinating with
resource agencies at an early stage. We support the concept and have outlined
several scenarios regarding the project's use as a N.C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) mitigation bank that appear acceptable to us at this
time. We are interested in further discussion concerning the establishment of
a formal mitigation bank and the drafting of a Memorandum of Agreement among
agencies involved. L
As stated in the Nahunta Swam waLeLja=u =emu.. ?-- --- -,April 1995) the
(NCDEHNR - Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC), Ap
Nahunta Swamp Watershed has been degraded by excessive erosion and nutrients
associated with agricultural activities and swine operations. It is our
understanding that the main run of the swamp was dredged at the turn othears
century, however, no active maintenance has occurred in approximately 50
or is proposed in the future. Much-of the riparian plant commun nity hasaieed
removed and the floodplain corridor has been ditched, drained d in agricultural production. Since much of the corridor is designated as prior
converted cropland, the majority of wetlands associated with this swamp are no
longer considered jurisdictional. As stated in the Assessment, the DyI
basinwide management plan for the Neuse River ranked Greene and Wayne counties
high in need of additional Best Management Practices on cropland. Contentnea
Creek and Trent Creek subbasins ranked the highest in number of stream miles
impaired by agriculture and Conter_tnea Creek is estimated as contributing 20
percent of the non-point source nutrient loading to the lower Neuse estuary.
The current degraded condition tofNahoutatSwamp a Watershed is characteristic of
many perennial
As resource managers, we would like to have the maximum number of eological
the
functions restored to Nahunta Swamp. This can be achieved by filling
feeder drainage ditches and reestablishing a contiguous forested riparian
corridor along the stream bed. Such activities would enhance watersqutlityin
nutrient il laden
Nahunta Swamp and downstream wate-bodies by filtering
stormwater runoff from adjacent agricultural lands through a vegetated buffer
area; naturally stabilizing the soils and stream banks with.vegetative? a
structure; and absorbing and slowly releasing storm and flood waters

naturalized floodplain. Furthermore, the forested riparian corridor would
provide cover, forage and/or nesting habitat for a variety of wildlife species
including resident and migratory birds, deer and small mammals, reptiles and
amphibians. Streambank vegetation with overhanging limbs reduces in-stream
temperatures and provides forage and cover for resident freshwater fish
species. Improved water quality and the provision of detritus from wetland
and riparian vegetation enhances downstream waterbodies and thus benefits a
variety of aquatic organisms, federal and state listed aquatic invertebrates,
and anadromcus fish species dependent upon the ecosystem.
NCDOT's involvement in the restoration of Nahunta Swamp is contingent upon the
mitigation. banking potential that can be derived. While acknowledging that
any level of effort to restore ecological functions is worthy, the resource
agencies are interested in a comprehensive effort to-restore the system as a
whole if this is to be used as a mitigation bank. Because credits would be
debited for wetland impacts throughout the area of applicability,. our
involvement in a formal mitigation banking agreement would require assurance
that NCDOT's efforts would result in significant individual and cumulative
contributions to enhanced ecological functions in the watershed.
With this in mind, we propose the following recommendations:
o Emphasis should be placed on providing maximum connectivity of the
forested riparian corridor to avoid a patc_?work of fragmented habitat.
o We prefer that restoration efforts be focused on maximizing a linear
riparian corridor along the swamp and its tributaries rather than
focusing on horizontal distance from the stream centerline.
o Efforts should be concentrated within a 300-foot zone from the stream
centerline based on minimum buffer width requirements for neotropical
migratory birds and optimal water quality maintenance functioning.
Areas outside of this zone would be reviewed on a case by case basis.
o We foresee that the mitigation bank would consist of restoration,
enhancement and preservation components. We do not think that wetland
creation would be appropriate.
o It is extremely important to ensure the protection of the mitigation
sites in perpetuity through conservation easement. It is equally
important to have an endowment held in escrow for use to monitor the
mitigation sites and enforce the terms of the easement.
o It is important to ensure that participating private landowners are not
recei-ring benefits from any other government conservation program for
the same parcel of property. Equally important, participation in this
initiative should not enable the landowners to achieve compliance with
best management practices or other regulations for which they are
otherwise responsible.
We have come up with a variety of scenarios, with commensurate mitigation
ratios, that we consider acceptable. Because several private landowners would
be involved and existing site conditions vary, we felt that offering flexible
mitigation scenarios would increase the likelihood of landowner participation
in this. initiative. Since we would like to maximize the contiguity of the
riparian corridor we would encourage preservation of existing forested wetland
and upland buffers in addition to restoration. We are trying to offer the
greatest possible incentive for NCDOT to purchase the riparian corridor
outright, disallow timbering activities, and thus preclude enforcement
complications. However, we understand the need to provide incentive for
landowner participation and, therefore, scenarios have been devised to allow
timbering with an approved timber management plan. The provisions of a timber
management plan have not yet been finalized, however, we anticipate that a no-

cut zone would be designated adjacent to the stream bed., At this time we are
proposing the following mitigation scenarios that can be varied site by site:
Proposed Mitigation Prctection
Ratio S=enario
2:1 Restoration via plar__ing and filling ditches; NCDOT
purchases property fee simple title; property then
donated to conservat=on organization or conservation
easement granted to a land trust; and, no timbering
allowed unless the t=ees are diseased or are exposed
to other emergency measures. Other exceptions may be
granted on a case by case basis.
2.1 Restoration via planting and filling ditches; DSWC
holds conservation easement; NCDOT provides endowment
to be held in escrow for monitoring and enforcement;
and, no timbering al=owed unless the trees are
diseased or are expcs=_d to other emergency measures.
Other exceptions may be granted on a case by case
basis.
4.1 Restoration via planing and filling ditches; DSWC
holds conservation easement; NCDOT provides endowment
to be held in escrow for monitoring and enforcement;
and, timbering rights,-in accordance with an approved
timber management pla_*i, maintained by private
landowner.
6-10:1 Preservation of exis=ing forested wetlands along
corridor; NCDOT purc?_-ases property fee simple title
and property then donated to conservation organization
(or conservation easement granted to a land trust), or
DSWC holds conservation easement and NCDOT provides
- endowment to be held in escrow for monitoring and
enforcement; and no =imbering allowed. High end of
mitigation ratio if _imbering rights, in accordance
with an approved timer management plan, maintained by
private landowner.
12-15:1 Preservation of exis=ing forested uplands along
corridor; NCDOT purchases property fee simple title
and property then dc=ated to conservation organization
(or conservation easement granted to a land trust), or
DSWC holds conservation easement and NCDOT provides
endowment to be held in escrow for monitoring and
enforcement; and no _imbering allowed. High end of
mitigation ratio if =imbering rights, in accordance
with an approved timber management plan, maintained by
private landowner.
The DEM supports the general approach outlined above with the following
caveats. The N.C. Environmental Management Commission passed revised rules
for the 401 Certification process in March ::96. Many of these changes will
7
be in effect when some of the wetland fills which are anticipated to be
credited to this bank are permitted. The mitigation portion of the rules will
normally require a minimum of 1:1 restoration (or creation) of wetland for
unavoidable wetland loss. It is DEM's understanding that the majority-of this
project involves restoration. Therefore, this may not be a concern. The
other ratios listed above are generally consistent with these new rules. In
some unusual cases, the 401 Certification will have to be conditioned to
require mitigation in the same watershed as the impact instead of to this (or
any other) bank.
The Service, NCWRC and NCDEHNR-DEM are optimistic that, based on the
partnerships involved and the degree of flexibility proposed, this initiative
could yield a high level of participation among private landowners within the
Nahunta Swamp Watershed. We think this initiative has excellent potential to
serve as a model for other watersheds in the state of North Carolina. Please
continue to advise us of the progress made on this initiative and thank you
for the opportunity to coordinate at an early stage. If the Service can
supply any additional information or clarification, please contact Katherine
Doak, the biologist reviewing this project, at (919)-856-4520, ext 19.
Sincerely yours,
ohn Hefner -
Field Supervisor
USFWS?-
Frank McBride
Manager, Habitat Conservation Program
NCWRC
V.
Jo Dorney
Biogical Supervisor
NCo HNR - DEM
JH/KHD
CC: 'NCDEHNR-DEM
NCDEHNR-DCM
NCDEHNR-DSWC
NCDEHNR-DFR
NCWRC
USAGE
USEPA
NMFS
FHP7A
N.C. Cooperative Exchange Service
Greene Soil and Water Conservation District
Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District
Conservation Trust for North Carolina
North Carolina Coastal Land Trust
FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:4-12-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:Nahunta.mit

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 12, 1996
David Robinson, P.E., Permits and Mitigation Unit
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: Proposed Nahunta Swamp Mitigation Bank
Greene/Wayne Counties, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Robinson:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is writing to follow up on the
int ragency on-site tour of the Nahunta Watershed Project held on January 23,
1998. This letter represents the views of the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) and the N.C..Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources - Division of Environmental Management (NCDEHNR - DEM) as well as
the Service. We appreciate your efforts to identify potential compensatory
mitigation sites in advance as well as your interest in coordinating with
resource agencies at an early stage. We support the concept and have outlined
several scenarios regarding the project's use as a N.C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) mitigation bank that appear acceptable to us at this
time. We are interested in further discussion concerning the establishment of
a formal mitigation bank and the drafting of a Memorandum of Agreement among
agencies involved.
As stated in the Nahunta Swamp Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment
(NCDEHNR - Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC), April 1995) the
Nahunta Swamp Watershed has been degraded by excessive erosion and nutrients
associated with agricultural activities and swine operations. It is our
understanding that the main run of the swamp was dredged at the turn of the
century, however, no active maintenance has occurred in approximately 50 years
or is proposed in the future. Much-of the riparian plant community has been
removed and the floodplain corridor has been ditched, drained and maintained
in agricultural production. Since much of the corridor is designated as prior
converted cropland, the majority of wetlands associated with this swamp are no
longer considered jurisdictional. As stated in the Assessment, the DEM
basinwide management plan for the Neuse River ranked Greene and Wayne counties
high in need of additional Best Management Practices on cropland. Contentnea
Creek and Trent Creek subbasins ranked the highest in number of stream miles
impaired by agriculture and Contentnea Creek is estimated as contributing 20
percent of the non-point source nutrient loading to the lower Neuse estuary.
The current degraded condition of Nahunta Swamp Watershed is characteristic of
many perennial stream systems throughout the state.
As resource managers, we would like to have the maximum number of ecological
functions restored to Nahunta Swamp. This can be achieved by filling the
feeder drainage ditches and reestablishing a contiguous forested riparian
corridor along the stream bed. Such activities would enhance water quality in
Nahunta Swamp and downstream waterbodies by filtering nutrient and silt laden
stormwater runoff from adjacent agricultural lands through a vegetated buffer
area; naturally stabilizing the soils and stream banks with vegetative
structure; and absorbing and slowly releasing storm and flood waters in a

naturalized floodplain. Furthermore, the forested riparian corridor would
provide cover, forage and/or nesting habitat for a variety of wildlife species
including resident and migratory birds, deer and small mammals, reptiles and
amphibians. Streambank vegetation with overhanging limbs reduces in-stream
temperatures and provides forage and cover for resident freshwater fish
species. Improved water quality and the provision of detritus from wetland
and riparian vegetation enhances downstream waterbodies and thus benefits a
variety of aquatic organisms, federal and state listed aquatic invertebrates,
and anadromous fish species dependent upon the ecosystem.
NCDOT's involvement in the restoration of Nahunta Swamp is contingent upon the
mitigation banking potential that can be derived. While acknowledging that
any level of effort to restore ecological functions is worthy, the resource
agencies are interested in a comprehensive effort to restore the system as a
whole if this is to be used as a mitigation bank. Because credits would be
debited for wetland impacts throughout the area of applicability, our
involvement in a formal mitigation banking agreement would require assurance
that NCDOT's efforts would result in significant individual and cumulative
contributions to enhanced ecological functions in the watershed.
With this in mind, we propose the following recommendations:
o Emphasis should be placed on providing maximum connectivity of the
forested riparian corridor to avoid a patchwork of fragmented habitat.
o We prefer that restoration efforts be focused on maximizing a linear'
riparian corridor along the swamp and its tributaries rather than
focusing on horizontal distance from the stream centerline.
o Efforts should be concentrated within a 300-foot zone from the stream
centerline based on minimum buffer width requirements for neotropical
migratory birds and optimal water quality maintenance functioning. .
Areas outside of this zone would be reviewed on a case by case basis.
o We foresee that the mitigation bank would consist of restoration,
enhancement and preservation components. We do not think that wetland
creation would be appropriate.
o It is extremely important to ensure the protection of the mitigation
sites in perpetuity through conservation easement.. It is equally
important to have an endowment held in escrow for use to monitor the
mitigation sites and enforce the terms of the easement.
o It is important to ensure that participating private landowners are not
receiving benefits from any other government conservation program for
the same parcel of property. Equally important, participation in this
initiative should not enable the landowners to achieve compliance with
best management practices or other regulations for which they are
otherwise responsible.
We have come up'with a variety of scenarios, with commensurate mitigation
ratios, that we consider acceptable. Because several private landowners would
be involved and existing site conditions vary, we felt that offering flexible
mitigation scenarios would increase the likelihood of landowner participation
in this initiative. Since we would like to maximize the contiguity of the
riparian corridor we would encourage preservation of existing forested wetland
and upland buffers in addition to restoration. We are trying to offer the
greatest possible incentive for NCDOT to purchase the riparian corridor
outright, disallow timbering activities, and thus preclude enforcement
complications. However, we understand the need to provide incentive for
landowner participation and, therefore, scenarios have been devised to allow
timbering with an approved timber management plan. The provisions of a timber
management plan have not yet been finalized, however, we anticipate that a no-
cut zone would be designated adjacent to the stream bed. At this time we are
proposing the following mitigation scenarios that can be varied site by site:
Proposed Mitigation Protection
Ratio Scenario
2:1 Restoration via planing and filling ditches; NCDOT
purchases property fee simple title; property then
donated to conservation organization or conservation
easement granted to a land trust; and, no timbering
allowed unless the t=ees are diseased or are exposed
to other emergency measures. Other exceptions may be
granted on a case by case basis.
2:1 Restoration via planting and filling ditches; DSWC
holds conservation easement; NCDOT provides endowment
to be held in escrow for monitoring and enforcement;
and, no timbering allowed unless the trees are
diseased or are expo=ed to other emergency measures.
Other exceptions may be granted on a case by case
basis.
4•1 Restoration via plar_=ing and filling ditches; DSWC
holds conservation easement; NCDOT provides endowment
to be held in escrow for monitoring and enforcement;
and, timbering right=,-in accordance with an approved
timber management plan, maintained by private
landowner.
8-10:1 Preservation of exis=ing forested wetlands along
corridor; NCDOT pure-ases property fee simple title
and property then dcaated to conservation organization
(or conservation easement granted to a land trust), or
DSWC holds conservation easement and NCDOT provides
endowment to be held in escrow for monitoring and
enforcement; and no =imbering allowed. High end of
mitigation ratio if =imbering rights, in accordance
with an approved timer management plan, maintained by
private landowner.
12-15:1 Preservation of exis=ing forested uplands along
corridor; NCDOT purchases property fee simple title
and property then dc_ated to conservation organization
(or conservation easement granted to a land trust), or
DSWC holds conservation easement and NCDOT provides
endowment to be held in escrow for monitoring and
enforcement; and no =imbering allowed. High end of
mitigation ratio if =imbering rights, in accordance
with an approved timber management plan, maintained by
private landowner.
The DEM supports the general approach outlined above with the following
caveats. The N.C. Environmental Management Commission passed revised rules
for the 401 Certification process in March 1996. Many of these changes will

be in effect when some of the wetland fills which are anticipated to be
credited to this bank are permitted. The mitigation portion of the rules will
normally require a minimum of 1:1 restoration (or creation) of wetland for
unavoidable wetland loss. It is DEM's understanding that the majority of this
project involves restoration. Therefore, this may not be a concern. The
other ratios listed above are generally consistent with these new rules. In
some unusual cases, the 401 Certification will have to be conditioned to
require mitigation in the same watershed as the impact instead of to this (or
any other) bank.
The Service, NCWRC and NCDEHNR-DEM are optimistic that, based on the
partnerships involved and the degree of flexibility proposed, this initiative
could yield a high level of participation among private landowners within the
Nahunta Swamp Watershed. We think this initiative has excellent potential to
serve as a model for other watersheds in the state of North Carolina. Please
continue to advise us of the progress made on this initiative and thank you
for the opportunity to coordinate at an early stage. If the Service can
supply any additional information or clarification, please contact Katherine
Doak, the biologist reviewing this project, at (919)-856-4520, ext 19.
Sincerely yours,
John Hefner
Field Supervisor
USFWS
&Cti- ??
Frank McBride
Manager, Habitat Conservation Program
NCWRC
Jo Dorney
Bio ogical Supervisor
NC HNR - DEM
JH/KHD
CC: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCDEHNR-DCM
NCDEHNR-DSWC
NCDEHNR-DFR
NCWRC
USACE
USEPA
NMFS
FHWA
N.C. Cooperative Exchange Service
Greene Soil and Water Conservation District
Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District
Conservation Trust for North Carolina
North Carolina Coastal Land Trust
FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:4-12-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:Nahunta.mit
Illlff

r id S'

\ - ) 5?Z swamp ls3o
?
? 1387 w u11ta r -? --- ? i ???P i Faro '? s JI
1362 a
D 1 '•? 1537 1523_ 1525 46,1058
•3 105dt?
1721 1513 0 154 1572
m 1366 PIKEVILLE 1543 \9„ Q 535 1.8 7 1608 ry B 1.1 35°30'
B .46 a
1534 •D 1
136 1523 .,
? 4. .8 1534 1616 :r
1311 S
O
1534 4p,, White
1537 Thp i Ook ?` v ?o 16
? 1322 4 - - 'S 1
Mt. Carmel 1583 ! C}Ij} teas LL
' 1321. Crossroads 1533
s?p4 1534 1.4
153A \?? 11532
Y 1545 , --
.316 .. \ 9 ' x o•- .. \3A - ••J i 2
19 1544
1 -_ 5 1535'
.: '.•-?' /Fvit. 544 1513 ?l• 15.23 1575 23 \? ?rartCh 1
17 Carmel m Um ,j-------- ?? tS
/ Ch. \ F X / AN, 1556
320 * 577 Goldsboro
• lzi .. }' ? ,t? .• ? 1575 2
•2 i Wayne LL
- \ 1 Municipal
Patelown 14
1614 Airport 57
{} _
1.1 1546 - ' t}i 1
f3
1535
\ 1314 300. ??: I' o•' Et"S 1574 1573, .
.1545-, .1• , 155_61
891gt\?1523 1572 4 i . ?, •S / \•. '6 1577 r? .'1568 11550
1 / 1607 1556- 1576
147.1 w 'Q, n :.2 1549 '? h m ? \1 .`R.\O •4 / h
1599 3 ,.? I A46 1 k. Nahunf .3 1576
1
1 406 y 1547 1547 I - `f
1639 Ch.o ' 3 1.1 13 TO SNOW f
572.
f F';S « ? ?Ch \.,\ ? Saulston 1578. 4 PAP p N '
1700
1572 \ 1701
.? i \5 •O 1 h I
+? ?? W ^?.% ? ? 1707_
I r F,SS / -_ tfy ?? t 556 1 1704
.7 wia .9
Ti Lar141ston 1570 {
°:
- lb i}1 S 1702 3"
.1: ' C _ 1706
u?
.J t URQ. 170711 Q 1702 1705_
_DS6OfO? F/ ?'t ?FfU j700 ??P
'.h EST
h(7 j It Hold $vamp 0
beftlcsl
L.`J IT ?--•J., ' ?\? S'? \'`,.. 1_7056/ f 17os '?i?• ?•, 112 `ttt?
?}. < r.e i 'GI / b:P I u
3 isle \s
`? \ Y ?r '' G ?" + c ZI G? 1 1770 -`2 ,D 1. 17_1.6
1706
1701 K 111818 i:.
??T1 ,z \ ??•... /Er?T \\?? / ?ry.? I? I \tr_ c .1 t7t5 i` ?• el
?? •S 6JS ` i FAU .. far ?/ 11?_ .."!? AU '719
1925 LM
y Far&stow
F • 6 ?. ?4 j ';.a:a<::' ?? 17
e e 2,p l %.: ,? U/ MATCH E E 14 UNE? 6 8 /•D
I YF. I G K i x`70 ?• P Fl+? 170
r t 1787
1 J' I ^ f /l ` A 1 1\ EXT 917 .11799 1714 1717 ? 1714 fps
,? y11; ilbr NEW HOPE .D C 1715•
j" •?/ ..'+. F ?? ..a 4 N0 1717.
h 1719 •7
vfsoffw
S1'Fi.- 1712- Fgsr \ 0 1717 P
CQLDSBOR© 1.3
/ ai: :"? a DS60Qd / X1759 1719 +?? eek
iy.
1713 / a ?J? sG rnol?r- \? ^Gbh \ s cr
e se) 1722 Best ?1 o v
o \ Air Force Bose \ y 1x23 \?? t 10
a 1? t.
1962 'D ?.? 1720
h H
1961 A'.6 Casey 1721 Iw
ti,?? c?,l = \ -0 ? f 1003 *,P- 35°20'
1724 p 1719
Q 1 ELROY VD 172 9
ti
i ? J 111 •S;I\? `?`\` s :li 7' l?•fJ E ?
?'\` 1
1919 f4S ?\\ 1726 has Cr,
lG?? MATCH 1726 g 0
1916 ti 1` 4•i :? 1719 1798
110 • r
1920 1960
1917 202_ 191,51729
1710
? •? ,ti ry 1727 t?::...?
.? 1932 y \ 172b ?• ?;.`:.,;: ;..:a 'O
1911 tl y 1731 70 TO KtfSTO
1960 ..Emmau(.` 1 a I ?i1 / 1727 WALNUT CREEK 1732
n\;ti. ? ;? 9 - n
?a> ? ?rrrp,h -
Tb1- I?So
.?
?:
i 4 ?^
??
t- ,;?
?? , ?
?? .

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ?rq l?9?
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 3,1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Participants ofNahunta Watershed Project Tour, January 23, 1995.
k
FROM: David C. Robinson, P.E., Permits and Mitigation Unit t'^*--'"
SUBJECT: Arrangements for On-site Tour of Nahunta Watershed Project.
An on-site tour has been coordinated by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Division of Soil and
Water Conservation (DSWC). The purpose of this tour is to familiarize the regulatory agencies
with the general areas of restoration proposed in the Memorandum of Agreement between the
NCDOT, NRCS and DSWC. A specific site already purchased by NCDOT will also be visited as
an example of the mitigation proposed.
A fifteen passenger van will be provided and will leave from the Motor Pool on Peace and
Person Streets at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 23, 1995. If you wish to drive separately, meet
us at the Wayne County Agricultural Complex in Goldsboro at 10:00 a.m. (See attached map.)
Please come prepared for inclement weather and for walking in wet conditions. Please contact
Robin Little at 919-733-3141 x 279 if you wish to ride in the van, so that we have enough space.
The schedule is as follows;
8:00 a.m. Meet at Motor Pool office to ride in van. Park in Motor Pool lot adjacent
to Motor Pool at Polk and Person.
10:00 a.m. Meet at Goldsboro Field Office of Natural Resources Conservation Service
office (RM. 104) at Wayne County Agricultural Center, 208 W. Chestnut
Street, Goldsboro. [phone] Ext. 287/288. District Conservationist,
Patty Gabriel, and David Harrison of the DSWC will host the briefing prior
to the site visits.
11:00 a.m. Tour of various sites in the Nahunta Watershed.
1:00 P.M. Buffet lunch at Wilbur's, Goldsboro, (buy your own), followed by
discussion of technical and regulatory issues pertinent to the project.
2:00 p.m. Return to Raleigh by 4:30 - 5:00 p.m.
cc: Carroll Pierce, Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Vernon Cox, Division of Soil and Water Conservation
David Harrison, Division of Soil and Water Conservation
David Combs, Area Conservationist, NRCS
0
Cecil Settle, Deputy State Conservationist
Bill Harrell, Resource Conservationist, NRCS
George Stem, Asst. State Conservationist
Hank Henry, Biologist, NRCS
Patty Gabriel, District Conservationist, NRCS
Deidre DeBruhl, District Conservationist, NRCS
Mike Smith, Northern Section Chief, USACOE
Ken Jolly, Raleigh Field Office Manager, USACOE
Eric Alsmeyer, NCDOT Coordinator, USACOE
Dave Lekson, Washington Field Office Manager, USACOE
Mike Bell, NCDOT Coordinator, USACOE
John Dorney, DEM/DEHNR
Eric Galamb, DEM/DEHNR
Steve Kroeger, DEM/DEHNR
David Cox, NCWRC
Cherri Green, Acting Field Supervisor, USFWS
Katherine Doak, Field Specialist, USFWS
Franklin H. Vick, Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Barney O'Quinn, Assistant Manager, P & E Branch, NCDOT
David Robinson, Unit Head, Permits and Mitigation Unit, NCDOT
Dennis Pipkin, Mitigation Section Supervisor
Stephanie Briggs, Permit Supervisor, NCDOT
Scott Gottfried, Permit Specialist, NCDOT
Jim West, State Negotiator, Right of Way Branch, NCDOT
Cecil McLamb, Area Negotiator, Right of Way Branch, NCDOT
Harold Pittman, Right of Way Agent, NCDOT
6< ?
f'W
P
G
W WOO?O W1L ra l?p W,?I.IW (9 WOW W W W W WUU W W W WOE u W is ?:r Wwr'?:
w 1!11'1 nlltrnn wtlflNh?M N'1f mnnntl wAn f ?Mhltl'INAf A ?w?Nlf eONA?whnwlyNFl Nn API'I NN?f rtl N 1^i ll ?:'1 PI IIwlS nh hNN? NN?tl Nf
W WOWOOCI t.
W O O W Y. O W W W O r W W W O t W O W O O m U W W W {,J K Q W W W O W W W W M O ' . W i ? ? i i- j i 1 i 3 f
t 1
f f i f i' i'i• {"i { '
t j : t t 1 .S i{
f 1 t l f i; t i i { 1 i f i
t yb I i i i { :
i .._i
p i F` > f i t OPTIONAL FORM 99 {7-90) <
f ? ;Jam i .< :ace i :a la i o :O.
;?JF1?W~bN aN'~4NNW>OI~IOJF? O>N=.?WI -Uz SOH ? Ze~i1G Nmfl .?
nmwp ono W aaa oc :J PAX TRANSMITTAL Mof pages
?
s 2 2 Z r Z a a*< a a< a 0= S;p A W m h= W W<= W d Y< N V r N N C= i Y1 f
W«<?+XY YO=J?a JJ0?7rd/.J.1j00 =;z A AP p31s ><2?<6.WJW>UiY.: 1'p IJ
lSia _ WW { \ t -C From /
;WlailwluWOailUttu00O?dd000dd»»p1N»??? YJ\.tiJ }?' M(
.Sx=====7SSSSSi2S2SS222S22 ZS==22_..-- 1?
Dept./Agency Phone
/R f_ S
rrf??wwww ??tl1 w?nwwwln lnw•?fw?aw'l f?w?l•1wr 1~ilCilaY?C1?? I'-Pia ` •?`? l `CIE". ~
IOWOOi,)OtiaOGl1?SWr1rO?00W?OWWWOWWV •WWO 1 e _ i 1 Fax# C
NSN 7550-01_317-7368 5099-1C: GENERALSERVICES ADMINISTRATION
1 i ? x t }
• i : e - : f i. ? ; ; f i i i 1 ! ; ? 3i? f i 3 i S ? e i ' _ ? f 1 i f .
Too [a1: kF3 t £0:0T 9{6/Z6 %T0

JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR

AL-
14
CSTATE ? NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TI?ANSPORTATIO _?..
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRE•TT JR.
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 3, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Participants ofNahunta Watershed Project Tour, January 23, 1995.
i ?
FROM: David C. Robinson, P.E., Permits and Mitigation Unitlk&
SUBJECT: Arrangements for On-site Tour of Nahunta Watershed Project.
An on-site tour has been coordinated by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) and the Division of Soil and
Water Conservation (DSWC). The purpose of this tour is to familiarize the regulatory agencies
with the general areas of restoration proposed in the Memorandum of Agreement between the
NCDOT, NRCS and DSWC. A specific site already purchased by NCDOT will also be visited as
an example of the mitigation proposed.
A fifteen passenger van will be provided and will leave from the Motor Pool on Peace and
Person Streets at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 23, 1995. If you wish to drive separately, meet
us at the Wayne County Agricultural Complex in Goldsboro at 10:00 a.m. (See attached map.)
Please come prepared for inclement weather and for walking in wet conditions. Please contact
Robin Little at 919-733-3141 x 279 if you wish to ride in the van, so that we have enough space.
The schedule is as follows;
8:00 a.m. Meet at Motor Pool office to ride in van. Park in Motor Pool lot adjacent
to Motor Pool at Polk and Person.
10:00 a.m. Meet at Goldsboro Field Office of Natural Resources Conservation Service
office (RM. 104) at Wayne County Agricultural Center, 208 W. Chestnut
Street, Goldsboro. [phone] Ext. 287/288. District Conservationist,
Patty Gabriel, and David Harrison of the DSWC will host the briefing prior
to the site visits.
11:00 a.m. Tour of various sites in the Nahunta Watershed.
1:00 P.M. Buffet lunch at Wilbur's, Goldsboro, (buy your own), followed by
discussion of technical and regulatory issues pertinent to the project.
2:00 p.m. Return to Raleigh by 4:30 - 5:00 p.m
cc: Carroll Pierce, Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Vernon Cox, Division of Soil and Water Conservation
David Harrison, Division of Soil and Water Conservation
David Combs, Area Conservationist, NRCS
9
?? .;?
?rr
`Y
- _ r? `.
•,?
Cecil Settle, Deputy State Conservationist
Bill Harrell, Resource Conservationist, NRCS
George Stem, Asst. State Conservationist
Hank Henry, Biologist, NRCS
Patty Gabriel, District Conservationist, NRCS
Deidre DeBruhl, District Conservationist, NRCS
Mike Smith, Northern Section Chief, USACOE
Ken Jolly, Raleigh Field Office Manager, USACOE
Eric Alsmeyer, NCDOT Coordinator, USACOE
Dave Lekson, Washington Field Office Manager, USACOE
Mike Bell, NCDOT Coordinator, USACOE
John Dorney, DEM/DEHNR
Eric Galamb, DEM/DEHNR
Steve Kroeger, DEM/DEHNR
David Cox, NCWRC
Chem Green, Acting Field Supervisor, USFWS
Katherine Doak, Field Specialist, USFWS
Franklin H. Vick, Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Barney O'Quinn, Assistant Manager, P & E Branch, NCDOT
David Robinson, Unit Head, Permits and Mitigation Unit, NCDOT
Dennis Pipkin, Mitigation Section Supervisor
Stephanie Briggs, Permit Supervisor, NCDOT
Scott Gottfried, Permit Specialist, NCDOT
Jim West, State Negotiator, Right of Way Branch, NCDOT
Cecil McLamb, Area Negotiator, Right of Way Branch, NCDOT
Harold Pittman, Right of Way Agent, NCDOT
?o
W O O i•, O W Y Lr. Y (J W Y (,1 W (9 W O W W W W W O (? U W W W W O? U w1 u LL M??? yW,
N f AA PI ?/f N MAt'iNNHti f M N/If Nli L"r NN NNI'L f f N NN't Hn ? A f Nf M!'11?N!)f Ar NN NN ?1NNSgmN NNyf 1 O NlL l7 W I•)l•I i•1 NA n? NN W 11 N Nf W Nf
W Y Y U W O Y W W O W IN W O O W W O W O O U i
YQQ WYOYY WOY W W WO<W O W O pmU .? i0 -W ni p i : W i i i i i j i ? i i i ? i -+
l I : Q Y .? I ? •: ? i.
S i g { r S t, i
t I 1 1? t i t
S I ( I i
i 1 i
i t t t 1 I { ? S = i
•; i
+ i iO S + i
f t i i i .S i S L
ia? 13 ira-' 's 'i -22 OPT!ONALFORM99(7-90) _
~ JF * W F +O F,FpOGZUa +? W;Of NO tV •>~ 2 :O ; ib'.Z ap„ryi O
w wF-ab F F W Of O. Nw .u
swwo y °1ObNW> wOJ Im6- bZw:J. 3:'-'r 'oowwat FAX TRANSMIT TAL of pages ?-
szst? =ee*<aaiaaZZ3wwm =y Jb CO <yh 'NN NYiZJ? S f 'i
In w
maaacYYYOS w From to
W«<OO-J jJ.Oj .iw/O J??J JJO6a 73t [SI2m<6 WiW>u2Zz3Z• TO
.SSSZIZZZ ZZZZSZZZZZZZxzzmz Z;I ?U,'N
Dept./Agency Phone/N? ry y_ n
MNNin e•1y?fNwannw Nw+'.wNa?an:fwi0? ./- e"C? ` <1 ' 7 •91?^.? -•
i'I f f A w Fl p f 1 f N N fi N n Y W Y O W W W O W W (? W W Q W W O W W
OC
OWp000Y00U1!?WWY:O
:
i i
i
Fa
f -

! iC
•
i i _
? i. i i
i x I
p
`?r
33c}- Faz
..-
iit )!
I NSN 7560-01-317-7368 5099_101 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
' i i i? j i i 1 i i i i(?
i i
i ? i
L= q? r E ? i .
' - •
r •'
!
'
?
i
?
(
IL i i
_
i i i
i
.
i
i
i
.
Tnn
rf31 .
c
e.r sn:
OT 9Br7.nrTn
i
XiPICAL WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN OF OPERATION
The primary goal in this wetland restoration plan is the restoration of
bottomland hardwood habitat adjacent to Nahunta Swamp and it's tributaries
(riparian areas) to improve water quality and improve wildlife and aquatic
habitat. The vegetation to be established will trap sediment and nutrients
from adjoining cropland as well as provide food and cover for both game and
non-game species. The restored riparian area will also provide valuable
travel corridors along the stream.
Field No. 2 represents a typical prior converted wetland in Nahunta
Swamp Watershed. The field consists of 8 acres of Johnston loam soils
currently being farmed. Johnston soils are very poorly drained, nearly level
soils on wide, flat, low flood plains along large drainageways. The seasonal
high water table is at the surface. Flooding is very frequent. A
representative profile near the junction of Exum Mill Branch and Nahunta Swamp
includes:
Ap - 0 to 10 inches, very dark-grey (10YR 3/1) loam
Al - 10 to 28 inches, black (10YR 2/1) loam
Blg - 28 to 32 inches, grey (10YR 5/1) sandy loam
B2g - 32 to 45 inches, grayish-brown (10YR 5/2) sandy loam
Cg - 45 to 65 inches, light-grey (10YR 7/1) sand
There are no restrictive layers in the soil. Hydrology is a function of
landscape position and frequent flooding.
There is an intercepter ditch (Ditch 1) running parallel with Nahunta
Swamp, separating the upland area from the flood plain. There is a property
line ditch (Ditch 2) that directs the flow from Ditch 1 to Nahunta Swamp.
Ditch 2 must remain open for the adjoining landowner unless he can be
persuaded to cooperate with the wetland restoration program. A major goal of
the Soil & Water Conservation Districts will be to have as many adjacent
landowners cooperating as possible to increase the effectiveness of the
project.
NRCS's standards and specifications for wetland restoration12 will be
followed except that the US Army Corps of Engineers' recommendations 13 for
species composition and survival rates wil ake precedence. The US Army
Corps of Engineers recommends a minimum ofardwood species with no more
t awn 0-% of any ..rP s}ze?:. Planting will-be on a 10 foot by 10 foot spacing
(435 trees per acre). The goal will be a minimum of 320 trees per acre
12Soil Conservation Service Technical Guide, Section IV, Practice Code 657,
Wetland Restoration, (July, 1992)
13Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines,
December, 1993

US Army Corps of Engineers,
Z- ??

Y
surviving for 3 years after the wetland hydrology has been reestablished.
Pine will not be planted and should account for less than 10% of the total
site species.
Tree planting will be done before the hydraulic modifications are made
to reduce seedling mortality. The wetland hydrology will be reestablished in
as simple a manner as possible to reduce operation and maintenance costs.
Earthen plugs, 100 feet in length, will be used to block the drainage ditches.
The number of plugs and their location will be determine uring n ividual
field planning. Overland flow from the adjacent slopes and the periodic
flooding of Nahunta Swamp will be sufficient to restore the wetland hydrology.
There will be no need for diking, levees, or other ponding structures.
At the landowner's request, and with the concurrence of the sponsors and
the US Army Corps of Engineers, wildlife/waterfowl enhancement measures
(shallow open water) may be allowed but will be limited to less than 10% of
the surface area of the site. The costs associated with the installation of
these enhancement measures will be the responsibility of the landowner. The
acreage devoted to enhancement measures will not be available for use in the
proposed mitigation bank.
Timber harvesting will be permitted in accordance with a wetland timber
management plan developed with the concurrence of the US Army Corps of
(Engineers. Best Management Practices for forested wetlands will be used to
maintain the hydrology, vegetative community, and other wetland functions and
values. Clear cutting will not be allowed.
The NC Department of Transportation will be providing funds for purchase
of the conservation easements and restoration of the wetland areas. After the
wetlands have been restored, a wetlands mitigation bank plan will be developed
with the concurrence of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Included in the
mitigation bank Dlan will be as-built Dlans of the wetland restoration and a
report on the restored hydrology. Best Management Practices on critically
eroding cropland adjacent to the restored wetland areas will reduce
sedimentation. Provisions in the conservation easements will protect the
restored wetland areas from destruction by human/animal actions (4-wheel drive
vehicles, beaver foraging, etc.).
f
CONSERVATION PLAN/SCHEDULE OF OPERATIONS 1 of -2

NAME: EXAMPLE
COUNTY: WAYNE
STATE: NC
CONTRACT NO.: 1-T-5431 TOTAL ACRES
UNDER CONTRACT: 8.18
SUMMARY OF WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN OF OPERATION (WRPO)
PURPOSE AND FUNCTION:
This Wetland Restoration easement will restore a palustrine forested wetland
(bottomland hardwood). Wetland values that will be restored include wildlife
habitat, water quality improvement, recreation, and forest resources.
SUMMARY:
The 8.18 acres shown on the attached plan of operation map will be placed under a
perpetual conservation easement. The WRPO will: L;
r
1. Restore the bottomland hardwood community by planting trees (water hickory,
overcup oak, laurel oak, willow oak, persimmon, cottonwood, green ash, american
elm, and river birch) n a 0 foot by 10 foot spacin`g,," (/435 trees per acre). t
(t kkd
2. Restore the wetland hydrology by installing ditch plug (100 ft. long) where
shown on the plan of operation map.
1
3. Allow the NC Department of Transportation to secure mitigation credits with
the US Army Corps of Engineers., ? VIA
COMPATI3-" 'S
The following uses have been determined to be compatible with the purpose for
which this Wetland Restoration contract and conservation easement is established:
1. Hunting, fishing, trapping, birdwatching, and recreational hiking that is
fully consistent with state and federal regulations, including the leasing of
such rights to others.
2. Selective timber harvesting in accordance with a wetland timber management plan,
developed with concurrence by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The plan will
utilize approved Best Management Practices for wetlands to maintain the hydrology;
the vegetative community, and other wetland functions and values. Clear cutting
will not be permitted. Streamside Management Zones will be established adjacent
to Nahunta Swamp and its tributaries.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE:
1. Adequate maintenance will be provided to facilitate establishment of woody
vegetation. This may require some suppression of weeds and pine species. The area will
be considered established to woody vegetation if 320 stems per acre are surviving for
three growing seasons after the wetland hydrology has been reestablished. Species
composition will include at least 6 hardwoods with no single species accounting
for more than 20% of the population.
2. The ditch plugs will be maintained for the life of the easement.
O
O p
O 0
O 0
O
a
D
0
co
U)
-
Z
N N
N N a'
t? am
cn
J
0
E
w
oW

N w
U > 4
in
W p r,

E4
O 0
m
N W a
0
, j
%
EU
z?
H« O 0 0 0 0 O
E E-4 10 0 0 0 0 0 _ o
W to
64 (7% o

1 rn rn o

m W co
13W U ?
W
U
O
w z ,.4 E 0
o 0
0
OE'a
H:U. H
r, ui n
N n
Ln
E rC .I
. v? cn
Ch
N N
N
E
E w
.
0 -4 Z-1
O U' 4
O dp dP CO dP dP
a p o 0 0 0
W
0 E-4 U x w
,cn E 'id':'
,da o
O
0
0
0
0

99 z
W ?

E-4 1

•r

U U

N O O . f4 Ip Ln o
E H

C!
O
I
O
i O
f
p)
N
L'

a 1
O cn
` O
Ln
a 011 N In

U Ca
U va+
!
O
H
E? w co m co U) N v v 4-1
>+ W
E zl E E
z!
_
co
U
C?
UI
U
Z ?+
W O a, p
H 0
>;:
la
1 w
V
J
W O A
•
i
'
4-)
N
O
•'•I
>~
C
Sa
?4
U3

H 0 U 1?+

r-4 U U ? N A
S
C
z
w
' ro t 4 N r0-I W a

? E-4 1-4 U) Ln
H 4J 0 4J 4J

W N
k7 ko m
( z
O ko r.
•ri O
0 4
4-) w
N
0 W
ri
y
A Ea+ a
*
7 m
'a +J 4-) N
m E 00 0 W 4 ? o vi
W
z z ? O
U 9
.d
O O
U •.i
+J
0 o
0 (a •a
N 0
.I
1 0
U
z 0

r
? O

U

(1) ••-I

a 4-)

•?
O
E

N
to
W
,-?
O

U
C
>~
'a
0
3
0
r+
7 H
?
a? W m W •,i ? b m ?i r°oI 0a) 4) o E
D
a H 4-) N m
w O a 4.)
U U)
N O
O O JOL 0 .?
O •-+ 0
E
w
w E E IU
-I z ? a m ? x 0 x m ' a

z E
W a N
.I
N
a a 'a 4 r a) 4-) a m Sd w r1

0
U

,
c7
.?
3
E r-
ro -H •?
W
C Q)
N
ID m
a m
N Ia
fd
W
? a) tr 01 44
N 4-) J' •
+ 3 ? ? § 10 a i m -4
a a o ? a a 44
3
n
w
a
W +' A o c
a
a o.
a
H N N
x a
.. w
w ?
0
H
10
,t
N. z
??I?''ggTT ( P` 3?.
9.4111
,1 e .
"i'• ilt?e . r.., ti F.y -VAN-
4? S( j ? r ?, ? ??"'i' j?? ??,,?,, ?,? ?,Yr? r ; ?„`,??1 ?e •`? "r" -?i..?i, A'? ?`?+7. 4c'?^.....+-.
? ??. ?_ ????.. ?'i^ i -? _, ?..G .+??j'+K.yJ .. ? ,rc, ? ?PJ '::C'"?s ?t ? ?r.•,*.! ?' ?7" ? k f ,.!
??? i4 - ?, . L't 'i•^,C>_F 6,pt.'+' ? * F' -t 1
113
'.
t -? 2 1 _.d r u. 1'b? Lair
w ? /3
\ f
PI,
-?6 f-` art «r=' - ?-?. ?i yytTy? ???? + . '? ?,rlt?'
L Y
-Vf
Yxr-t u 1?f. Yt s•?z - w \ L - f ? •` rq h
?t
77
,?%O?? .Fi?4 ?`?y ?. \ a ,,r1 ??,... - ,...?. ,tom.. .r ? ?
a:L` t' 4 .-.: ?; j?? ?. :-_ ? ? 6? ?` ? {T ,`?r6. ..•. f t •y "'"Y, 1o- '"e C
f -. Jj ter ': ?`:I •??`"'???? ..._
(ions sneer 3)
I
N NoA-N + Wa was r+' _-'? aC Js We ,?• Nos • • /
r 2 •1 Cr ?/' C N Co NoA ? ?' NoA Ly . ? Ly ?-
Nod11 f_ l_ z 8b ?? ??• Lu
Ex r-=-
NoA Nr82 '.i- Wa8 N°H It D Wa8 ~
Cr82 as • P` Wa8 Nc
Bb Tr 8b.... .82"', Wy8 • Rub
AYB .NoC Ly w U Noe 1,
Ayp Cr8 / 3R Or I/r db / y Rpq
Nr82 Wa8
!!
Nob NoA was \ was
• Antioch
v
LY EX Church AYA Le Nr82 was
Bb N°8 NoA LY' MCA GO
Ex• Le ' Wa8 / Go
J J. Noe
i AYA .?" W?• LY / No8 Go
'Wa8 Na ?.... was /.. •Wa8 a. -
I : • \`/ ??,•.? WoA ._ No8 ?_.
LY Ay8 Nob s4 - o
WsB MCA
n
We Js' ;tle
•a r Ex -f:
s. oC
s` !y 1 wa8 \we wad
? o ° .'. 9b ;. Na AyA :.. eb ae Wa8
rr Wa8 • MCA Wale, Tr N Rm c Ly
6
o Cr82 ?' ) Go
NoA lac Or
III Co • Or ?e0 '3? JS Or
w . Ra - • ' We
LY ` Cr82 80 S a'` RY8Z Nob ?• v i ; M
oe C
La
o . . . Wa8 \ `h .. ,.r••`
NOA _ • LY 0
I Wa8 WaB p . Wa8 Jo vG Tr To i TO
:. 6 ae c9 is . We
O No Nob noH Kaa Ke wa
C .'.Wr^ No8 - ?? S tr . ? Js
WB We y 0 : NoC z.
CV • r Js . •t Dr
U Mil! I Js Bb IS eG was b WaC ?....
.I $ en WaC ) ?i . ? Or L.°
_ L3 Js 8 3g Ke %
r _ WaC
Wa8 La Wn8 1 - Tr was
_ We Or K \
/ CrC2'?. W • ?e0 ?? _
La Or
1I? as
! `4 WaB i Dr Go \ .Ke La
Lv v Wa8 \ , 1 was _ wa8 \ua
I
Cr 1 Or d •? :d WaB a8b e
Lv Lv a _• We Wa8 \ iu
WaB _ La
WaB f NoA .: Tr p Go Wa8 • •
i O • // / ••\. ;r u• wa8
IIGo Jr /.
KaA
No8 /•'s'?WaB- No8 waB 'Wa8 G Aye a
- WaC
Cr82 :',fie_ u8 CrC2 ?` \
I 8D V, Nr82 ti
'Bb .'/ ?• La~•BD;1. F. 4ry \` pyd AyA , WaB
a Wat /
-,:: ' CrB2 AyA No0 a • • a ??
d? ".r .7 '.
ara VI O Gfi2
Bb
Wa8 :L Aye a
°. Wa8: La `? :. A • Ay82 Is AyB2
rz a
Lu AYA % My AYA
Bb RuA Ex • Na
Y
Y@ - ?• y'L Tr n _ MY AYa
RuB ` AY82 _
?i
:I RuA RuA ma '? • YA Ex 0q RY82 ~ RY82 Q bb
Ry82 r Mr avB:
•yB NoC ? J •.
a
??. YH /• • AyA CtC2 Na AYa
AYB AYA • RuA 2 ti? Ex Y• RuA `? - Ayp
? N a f+
/y/r 1 s AY A AY8 a Ex •n
N'a NaL !Jams sheer 1 -- .r
6) Ruc
FROM 919 333 4486
04.11.1996 12147 P. 2
State Of ? orth Carolina
Departt ' rd nt of Environment,
Health aNatural Resources ` e
Division of !Forest Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathon 0. Howes, Secretary [,? M N R
Stanford M. Adams, Director
Griffiths Forestry Cantor
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
April 10, 1996
Ms. Katherine Doak
USFWS, Ecological Swam
P O Box 33726 -
Rate* North Grolins 27636-3726
RE: Proposed Nahunta Swamp Mitigation Bank in CsreendWayne Counties, N.C.
Dear Katherine.
Refercm is made to the USFWS draft letter to DOT, doted March 15, 1996, eonoerning the above subject.
Reference is alh0 made to the Division of Soil and Water ConitmatioWs Nahmrta Swamp Watershed Plan and
EA dated April 1995. We have the following comnimts on these two documents:
1. We do think it appropriate for our Division to be a oo-signer of the March 15, 1996 letter to DOT,
as it appears we have no regulatory authority in this matter
2. We fmW find any evidcnce wherein we itad the opportunity to comment on the April 1995 Nahunta
Swamp: Wdwdied Plan and EA document and this concerns us very much as we would have liked to
been able to provide input such w -
a. Our cocoon is 1a with the fact that approximately 500 acres of open agriculture land is to be
converted to forested wetlands, but with needed tree planting techniques, selected tree species,
survival, lack of management of the arras and no dearwiting provisions.
b. Other spades such as cypress, eherrybadk oak, hVdo gum and sycamore should be considered
for tree planing in these ar+ees. Also, on the planting of these fields, the soils and historical tree
species should be considered. We would expect that some of these fields were wet pine flats or
Savaonabs, dominated by longleaf pine. Mw establishment and management of longleaf pine
should be allowed, if appropriate to sod type and historical presence.
C All individual sites should be previously examined by a fa=ter to make any needed site
prepaat arh r eoom mdations to iachide fc>erowiog, bed ft mouaft and herbicides to reduce
competition that could cause any survival problans. Reooaa>t»endations should also be made
forbatspades and tree planting spacings. The prope W 10 X 10 foot Spacing (435 trees per
acne) is olmy, but you have to have good survival rates here in order to end up with an
acceptable stand. '
d We are cone ned with what maintenance and cultural practices that will take place after
planting to improve; arvival and gmmth rates. Harbicades and Timber Stand Improve meat work
may be needed up to age 10 or less to maintain a viable stand of trees.
e. After age 10, Forest Management will be needed to keep the stands productive and healthy.
Such =jog practices as turnings, improvement cuts and salvage cuttings may be needed and
should be rocommemded.
P.O. Box 27687, RdelgK North Carolina 27611-7687 7erlephone 919-733.2162 FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunly Airrrnatim Action Employer bo%recycled/ 10%post-consumer paper
FROM 919 333 4466
Page 2
3.

04.11.1996 12:47 P. 3
The "No Clearcut" Rule may need to be modified to include needed salvage of damaged and
diseased timber which may require cleutut ing. Also, the best way to cffectively regenerate
hardwoods is through elearadting. Clear cutting can be gained, if necessary, but it should
= be prohibited.
The need for a Recommended Forest Management BMP Plan to cover all work and practices
should be prepared by a qualified forester with input from our Division, WRC, U.S. Army
Corp of Engineers, landowner and USFWS is a must to include -
(1) Needed site preparation work.
(2) Species and spacing
(3) - TSI and herbicides
(4) Cutting practices anid harvesting
(5) BMP's to prevent water quality problems
(6) Rotation, salvage and find harvest if needed.
=41-F esir BM-Ps - A just Want DFRIMM Publication entitled "Best Management Practices
Imp1e+ en>taticn and Effectiveness Survey on Timber Operations in North Carolina, 1995", indicates the
foiomliag an pages 16 and 17 -
"OVERALL COMPLIANCE WITH BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES".
"Overall BMP compliance in North Carolina was 92%. Of the 196 sites evaluated, 24 rated excellent,
105 sites rated good, 52 sites rated fair, 14 sites rated poor and 1 site rated no effort (see Figure 11).
See Appendnc A for a description of the compliance ratings. SW ificartly, 90'/. of sites on publicly
raw lands in North Carolina received an mccllcut rating for BMP compliance. This is a credit to
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the USDA Forest Service. Also, 90% of the
industry sites surveyed received a rating of good or better. Forest industry should be commended on
their resources management practices as well."
"Tbe lowest Ind ofBMP compliance, as avecled, was on small, non-industrial private forest or forests
owned by private landowners. Out of the 196 total silo, 160 wow privately owned forests. Of those
160 private tracts. 47 received fair ratings and 14 did not pass."
Overall BmP Compliance
Pie 11
109 Q No Ettort
?+
0
00 111 Poor
Tr reir
60 O Groom

z20 ® ExcNUM

FROM 919 553 4486 84.11.1996 12:48 P. 4
-Page 3
gWe are of the opinion that desirable BMW fWasby practices including timber cutting could be carried
out oo those r+eatoro I forested wetlands (thatwould keep them in a healthy viable condition and= cause
any water quality problem to v4scent steams) and still leave them as desirable amas for wetlands
mitigation. We are also of the opinion that these restored wetlands or recreated bottomland forests can
be compatibb with the sdit of timber and at the sametime as desirable mitigation sites. Forestry, the
growibg and harvesting oftreea, is a ow4mc ible use of forested wetland types. EPA recognizes it as one
of the *Velma of these forested wetland types.
Also, in the strip 4ac ent to the stream, timber harvesting should not just be allowed, it should be
required. Since mrtrient uptake and sequestration is one of the Pte' roles of these forests, timber
harvest is essential. If harvesting is not required, then over time the trots will decline and die, returning
do stored nutrients to the soil and watershed. Timber harvesting effectively removes the nutrients from
the watershed. For more information on dds, see publieation- on "Riparian Forests Buffers - Function
and Design for Protection and Enhancements", USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and
Private Forestry NA PR 07 91.
4. Stets an the Drag USFWS letter to EM -
IL We would be more in favor ofDOT purging the site out right, because the landowner would
get fairer camponsation and it would be easier to manage.
b. The Memorandum of Agreement among the agencies should consider the points raised above
in items #2, a,b,c d e f,g and Q.
C% We would lilac to see limited forestry practices, including some timber cutting added to the list
ofuses of these nstored forested wetlands or bottomland forests that are indicated at the bottom
ofpage I and at the top of page 2 of the letter.
d. Under guide fines on page 2, it indicates -
"We fa+esee that the mitigation bank woWd consist of restoration, enhancement and
preservation components. We do not think chat wetland craation would be appropriate."
We would like to suggest that the word, of "management" be added here as one of the
components.
e. We have p wicusly commented above on the problems of "disallow timbering activities" and
wiry v=mmeaded cutting needs to be inchude&
f. We have no problems with the various mitigation ratios indicated with the exception of "no
timbering allowed". This needs to be looked at very carefully and needs to be flexible when it
is applied.
Sinm*,
w
de,
Don R Robbins
Staff Forester
pc Daryl Walden, Mike Thompson. Lany? Such, Warren Boyette - CO
F u1? McBride, David Cox WRC
NCDWWR - DSWC
Eric Qalamb • NCDEM
***END***
FROM 919 333 4486 04.11.1996 12:46
North Carol
xn?a
T ?rac Dx'vi?si?ox? of Z'o?•est Resources
_
NA q IFAXcovER SHEET
T0: s
• This is page Z of ? DATE.•
P. 1
4or
Grifffth's Center
. ' 241101dUS 70 West
Clayton,NC 27520
FAX #,,,,. [phone]
Vdice # [phone]
MESSAGE:
North Carolina Department of
• Environment, Health and Natural Resources

re
?a O? A4/Loo_my\_,_D - co x c -D ot
an r? 5o ©
9

L
G-J
c
g- f o'er-
. - ii
';: - -
-..,:_
_
� il.
. spa.. �
..
...

Vt.
-U U 6
:2 loo
/W - P bev
o.
-t vetd,,m 4v
g; Vb 20 - ba t ",q
90 - /0 ?f
Cam.
` ?i v?j l YY?2
ll?? va
4?o cuN- -

!
?;IV\ Y r. - ,: - 4-t? AtA ,_ 10.E ? . a n An qj
D R A F T - SUBJECT TO REVISION - JUNE. 1994
CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT dated this _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 199_, by and
between
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
herein referred to as the "Grantor" or "Landowner", and the Wayne Soil and Water
Conservation District, herein referred to as the "Grantee". The designation
Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs,
successors, and assigns.
The Grantor covenants with the Grantee, that Grantor is seized of the premises
described below in section I in fee simple, has the right to convey the same in
fee simple, that title is marketable and free and clear of all encumbrances, and
that Grantor will warrant and defend the title against the lawful claims of all
persons whomsoever except for the exceptions hereinafter stated. Title to the
property hereinbelow described is subject to the following exceptions:
c !i" ?E SPACE OR EXCEPTIONS
ti-
This easement is under the authority and furtherance of the provisions of State
and Federal law, including the Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law of 1937
(State), Conservation and Historic Preservation Act (Federal), section 1462 of
the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Federal), the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Federal), Federal
Executive Order 11990 providing for the protection of wetlands, and Federal
Executive Order 11988 providing for the management of floodplains. The
restrictions and covenants contained in this easement constitute a perpetual
servitude on and run with the property. The Grantor, all successors, and assigns
("landowner") under this deed covenant with the Grantee to do or refrain from
doing, severally and collectively, the various acts mentioned later in this
easement. The Grantee is conveyed the rights enumerated in this easement for
itself, its successors, agents and assigns.
WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee,
the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has and by these presents does grant
bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee, an appurtenant conservation easement
in, over and under the lands described hereafter with the appurtenant right of
access. This conservation easement is created pursuant to the N.C. Historic
Preservation and Conservation Agreements Act and in furtherance of Purposes of
State and Federal Law set forth above and is granted in perpetuity. This
appurtenant conservation easement and right of access is located on land situated
in --------------- Township, Wayne County, North Carolina and more particularly
described below in section I.
V i 5 rrn? i? ''' oil a fEQ0JV,4 S .j
Au 0,? 4,4- ()A 5krf- elf
_f ?,. A AI C Yln U a f1

D R A F T SUBJECT TO REVISION - JUNE. 1994
I. Description of the Easement Area and Access Thereto:
The area subject to the Conservation Easement, referred to herein as the
"easement area" is described as follows:
(DESCRIPTION)
The property hereinabove described was acquired.by Grantor by instrument
recorded in -------------------------------------------------------
2
D R A F T SUBJECT TO REVISION JUNE. 1994
II. Covenants by the Landowner.
A. No dwellings, barns, outbuildings, or other structures shall be built
within the easement area.
B. The vegetation and hydrology of the described easement area will be
established by the landowner according to a Wetland Restoration Plan
developed between the Grantor, the Grantee, and cooperating Federal and
State agencies. After the plan is implemented, the easement area will not
be altered in any way or by any means or activity on the property conveyed
by this deed, or property owned or under the control of the landowner,
including (1) cutting or mowing; (2) cultivation; (3) grazing; (4)
burning; (5) placing of refuse, wastes, chemicals, sewage, or other
debris; (6) draining, dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, discing,
pumping, diking, impounding, or related activities; or (7) diverting or
4 affecting the natural flow of surface or underground waters into, within,
and out of the easement area except as noted in this easement.
`Z1 v C. The landowner will be allowed to selectively
accordance with a timber management plan developed and harvest timber
administered by in
the
NC Division of Forest Re
sour g_es. Said plan will be consistent with the
_
preservation and enhancement of floodplain and wetland functional values.
D. Notwithstanding the provision of paragraph II-B above, the landowner
shall be responsible for compliance with all federal, state, and local
laws for the control of noxious or other undesirable plants on the
easement area. The responsibility for such plant control may be assumed
in writing by and at the option of the Grantee where the control or
manipulation of such plants is deemed by the Grantee to affect easement
management programs or policies.
E. Cattle or other stock shall not be permitted on the easement area,
except that the Grantee shall permit access to and use of waters within
the area necessary for stock watering under such terms and conditions as
the Grantee deems necessary to protect and further the purposes of this
easement, provided:
(1) the Grantor bears the costs of building and maintaining fencing
or other facilities reasonably necessary to preclude stock from
entering the easement area; and
(2) access for stock watering need not be permitted where other
waters are reasonably available from other sources outside the
easement area.
3
D R A F T - SUBJECT TO REVISION - JUNE. 1994
III. Rights Conveyed to Grantee.
The Grantee and.its successors or assigns, is conveyed the rights, at its sole
discretion, to manage the easement area including the following authorities:
A. The rights of reasonable ingress and egress on and across any and all
lands and easements of the landowner ("servient estate") as of the date of
this instrument, whether or not adjacent or appurtenant to the easement
area, for access to the easement area in order to conduct wetlands
management, monitoring, and easement enforcement activities. The Grantee
may utilize vehicles and other reasonable modes of transportation for
access purposes overland or on any right of way described in paragraph I.
In the event that the use of the described access over the servient estate
is not practical for any reason, the Grantee may utilize any convenient
route of access to the easement area over the servient estate.
B. The rights to install, operate, and maintain structures for the
purpose of reestablishing, protecting, and enhancing wetland functional
values including the taking of construction materials to and from said
sites.
C. The right to establish, alter, and otherwise control vegetation
through seedings, plantings, or natural succession.
D. The right to. alter or otherwise control vegetation, topography and
hydrology on the easement area through diking, pumping, water management,
excavating, island construction, burning, cutting, pesticide application,
fertilizing, and other appropriate practices.
E. The right to control predators through all lawful means.
F. The right to prevent grazing or other types of encroachment on the
easement area.
4
D R A F T - SUBJECT TO REVISION - JUNE. 1994
IV. Easement Management and Administration.
A. All rights, title and interests of the Grantee in this easement are
administered by the Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District. The Wayne
Soil and Water Conservation District may enforce all the terms and
conditions of this easement, along with exercising all rights and powers
conveyed in this easement through such general or specific regulations or
orders as have been or may be, from time to time, promulgated under the
authority of the Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law of 1937.
Notwithstanding the above rights in paragraph III, conveyed to the
Grantee, the Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District may permit the
landowner to pursue such activities on said sites as would be consistent
with the preservation-and enhancement of floodplain and wetland functional
values.
B. As used in this easement, the term "Grantee" shall refer to the
authorized official of the Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District.
V. General Provisions.
A. The agreed upon purposes of this easement are the restoration,
preservation, and maintenance of the wetland and floodplain areas
including protection and enhancement of plant and animal habitat and
populations. A "Wetland" is defined by reference to section 7(c) of
Federal Executive Order 11990 and a "floodplain" is defined by reference
to section (6)c of Federal Executive Order 11988. Any ambiguities in this
easement shall be construed in a manner which best effectuates wetland
preservation.
B. Any subsequent amendment to or repeal of any federal or state law or
order which authorizes this easement shall not affect the rights conveyed
to the grantee or subsequently held by its successors or assigns.
C. For purposes of this easement, wetland management rights conveyed to
the grantee include, but are not limited to, inspection for compliance
with the terms of this easement and any other activity consistent with the
preservation and enhancement of wetland functional values.
D. The Grantee, its successors and assigns shall have the right to make
surveys, take photographs and prepare such other documentation as may be
necessary or desirable to administer the provision of this easement. Any
such map, plat, or other suitable document may be recorded in the land
records of the respective county in which the property is located.
E. The easement does not authorize public entry upon or use of land. The
landowner may permit it at the landowner's discretion.
5
D R A F T - SUBJECT TO REVISION - JUNE 1994
F. The landowner and invitees may hunt and fish on the easement area in
accordance with all Federal, State, and local game and fishery
regulations.
G. This easement shall be binding on the landowner, and the landowner's
heir's, successors, or assigns. The .landowner covenants to warrant and
defend unto the Grantee, its successors, or assigns, the quiet and
peaceable use and enjoyment of the land and interests in the land
constituting this easement against all claims and demands.
H. In the performance of any rights of the Grantee under this easement,
the Grantee may permit, contract, or otherwise provide for action by
employees, agents, or assigns which may include the landowner.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the herein described interests in land unto the Grantee
forever.
WITNESS, the signature of the Grantor.
WITNESS, the signature of the authorized officer of the Grantee.
By
Chairman
Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District
6
U FROM WASHINGTON 03.18.1997 10:15 P.02
?? V l.r I
March 6, 1997 c;? ?.S r
Regulatory Branch (([[ hp
Action ID. 199601404
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
My staff has reviewed your Jaauary 2, 1997, correspondence requesting our review and
comments regarding the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) proposed
Nahunta Swamp Wetland Mitigation Bank (NSWMB) in Johnston, Greene and Wayne Counties,
The correspondence contained a Conservation Easement, Forest Management Plan, and Generic
Mitigation Plan. Also, please reference the minuets from the February 20, 1997, Corps/NCDOT
meeting in Raleigh concerning this issue.
After reviewing the material and weighing all factors associated with this issue, we have
determined that utilizing the proposed NSWMB as a bank for mitigation credits for NCDQT
projects is unacceptable. There are many reasons why this proposal is unacceptable and we will
attempt to list the major concerns below-
1. Forestry Practices - We have not nor will we allow managed or unmanaged timber
harvesting in Wetland mitigation areas. The possible exception mould be to entice a limited
number of landowners to include their property to produce a continuous and adjacent tract of
land between existing fee simple lands. Much of the environnIentai damage associated with
forestry comes from the forestry practices and machinery. North Carolina does not require
mandatory Best Management Plan's (BMP's) be employed , therefore, the mitigation area could
suffer damage. There are no permanently protected areas or buffer areas, no restrictions on
livestock, and mechanical logging operations are authorized even on the banks of perennial
waterways.
2. Conservation Easement - It appears that the Wayne County Soil and Water Conservation
district will hold the easement in perpetuity, with no mechanism to ensure the area is properly
,FROM WASHINGTON
03.18.1997 10:15 P.03
managed for a successful mitigation site. The Soil and Water Conservation Districts do not have
an established history of preserving or maintaining wetlands. Are are not convinced that this
organization can properly manage and protect a mitigation area. Information is needed to allow
us to make a decision that the easement should be held with a county district. Will the district
decide in the future that the area is working and that the stream system needs further dredging 7
The conservation easement does not prohibit signs and billboards, impounding, excavating or
other earth moving activities. The easement allows the landowner to remove noxious or other
undesirable plants in the easement area without determining what a noxious or undesirable plant
is. These easement comments are preliminary and will not be final comments until our office of
council has had an opportunity to review the final draft plan.
I Dredged stream Channels - The primary focus Of the Nahunta Swamp project is to
improve the water quality of the watershed. Water quality improvement may not be possible
with future maintenance dredging of the stream channels. Dredging stream channels and
maintenance dredging must be halted and restoration efforts implemented. If full restoration is
not possible, then the placement of irk-stream structures can increase the flooding frequency,
cause meanders to form, and provide fish habitat.
4. Generic Mitigation Plan - Hydrology needs and/or water budgets must be addressed on a
site-specific basis. The filling of 1 oo linear feet of a ditch, as is used for a representative site in
the document, will not necessarily be sufficient to meet the hydrology goal(s) for a particular
site. Each site must be evaluated (using the check list) before appropriate restoration measures
are determined. Site-specific mitigation plans for each tract must be developed, evaluating
vegetative and hydrology needs. The sites will not be "debited" before significant efforts are
made to evaluate what must be done on each tract to meet site-specific goals and objectives.
A procedure which establishes success criteria, monitoring, maintenance, and protection of the
mitigation areas must be established.
5. Several resource agencies wrote a joint letter to NCDOT dated April 12, 1996, with
suggestions to minimize impacts and to establish debit/eredit ratios for areas which allow
timbering. The recommendations appear to have been ignored, which does not instill a sense of
"team work" necessary for successful mitigation efforts.
In summary, we support the NCDOT in their efforts to reestablish the riparian wetlands and
vegetated buffers along the Nahunta watershed with the goal of improving land and water
quality. However, we are concerned that the focus of this mitigation effort has been for the Soil
and Water Conservation District to provide benefits for the landowner with minimal concern for
functional wetland replacement of wetlands destroyed by NCDOT. It would appear that the fee
simple purchase of riparian property would be as economical as conservation ]eases with
landowner control.
We appreciate the opportunity to coordinate with your staff prior to the finalization of this
.FROM WASHINGTON
03.18.1997 10:15 P.04
mitigation plan. If you have any questions, please contact Mr_ Michael Bell, NCDOT
Coordinator/ Regulatory Project Manager at my Washington Regulatory Field office, telephone
[phone], extension 26.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
Copies Furnished:
h4r. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Larry Rudy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr_ John Hefner
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Boat 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. ThomasWelborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Raleigh IV
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Branch
US Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta Federal Center
100 Alabama Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section
Regulatory Branch
,FROM WASHINGTON
Nr. David COX
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Post Office Box 118
Northside, North Carolina 27564
Nr. Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
BCF:
Wright(CO-R
Smith/CO-RN
-Lekson/CO-RW
Bell/CO-RW
03.18.1997 10:16 P.05
FFOM WASHINGTON 03.18.1997 10:14 P.01
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL HEADER SHEET
For r al lh o lane, sm AR X l l; Mr aoporu m .Os"ss ocoU
COM ?? E OFFICE ELEPH" FAX NO.
SYMBOL (AUnW MICw m.) (AUTmm `anwn_)

TO[
QLASSS F#GATM PRECEDENCE NO, PAGES
WadarT
DATE-TIME MONTH YEAR
/ 9 - otoo 13 1 ?'7'
f1EMAF"

sorts "f" Far cars un)CSElona c~ U" Only
3018 Ar JUL 90
DA WRIT ma-R, AM 72 IS oe= FM
?.
,r
#`,
??
NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
GREENE AND WAYNE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
ABSTRACT
This document describes the plan and environmental efforts resulting
from the efforts of the Greene and Wayne Soil and Water Conservation Districts
along with federal and state agencies to address excessive erosion and
nutrients in Nahunta Swamp Watershed. Off-site water quality is being
degraded by excessive erosion (greater than 8 TAY) on 11,400 acres of cropland
and by nutrients associated with sediment and 17 swine operations. Other
M problems recognized in the watershed include depletion of the soil resource
base and reduction of on-site productivity. The alternatives considered
include the future without project, the National Economic Development plan,
and the Resource Protection plan.
The recommended alternative will reduce erosion on 7,000 acres of
cropland, restore 500 acres of wetlands, and install 15 animal waste
management systems. The quantity and quality of aquatic habitat will increase
as sediment and nutrient loading of the stream system decrease. Wildlife
resources will benefit from increases in available food and cover, and in
increased habitat and diversity. Other off-site and on site resources will
benefit. This document is intended to fulfill the requirements of the 1969
National Environmental Policy Act and is a prerequisite for authorization of
Public Law-566 .funding.
This Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared under
the Authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act - Public
Law 83-566, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008) and under Section 102(2)(c) of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.) by:
The Greene Soil and Water Conservation District
The Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
- Division of Soil and Water Conservation
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service
For additional information, contact:
Richard A. Gallo, State Conservationist
Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits
discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin,
sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs and marital or familial
status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with
disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program
information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA
Office of Communications at [phone] (voice) or [phone] (TDD).
To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250, or call [phone] (voice) or
[phone] (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer.
APRIL, 1,995
i
NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED AGREEMENT
Between the
GREENE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
AND
WAYNE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
(Referred to herein as Sponsors)
and the
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
" UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
(Referred to herein as NRCS)
Whereas, application has been made to the Secretary of Agriculture by the
Sponsors for assistance in preparing a plan for works of improvement for the
Nahunta Swamp Watershed, State of North Carolina, under the authority of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008); and
Whereas, the responsibility for administration of the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act, as amended, has been assigned by the Secretary of
Agriculture to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); and
Whereas, there has been developed, through the cooperative efforts of the
Sponsors and NRCS, this plan for works of improvement for the Nahunta Swamp
Watershed, State of North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as the watershed
plan, which plan is annexed to and made a part of this agreement;
Now, therefore, in view of foregoing considerations, the Secretarv of
Agriculture, through the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the
Sponsors hereby agree on this plan and that the works of improvement for this
project will be installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the
terms, conditions, and stipulations provided for in this watershed plan and
including the following:
1. Cost-sharing rate for the establishment of enduring practices is 65
percent of the average cost in the selected plan for the evaluation
unit. The cost-sharing rate for installation of animal waste management
systems is 50 percent of the average cost in the selected plan. The
estimated financial assistance cost for enduring practices and animal
waste management systems is $737,070. Incentive payments for up to
1,000 acres of conservation tillage cotton in the demonstration project
will be $10 per acre for a period of up to three years and a maximum of
100 acres per operator. Estimated financial assistance cost for the
conservation tillage for cotton demonstration project is $30,000. Total
estimated financial assistance cost for the project is $767,070.
Financial assistance for installation of the wetland restoration
measures will be through the NC Department of Transportation.
APRIL; 1995 iii
2. The NRCS will assist the Sponsors in providing technical assistance to
landowners or operators to plan and install land treatment practices
shown in the plan. Percentages of technical assistance costs to be
borne by the Sponsors and NRCS are as follows:
Works of Estimated Technical
Improvements Sponsors NRCS Assistance Costs
(percent) (percent) (dollars)
Land Treatment
Practices 0 100 $297,410
3. The Sponsors will obtain applications from owners of not less than 15
percent of the land in the problem area, indicating that they will carry
out the planned land treatment measures. Applications will be obtained
before the first long-term land treatment contract is executed.
4. The Sponsors will obtain agreements with the landowners or operators to
operate and maintain the land treatment practices for the protection and
improvement of the watershed.
5. The Sponsors and NRCS will each bear the cost of project administration
that each incurs, estimated to be $1,250 and $79,150, respectively.
6. The costs shown in this plan are preliminary estimates. Average cost or
an approved variation will be used for the installation payment
determinations.
7. This agreement is not a fund-obligating document. Financial and other
assistance to be furnished by NRCS in carrying out the plan is
contingent upon the fulfillment of applicable laws and regulations and
the availability of appropriations for this purpose.
8. A separate agreement will be entered into between NRCS and the Sponsors
before either party initiates work involving funds of the other party.
Such agreements will set forth in detail the financial and working
arrangements and other conditions that are applicable to the specific
works of improvement.
9. This plan may be amended or revised only by mutual agreement of the
parties hereto, except that NRCS may deauthorize funding at any time it
determines that the Sponsors have failed to comply with the conditions
of this agreement. In this case, NRCS shall promptly notify the
Sponsors in writing of the determination and the reasons for the de-
authorization of the project funding, together with the effective date.
Payments made to the Sponsors or recoveries by NRCS shall be in accord
with the legal rights and liabilities of the parties when project
funding has been deauthorized. An amendment to incorporate changes
affecting a specific measure may be made by mutual agreement between
NRCS and the Sponsors having specific responsibilities for the measure
involved.
M
iv APRIL, 1995
10. No member of or delegate to Congress, or resident Commissioner, shall be
admitted to any share or part of this plan, or to any benefit that may
arise therefrom; but these provisions shall not be construed to extend
to this agreement if made with a corporation for its general benefit.
11. The program conducted will be in compliance with the nondiscrimination
provisions as contained in Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (Public Law
100-259) and other nondiscrimination statutes, namely Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and in accordance with
regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture (7 C.F.R. 15, Subparts A &
B) which provide that no person in the United States shall, on the
grounds of race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, marital
status, or handicap be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from the
Department of Agriculture or any agency thereof.
12. Certification Reeardine Drug-Free Workplace Requirements(7 CFR 3017,
Subpar` F).
By signing this watershed agreement, the sponsors are providing the
certification set out below. If it is later determined that the
sponsors knowingly rendered a false certification, or otherwise violated
the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act, the NRCS, in addition
to any other remedies available to the Federal Covernment, may take
action authorized under the Drug-Free Workplace Act.
Controlled substance means a controlled substance in Schedules I through
V of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and as further
defined by regulation (21 CFR 1308.3.1 through 1308.15);
Conviccior_ means a finding of (including a plea of nolo contendere) or
imposition of a sentence, or both, by any judicial body charged with the
responsibility to determine violations of the Federal or State criminal
drug statues;
Criminal drug statue means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute
involving the manufacturing, distribution, dispensing, use, or
possession of any controlled substance;
J
Employee means the employee of a grantee directly engaged in the
performance of work under a grant, including: (i) all direct charge
employees; (ii) all indirect charge employees unless their impact or
involvement is insignificant to the performance of the grant; and, (iii)
temporary personnel and consultants who are directly engaged in the
performance of work under the grant and who are on the grantee's
payroll. This definition does not include workers not on the payroll of
the grantee (e.g., volunteers, even if used to meet a matching
requirement-; consultants or independent contractors not on the grantee's
payroll; or employees of subrecipients or subcontractors in covered
workplaces).
APRIL, 1995
v
Certification: ,
A. The sponsors certify that they will or will continue to provide a
drug-free workplace by:
(1) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful
manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a
controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and
specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for
violation of such prohibition;
(2) Establishing and ongoing drug-free awareness program to
inform employees about -- »
(a) The danger of drug abuse in the workplace;
(b) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free
workplace;
(c) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and
employee assistance programs; and
(d) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for
drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace.
(3). Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in
the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement
required by paragraph (1);
(4) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph
(1) that as a condition of employment under the grant, the
employee will --
(a) Abide by the terms of the statement; and
(b) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction
for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the
workplace no later than five calendar days after such
conviction;
(5) Notifying the NRCS in writing, within ten calendar days after
receiving notice under paragraph (4) (b) from an employee or
otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers
of convicted employees must provide notice, including position
title, to every grant officer or other designee on whose grant
activity the convicted employee was working, unless the Federal
agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such
notices. Notice shall include the identification number(s)s of
each affected grant;
(6) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days
of receiving notice under paragraph (4) (b), with respect to any
employee who is so convicted-
vi APRIL, 1995
(a) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an
employee, up to and including termination, consistent with
the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended; or
(b) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily
in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program
approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local
health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency.
(7) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-
free workplace through implementation of paragraphs (1), (2), (3),
(4), (5), and (6).
B. The sponsors may provide a list of the site(s) for the performance
of work done in connection with a specific project or other agreement.
C. Agencies shall keep the original of all disclosure reports in the
official files of the agency.
13. Certification Regarding Lobbying (7 CFR 3018).
(1) The sponsors certify to the best of their knowledge and belief,
that:
(a) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid,
by or on behalf of the sponsors, to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency,
Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an
employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding
of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the
making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative
agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or
modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement.
(b) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been
paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting
to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a
Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract,
grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall
complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report
Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions.
(c) The sponsors shall require that the language of this
certification be included in the award documents for all subawards
at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts
under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all
subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
(2) This certification is a material representation of fact upon which
reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into.
Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or
entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S.
Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be
subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than
$100,000 for each such failure.
APRIL, 1995 vii
14. Certification Regarding-Debarment. Suspension, and Other Responsibilitv
Matters - Primary Covered Transactions (7 CFR 3017).
(1) The sponsors certify to the best of their knowledge and belief,
that they and their principals:
(a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for
debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from
covered transactions by any Federal department or agency.
(b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal
been convicted of or had a civil judgement rendered against them
for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with
obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal,
State, or local) transaction or contract under a public
transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or
commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification
or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving
stolen property;
(c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or
civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or
local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in
paragraph (1) (B) of this certification; and
(d),Have not within a three-year period preceding this
application/proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal,
State, or local) terminated for cause or default.
(2) Where the primary sponsors are unable to certify to any of the
statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall
attach an explanation to this agreement.
viii APRIL, 1995
Greene Soil and Water Conservation District
3 Professional Dr., Suite B
Snow Hill, NC 28580
i
By
Fran H. S ac cle ord
Chairma
Date The signing of this plan was authorized by a resolution of the governing body of
the Greene Soil and Water Conservation District adopted at a meeting held on
APR i L L1. 1995
SecretaY
s
Date
Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District
208 W. Chestnut Street
Goldsboro, NC 27530
By
Russell Gurley
Chairman
Date
The signing of this plan was authorized by a resolution of the governing body of
the Wa ne Soil and Water Conservation District adopted t a meeting held on
ii{'c? l-ham) m?.N
Date
Natural Resources Conservation Service
United States Department of Agriculture
Approved by:
and A. Gallo
St to Conservationist
Date:
APRIL, 1995 ix
NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
GREENE AND WAYNE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
CONTENTS
page
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . .
WATERSHED AGREEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xi
TABLES . . . . . . . . .
APPENDICES . . . . . .
SUMMARY . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. xiii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PROJECT SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Physiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Agricultural Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
WATERSHED PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
FORMULATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 14
Formulation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Description of Alternative Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Effects of Alternative Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Comparison of the Alternative Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Risk and Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Rationale for Plan Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
RECOMMENDED PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Purpose and Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Measures to be Installed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Permits and Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Installation and Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
LIST OF PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
APRIL, 1995 xi
NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
GREENE AND WAYNE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLES page
TABLE A - SOIL ASSOCIATIONS IN NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
TABLE B - LAND USE IN NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
TABLE C - CROPLAND ACRES IN NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 "
TABLE D - POPULATION OF NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED BY RACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
TABLE E - ENDIVIDUALS BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
TABLE F - CROPLAND EROSION IN NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
TABLE G - AVERAGE ANNUAL YIELDS BY EROSION PA.LiSE IN NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED . . . . 11
TABLE H - EVALUATION OF IDENTIFIED CONCERNS FOR NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED . . . . . . 13
TABLE 1 - ESTIMATED INSTALLATION COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3i
TABLE 4 - ANNUALIZED ADVERSE NED EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
TABLE 5A - ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED WATERSHED PROTECTION DAMAGE REDUCTION BENEFITS . . . 33
TABLE 6 - COMPARISON OF NED BENEFITS AND COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
TABLE J - EFFECTS ON RESOURCES OF NATIONAL RECOGNITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
TABLE K - COMPLIANCE WITH WRC-DESIGNATED ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES . . . . . . . . . . 38
TABLE L - SCHEDULE OF OBLIGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
TABLE M - PROJECTED WORK SCHEDULE FOR NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED . . . . . . . . . . . 41
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - LETTERS AND COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
APPENDIX B - SUPPORTING INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
APPENDIX C - MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN NCDOT AND GREENE AND
WAYNE SWCDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
APPENDIX D - WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
APPENDIX E - WATERSHED MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
xii APRIL, 1995
SUMMARY OF
NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Project Name: Nahunta Swamp Watershed Protection Plan
Counties: Greene and Wayne State: North Carolina
Sponsors: Greene Soil and Water Conservation District
Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District
Description of the Recommended Plan:
The plan selected by the Greene and Wayne Soil and Water Conservation
Districts is a cost-effective alternative to meet the Districts'
conservation goals. A 70 percent participation rate is expected.
Conservation land treatment measures will be applied to 6,000 acres of
cropland, 1,000 acres of cropland will be converted to permanent
vegetation, 500 acres of prior converted wetlands will be restored, and
15 animal waste management systems will be installed in an accelerated
watershed protection program.
Approximately 11.8 worker years of technical assistance will be provided
to accelerate the land treatment program during the 5 year installation
period. All financially assisted measures with landowners/operators
will be installed using long-term contracts with the sponsor. Federal
cost-share funds for installation of measures will total $767,070.
Off-site benefits include improved water quality for aquatic habitat and
improved wildlife habitat.
Installation of the accelerated program will prevent the change in
Erosion Phase (from Phase I to Phase II) on 5,400 acres of cropland, and
decrease the annual gross erosion by 37 percent (144,300 tons).
Resource Information:
Size of Watershed: 60,378 acres
Land Cover - Cropland: 31,655 acres
Grassland: 1,048 acres
Woodland and Other: 27,675 acres
Land Ownership - Private: 98% State-Local: 2%
Number of Farms: 460 Average Size (AC): 124
Prime and Important Farmland: 45,300 acres (12%)
No. Minority/Female Farmers: 50 No. Limited Resource Farmers: 183
APRIL, 1995 xiii
Wetlands (by class):
12,730 acres forested
600 acres shrub/scrub/emergent vegetation
194 miles of perennial streams
198 ponds (1/4 to 9 acres)
Flood plains (FEMA - by land use):
4,960 acres forested
10 acres grassland
1,200 acres cropland
Highly Erodible Cropland: 3,737 acres
Endangered Species: There are no federally listed endangered or
threatened species in the watershed.
Cultural Resources: Some archaeological sites were identified in the
archaeological overview that was preformed but should not be
effected by planned conservation measures. Ongoing operations
will conform to NRCS policy for cultural resources.
Problem Identification:
Excessive sheet and rill erosion on 11,400 acres of cropland (greater
than 8 tons per acre per year) and 400 acres of ephemeral gully erosion
are damaging water quality in the region with sediment and nutrients
associated with sediments. Annual gross cropland erosion averages 8.7
tons per acre. Cropland erosion is exceeds 383,200 tons per year.
Additional off-site damages result from approximately 18.2 million
gallons of untreated animal waste produced in the watershed. Off-site
damages include impaired water quality, sedimentation of road ditches,
and loss of aquatic habitat.
On-site productivity is damaged by excessive erosion. Crop yields are
expected to decrease an additional 25 percent over the next 30 years on
7,780 acres of cropland (changing from Phase I to Phase II).
Alternative Plans Considered:
1. Ongoing Program: Land treatment on 1,440 acres over 5 years.
2. National Economic Development Plan: Land treatment on 5,700 acres
of cropland. Install 15 Animal Waste Management Systems.
3. Resource Protection Plan: Land treatment on 7,500 acres of
cropland. Install 15 Animal Waste Management Systems.
xiv APRIL, 1995
Project Purposes:
Installation of the project will reduce off-site damages from sediment
and nutrient loading, maintain on-site productivity on 5,700 acres of
cropland, establish 1,300 acres of permanent vegetation (1,000 acres of
conversion and 300 acres of water disposal systems), restore 500 acres
of prior converted wetlands, and provide 15 animal waste management
systems through an accelerated land treatment program.
Principal Project Measures:
1. Resource Management Systems (conservation tillage, crop rotations,
and crop residue management)
2. Conservation Tillage Demonstration Project.for Cotton (1,000 acres)
3. Water Disposal Systems (grassed waterways, field borders, diversions
- 300 acres)
4. Cropland Conversion to permanent vegetation (including wetland
rehabilitation - 1,500 acres)
5. Animal Waste Management Systems (15 units)
Long Term Contracts (no.) - 390
Acres Benefited - Cropland 5,700 acres
Permanent Vegetation 1.800 acres
Total 7,500 acres
Proiect Costs:
PL-566 Funds Other Funds
Land Treatment Measures $767,070 (45%) $928,950 (55%)
Technical Assistance $297.410 (92%) $ 26.250 ( 8%)
TOTAL $1,064,480 (53%) $955,200 (47%)
Project Benefits:
Total
$1,696,020
$ 323.660
$2,019,680
Off-site benefits are estimated as $248,660 annually from reduced
maintenance on road ditches, potential fishing values, wildlife habitat,
and flood water storage. Off-site benefits are calculated from state-
maintained roads (144 miles), lakes/ponds (43 water bodies), perennial
streams (136 miles), cropland conversion (1,000 acres), and restored
wetlands (500 acres).
The annual damage reduction benefits on cropland are estimated from
maintaining long-term productivity at $613,510 plus concurrent "now-
time" benefits from reduced variable production costs of $115,050.
Total on-site benefits, excluding intensification, are estimated to be
APRIL, 1995 xv
$728,560 annually. No on-site economic analysis was required for
cropland conversion benefits which accrue to 1,500 acres on which use
changes to grass, trees, or wetlands.
Other Impacts:
Land Use Changes: 1,800 acres from cropland to permanent vegetation
Environmental Values changed or lost:
Wooded Flood Plain: 500 acres of reestablished wetlands
Wetlands: 500 acres reestablished
Cultural Resources: no effect
Wildlife Habitat: 1,800 acres of permanent cover established.
(Cropland Conversion, Water Disposal Systems, and
Wetland Rehabilitation)
Fisheries: 136 miles benefited/43 ponds benefited
Prime Farmland: 4,275 acres protected
Major Conclusions:
The proposed program has proven to be a cost-effective plan for
achieving a level of resource protection acceptable to the local people.
Areas of Controversy:
There are no areas of controversy.
Issues to be Resolved:
There are no other issues left to be resolved.
Other:
Off-site benefits will result as sediment and nutrients in the stream -
system decrease each year. The proposed project will also maintain the
on-site productivity on 5,700 acres of cropland with 1,800 acres to be
removed from row crop production.
xvi APRIL, 1995
NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
GREENE AND WAYNE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
INTRODUCTION
The watershed protection plan and environmental assessment for this
project have been combined into a single document. The document describes the
problem identification, conservation options procedure, plan formulation, plan
selection, the results of the environmental evaluation, and the finding of no
significant impact. This document provides the basis for authorizing
accelerated federal assistance to the Greene and Wayne Soil and Water
Conservation Districts and local landowners/operators in improving water
quality in the watershed by treating critical erosion on 7,000 acres of
cropland and reducing nutrients with 15 animal waste management systems. A
special conservation tillage demonstration project for cotton (1,000 acres)
has been authorized for the watershed. An additional 500 acres of prior
converted wetlands will be restored with conservation easements.
The sponsoring local organizations are the Greene and Wayne Soil and
Water Conservation Districts. The Sponsors were assisted in the plan
development by:
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR) - Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC)
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS)
- Forest Service (FS)
Other federal, state, and local agencies provided input and review during the
planning process.
The plan was prepared under the authority of the Watershed Protection
and Flood Prevention Act, Public Law 83-566, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008)
and under section 120 (2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
Public Law 91-190, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.).
Responsibility for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
rests with the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
APRIL, 1995 1
PROJECT SETTING
Phys io grUhy
The Nahunta Swamp watershed covers 60,378 acres in the central coastal
plain of North Carolina. Johnston county has 1,039 acres, Wayne county has
45,914 acres, and Greene county has 13,425 acres. The headwaters are at the
Johnston/Wayne county line and the stream flows east to Contentnea Creek, a
major tributary of the Neuse River. The topography is flat to strongly
sloping with the cropland ranging from 1 to 8 percent slope.
Soils in the watershed are underlaid by marine sediments. Complex soil
patterns result from variations in parent material and topography. Depth to
unconsolidated sediments is 60 inches or more. Major soil series include
Norfolk, Goldsboro, and Aycock.
TABLE.: A. - SOIL ASSOCIATIONS IN,NAHUNTA SWAMP
I
Norfolk Goldsboro - Aycock -:Exum 47,078 acres
Wagram - Kenansville - Autryville 7,199 acres
Rains Torhunta - Liddell 2,719 acres
More than 65 percent of the soils in the watershed are considered Prime
and Important. Farmland. Soil "K" values range from .10 to .43 with .17
(11,325 acres) and .37 (8,512 acres) being the most common. Soil loss
tolerance is 5 tons per acre per year. The complex mixture of soil patterns
and topography require effective resource management systems to protect the
natural resource base. Approximately 12 percent of the open land is
considered highly erodible.
There are approximately 25,000 acres of hydric soils in the watershed.
Of these, about 11,000 acres (43%) have been prior converted' to cropland.
Most of the prior converted hydric soils are located along narrow drainageways
or in small depressions. The hydric soils with the greatest potential for
wetland restoration are located in the riparian area along Nahunta Swamp.
Wetlands in the watershed include Type 1 (seasonally flooded bottom
land 2) at the upper portion of drainage patterns and along the channels, Type
5 (inland open fresh water) which are farm ponds or old mill ponds, and Type 7
(wooded swamp) along the lower reaches of the main channel. There are
approximately 14,000 acres of wetlands (based on hydric soils) in the
watershed that represent good habitat for a variety of game and non-game
wildlife. There are 198 farm ponds between 1/4 and 49 acres in size that are
'Prior Conversion - wetland alteration that was completed prior to December
23, 1985. National Food Security Act Manual, Second Edition, 1988.
2Shaw, S.P., and C.G. Fredine, Wetlands of the United States, Circular 39,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1956
2 APRIL, 1995
used for both recreation and irrigation. There are 194 miles of perennial
streams in the watershed.
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) has limited
information on water quality in the watershed but report varying levels of
quality. Detailed information is listed in Watershed Problems and
Opportunities.
" Climate in the area is mild with an average annual temperature of 62
degrees Fahrenheit. Average length of the frost-free season is 215 days.
Average annual rainfall is 50 inches. The wettest month is July (7.5 inches).
The driest month is October (2.9 inches). The other months average 3 to 5
inches per month.
Existing Conditions
The existing resources in the watershed have been documented through
various studies by NRCS personnel, FS personnel, district programs, and the
NCDEHNR. A 100 percent field survey was completed for agricultural land in
the watershed. Data compilation included land use, soil loss factors, and
conservation treatment needs. An ephemeral gully survey was performed on a
random sample of fields.
There are 31,655 acres of cropland in the watershed (Table A). Major
crops are cotton, tobacco, corn, and soybeans. Cotton acreage has been
increasing in recent years but is expected to stabilize soon due to market
constraints. Cotton and tobacco provide a significant part of the farm
income. Rotations are usually a 2-year rotation of corn-small grain-soybeans
or tobacco-small grain-corn. Cotton rotations have not been established.
TABLE B LAND USE IN NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED
Cropland 31,655 acres Pasture/Hayland 1,048 acres
Woodland 24,675 acres Miscellaneous 3,000 acres
About 33 percent of the cropland is eroding at or below the tolerance
rate (T - 5 TAY). Another 43 percent is eroding between T and 2T. The
remaining cropland (24 percent) is eroding at greater than 2T. About 9
percent of the cropland has degraded to Erosion Phase 113 or worse. At
present rates of erosion, 25 percent of the cropland will be in Erosion Phase
II or worse within the next 30 years with an accompanying decrease in
productivity (Table D). The reduction in on-site productivity from the phase
change averages 25 percent for all crops from sheet and rill erosion. Areas
3Erosion Phase I - Greater than 6" of topsoil. No subsoil is exposed.
Erosion Phase II - Between 3" and 6" of topsoil. Some subsoil mixed in.
Erosion Phase III - Less than 3" of topsoil. Root zone is mostly subsoil.
APRIL, 1995 3
voided by ephemeral gully erosion will experience a 100 percent reduction in
productivity while the depreciated areas adjacent to the gullies may be
reduced by 50 percent from the field average. This reduction will be in
addition to any phase change within the field.
Estimated sheet and rill erosion losses on cropland in the watershed
exceeds 269,200 tons per year. Average soil loss is 8.7 tons per acre per
year. Ongoing studies of the ephemeral gully erosion indicates an additional
114,000 tons per year of erosion from concentrated flow. Annual sediment
delivered from cropland erosion is estimated to exceed 43,000 tons. Sheet and
rill erosion on pasture and woodland is estimated to be less than "T". All
other erosion in the watershed is estimated at 30,630 tons per year with an
additional 8,830 tons of sediment delivered per year.
The US Forest Service, NC Forest Service, and local foresters report no
significant areas of erosion on tracts of recently harvested timberland. Use
of forestry BMP's will prevent erosion problems in woodland areas.
Agricultural Economy4
There are 57,000 acres in the county classified as land in farms.
Average farm size for the 460 farms is 124 acres with 69 acres in cropland.
There are 31,655 acres of cropland in the watershed. Market value of
agricultural products sold per farm averages $131,800, which compares to
$59,737 per farm for the State. In the U.S., average farm size is 416 acres,
average cropland is 199 acres, and sales of agricultural products is almost
$58,900 per farm.
A smaller proportion of Nahunta Swamp Watershed operators have gross
farms sales under $40,000 per year (58.8 percent) compared to the rest of N.C.
(76.8 percent) and the U.S. (61.2 percent). A smaller percentage of Nahunta
Swamp Watershed operators harvest less than 50 acres of land (33.6 percent)
than de all operators in North Carolina (39.4 percent) or the U.S. (36.7
percent).
Operators in Greene and Wayne counties tend to supplement their farm
income with off-farm work at a lesser rate than do other operators. A larger
proportion of Nahunta Swamp Watershed farmers consider their principal
occupation as farming (69.1 percent) compared with farmers in the rest of the
state (51.8 percent). Over 57.2 percent of the operators in Greene and Wayne
counties reported no days worked off-farm in 1987 and only 24 percent report
working off-farm in excess of 200 days. This compares to North Carolina
figures of 46.2 percent and U.S. figures of 40.4 percent reporting no days
worked off-farm and 36.6 percent and 35.3 percent respectively working off-
farm in excess of 200 days. About 42.6 percent of Greene and Wayne Counties
farmers report varying amounts of off-farm work. The North Carolina average
is 53.8 percent. Many residents of the watershed are employed in
agriculturally related industries and businesses in the area. Finally, the
41987 Census of Agriculture, Vol. 1, Part 33, North Carolina State and
County Data; North Carolina Agricultural Statistics, 1989; North Carolina.
4 APRIL, 1995
incidence of tenancy is significantly higher in Greene and Wayne Counties than
in the rest of the U.S.
There are areas in Nahunta Swamp Watershed where the presence of Limited
Resource Farmers (LRFs) is greater than in the rest of North Carolina.
Estimates of the project area show that 183 operators have gross farm sales
under $40,000 with no non-farm income. Their average household income is
$11,110.
• Limited Resource Farmers have distinct disadvantages in obtaining USDA
program assistance and are characterized by:
(1) Gross farm sales average $40,000 or less in each or the last
three years, and there is no non-farm income.
(2) Total household net income, farm and non-farm, is 75 percent
or less of the non-metropolitan median income for the state or
county.
(3) Lack of access to capital, labor or equipment.
(4) Farm size is significantly smaller than the average size.
(5) Social, cultural, customs or language barriers, minimal
awareness of USDA programs, limited management skills, the level
of formal education is below the county average or undereducated,
and are less likely to take business risks and adopt new
technology.
In the watershed, low participation by LRFs in soil conservation
programs contributes to on-farm and off-site problems by constraining improved
resource utilization. As the soil resource base is degraded, production will
be reduced, resulting in less money being spent on soil amendments to sustain
productivity. Without efforts to increase accessibility to technical and
financial assistance, these farmers could eventually be caught in a situation
that they cannot reverse.
TABLE C - CROPLAND ACRES IN NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED
Soybeans 12,140 acres
Corn 9,700 acres
Cotton 6,000 acres
Tobacco 2,310 acres
Small Grains (double-cropped) 220 acres
Vegetables 100 acres
Significant acreage in the watershed is devoted to corn and small grains
double cropped with soybeans. However, most of the farm income is derived
from tobacco and cotton. The capitalized value of production for the cropland
in the watershed based on net returns using 1994 current normalized prices is
APRIL, 1995 5
$3,326 per acre. The Capitalized value of production for the prior converted
wetlands in the watershed is $973 per acre based on net returns.
Livestock operations in Nahunta Swamp include approximately 20,000 hogs
and 1,200,000 broilers and turkeys. All poultry waste is handled as dry
litter and does not pose a problem.
New swine operations are installing animal waste management systems as
part of the conditions set by the vertical integrators and lending
institutions. The older, independent operators (17) do not have the resources
or collateral to finance the necessary upgrading of facilities and need
assistance to reduce this impact on water quality in Nahunta Swamp.
6 APRIL, 1995
Demographics5
The population of Greene and Wayne Counties is estimated to be 120,050.
Major population centers in the watershed include Fremont (pop. 1,860), and
Pikeville (pop. 771). About 79 percent of the watershed residents are white
and 21 percent are minorities. The minority population in the watershed area
occurs at 87 percent of the State level. There are 50 farm operators in the
watershed that are either female or minority.
I
TABLE `D - POPULATION OF NAHUNTA`SWAMP BY°RACE
Watershed Area Two Countv Area North Carolina
Race Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

White 8,747 78.7 77,919 64.9 5,008,491 75.6
Minority 2,367 21.3 42,131' ._ 35.1 1,620,146 24.4
Total 11,114 .100.0 120,050 100.0 6,628,637 100.0
Mean household income in the area is about $28,022 which is 84 percent
of the median income of the state ($33,242). A larger percentage of people
live below the poverty level in Nahunta Swamp Watershed and the two-county
area than are living below the poverty level in the rest of the state (15.7%
in Nahunta Swamp area compared to 13.0% for the state).
TABLE E INDIVIDUALS BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE
Watershed Area Two Countv Area North
Carolina
Percent Percent
Percent
% of Below X of Below % of
Below
:Number Total Poverty Number Total Poverty Number Total
51990 Census of Population & Housing - General Social and Economic
Characteristics
APRIL, 1995 7
WATERSHED PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Water quality in Nahunta Swamp is being threatened by sediment and
nutrients. It is impairing its value as a recreational fishery. Nahunta
Swamp is also contributing to water quality problems in Contentnea Creek and
the lower Neuse River. Problems cited by the Districts in their application
include sedimentation of streams and water bodies by cropland erosion and the
impact of animal waste on the watershed.
In January, 1988 the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
declared the entire Neuse River Basin "Nutrient Sensitive". The "Nutrient
Sensitive" designation requires mandatory reduction of phosphorous discharges
at existing municipal and industrial waste water treatment facilities. All
new waste water treatment facilities or expansions built in the basin are
limited to 2 parts per million of phosphorous in their discharge.
Agricultural operations are encouraged to utilize Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to reduce nutrient inputs to the river basin. Technical and financial
assistance to install BMPs is a significant tool to help meet the goals of the
Neuse River Basinwide Plan discussed later in this section.
Nahunta Swamp Watershed has 13.5 miles of stream listed as partially
supporting it's designated uses (C-SW)6. The major cause of the impairment
was listed as sediment. The remaining reaches of Nahunta Swamp watershed have
been listed as support threatened, indicating that they are being stressed by
non-point sources.
There are three permitted point source discharges located along Nahunta
Swamp, each discharging less than 50,000 gallons per day with strict limits on
the amount of phosphorus allowed to be discharged. These point sources are
not considered significant to the existing water quality problems. There are
no large urban areas which would contribute significant non-point pollution.
In 1987 and 1989, Contentnea Creek was not listed as impaired from the
Wilson Water Treatment Plant to Stantonsburg, just upstream of the junction
with Nahunta Swamp. Below the junction with Nahunta Swamp, Contentnea Creek
was listed as partially supporting it's designated uses (C-SW). Major sources
of pollutants were listed as crop land, pasture land, feedlots, and animal
holding areas. In Contentnea Creek watershed 174 miles of stream were
identified as impaired. In 1990, Contentnea Creek did show some improvement
but sediment is still listed as being a problem.
The Division of Environmental Management - Water Quality Section has
6C - providing aquatic habitat suitable for reproduction of fish
SW - SWAMP - experiencing natural periods of low dissolved oxygen levels
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section, Water Quality
Progress in North Carolina. 1986 - 1987 305b Report. Report 90-07. 1987.
8 APRIL, 1995
produced a basinwide management plan for the Neuse River as part of a state
wide effort to prioritize water quality efforts in the future. The plan
identifies Contentnea Creek and Trent Creek subbasins as having the highest
number of stream miles impaired by agriculture. Contentnea Creek is estimated
to contribute 20 percent of the non-point source nutrient loading to the lower
Neuse estuary and has been given a high priority for action.
When all counties in the Neuse River basin (15) were considered, Wayne
county was ranked as the #1 priority needing additional BMPs on cropland. It
was given a #4 priority for swine farms. Greene county was ranked #2
priority for swine farms and was ranked #5 priority in need of additional BMPs
on cropland. This project will be very important in meeting the water quality
goals set for the area.
The 100% field inventory for Nahunta Swamp Watershed identified 17 hog
operations. At least 90 percent of these need assistance in establishing
adequate Animal Waste Management Systems. Nutrients from these operations
have a direct impact on the water quality of the stream system and on the
nutrient loading downstream.
In Nahunta Swamp Watershed there are 198 small ponds with an average
size of 1.6 acres. Approximately 30 percent of these ponds are adversely
affected by sediment and nutrients with the fish population reduced by 1/3.
Sediment interferes with gill efficiency, eliminates escape cover, buries nest
sites, and suffocates eggs. Excessive nutrients promote excessive algae
growth which may result in reduced oxygen levels. This creates a loss of
fishing opportunity to the local people of 1,650 fishing-days annual'ly'.
Similar loss of fishing opportunity is experienced in the 194 miles of creeks
in the watershed.
There are approximately 1,200 acres of prior converted wetlands
(Johnston soils) located within the 100-year flood plain along the main
channel. These acres are marginal cropland due to occasional flooding. When
farmed, they represent a source of nutrients to the stream system. Adjoining
cropland will often produce sediment and nutrients that will move through
these areas before entering the stream.
The restored wetlands (bottomland hardwoods) in Nahunta Swamp Watershed
will be located in riparian areas and will provide public benefits as a
nutrient sink for nitrogen and phosphorus as well as a settling area for
sediment from upland fields. The vegetation (trees, shrubs, etc.) in these
riparian areas will utilize nutrients that would otherwise enter the stream
system. Additional benefits will be gained through improved wildlife habitat
including the use of these riparian areas as travel corridors.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section Neuse River Basinwide
Water Quality Management Plan, 1993
'RECREATIONAL IMPACTS OF SEDIMENT (unpublished) - developed by Phil Edwards,
NRCS Biologist, retired, Raleigh, NC
APRIL, 1995 9
Rare/endangered species (Federal or State listed) that have been located
in the Contentnea Creek subbasin include:
Atlantic pigtoe - Fusconala mason!
Dwarf wedge mussel - Alasmidonta heterodon
Neuse slabshell - Elliptio judithae
Neuse River waterdog - Necturus lewls!
Carolina madtom - Noturus furiosus
No rare or endangered species have been located in the Nahunta Swamp ,
Watershed. Excessive nutrients and sedimentation has destroyed much of the
habitat needed by these species across the state. Improving the aquatic
habitat in Nahunta Swamp by reducing nutrients and sedimentation may increase
the available habitat for these species and will reduce the rate of downstream
habitat degradation.
No evidence of widespread groundwater contamination has been identified.
In early 1990, The North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service conducted a
well-testing program for Wayne County. Out of 286 samples, 10.1% had nitrate
levels greater than 10 mg/liter. Surface contamination through cracked or
improperly installed well heads was identified as the source of the nitrates.
On-site damages include deterioration of the soil resource base,
decreased on-site productivity, and increased production costs.
TABLE F - CROPLAND EROSION IN NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED
Average Estimated Time To tal Estimated l
Erosion Class Erosion Rate Acres for Phase chance Erosion 1
0 - 5 TAY 3.5 10,406 no phase change 36,421
5 - 10 TAY 6.9 13,469 116 years 92,936
10 - 15 TAY 12.3 3,663 31 years 45,055
15 - 20 TAY -17.0 1,974 19 years 33,558
20 + TAY 28.6 2.143 10 years 61.290
31,655- 269,260
tons/year
A 100% field survey of the watershed determined the sheet and rill
erosion rates and identified critically eroding areas within the watershed.
Ephemeral gully erosion rates have been estimated and effects are readily
visible in the fields. The effect of the ephemeral gully erosion is the
voiding of the soil resource in the impacted area and the deposition of
sediment in the field ditches and nearby streams.
Estimated sheet and rill erosion losses on cropland in the watershed
exceeds 269,200 tons per year. Average soil loss is 8.7 tons per acre per
year. Ongoing studies of the ephemeral gully erosion indicates an additional
114,000 tons per year of erosion from concentrated flow. Annual sediment
delivered from cropland erosion is estimated to exceed 43,000 tons. Sheet and
10 APRIL, 1995
rill erosion on pasture and woodland is estimated to be less than "T". All
other erosion in the watershed is estimated at 30,630 tons per year with an
additional 8,830 tons of sediment delivered per year.
Most cropland in the watershed (28,756 acres) is in an Erosion Phase I9
condition. Approximately 9 percent of the cropland (2,757 acres) has eroded
to an Erosion Phase II condition and less than 1 percent (133 acres) is in an
Erosion Phase III condition. The schedule for eroding cropland to pass from a
Phase I condition to a Phase II condition is shown in Table F. A phase change
is considered to be a loss of 1 1/2 inches of topsoil.
The reduction in on-site productivity from this phase change averages 25
percent for all crops from sheet and rill erosion. Areas voided by ephemeral
gully erosion will experience a 100 percent reduction in productivity while
the depreciated areas adjacent to the gullies may be reduced by 50 percent
from the field average. This reduction will be in addition to any phase
change within the field.
TABLE G AVERAGE ANNUAL YIELDS BY EROSION PHASE
Crop Phase I Phase II Phase III
Yield Yield Reduction M Yield Reduc tion
Soybeans 40 bu 30 bu 10 bu 25% 20 bu 10 bu 33%
Corn 85 bu 65 bu 20 bu 24% 50 bu 15 bu 23%
Wheat 60 bu 50 bu 10 bu' 17% 40 bu 10 bu 20%
Tobacco 2,700 lbs 1,900 lbs 800 lbs 30% 1,500 lbs 400 lbs 21%
Cotton 750_lbs 600 lbs 150 lbs 20% 500 lbs 100 lbs 17%
Additional on-site problems associated with the deterioration of the
resource base include: additional fertilizer inputs; increased equipment
costs for land preparation, planting and harvesting; and increased energy and
labor costs to the farm operator.
Nahunta Swamp Watershed is agriculturally oriented and no significant
change to an urban/industrial orientation is expected by 2020. Livestock
numbers will increase during the next 10 years but concerns of the vertical
integrators and lending institutions will provide incentives for new
operations to manage animal waste. All evaluations assumed that crops and the
current level of technology will remain the same.
The ongoing district programs (CO-01, Agricultural Conservation Program
(ACP), N.C. State Cost-Share Program (CSP)) in Greene and Wayne Counties can
only provide 0.3 worker-year to the watershed area annually. Of the 20,255
acres needing treatment, these programs would provide technical assistance
9Erosion Phase I - Greater than 6" of topsoil. No subsoil is exposed.
Erosion Phase II - Between 3" and 6" of topsoil. Some subsoil mixed in.
Erosion Phase III - Less than 3" of topsoil. Root zone is mostly subsoil.
APRIL, 1995 11
(over an 5 year period) for 1,440 acres of cropland. Conservation land
treatment on these acres would reduce soil loss in the watershed by
approximately 28,600 tons annually at the end of the 6 year planning period.
Sediment delivery to Contentnea Creek and the Neuse River would be reduced by
approximately 3,100 tons annually.
Excessive and critical erosion (greater than 2T) would continue on 9,960
acres. Gross erosion from cropland in the watershed would be approximately
362,400 tons annually with more than 39,800 tons of sediment delivered to
Contentnea Creek and the Neuse River. Off-site damages to roads, ponds, and
aquatic habitat will continue. Costs (repair work, labor, etc.) will increase
due to inflation.
The Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA) affects 12 percent of the cropland
in the watershed (3,737 acres have an erosion index of 8 or greater).
Critically eroding acres (2T) make up 31 percent of the cropland (9,960
acres). The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has not been as successful as
desired. Tillable land requirements for commodity programs prevent many
people from participating. In addition, land use restrictions on CRP land (no
haying or grazing) deter many landowners from taking advantage of the program.
The Food Security Act of 1985 does not address the problem of nutrient
degradation of surface and ground water. There are no provisions for animal
waste management systems in the FSA regulations. The requirements of the Food
Security Act of 1985 will not correct the problems of the watershed alone.
Serious water quality and erosion problems will continue,
The large percentage of limited resource farmers (LRFs), and their lower
than average application of conservation measures, contribute to the serious
natural resource problems in the watershed.Financial and managerial
constraints of LRFs result in failure to control erosion adequately and
maintain the soil productivity.Many farmers are not able to install
conservation practices for erosion control without financial assistance.
Opportunity exists to improve the quality of life of LRFs by increasing
participation rates in USDA conservation program efforts. A watershed project
which offers an outreach approach toward these producers will increase the
economic resource base of landowners within the watershed. By recommending
appropriate conservation practices that maintain soil productivity and reduce
the associated annual costs of erosion, these problem can be solved.
12 APRIL, 1995
SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
r
In May, 1994 various federal, state and local agencies were consulted
about their specific concerns and asked to provide significant issues and
reasonable alternatives to be addressed during planning. The responses
provided from the agencies, the public hearing, and subsequent studies and
meetings were documented and ranked to determine their significance to
decision making.
TABLE H - EVALUATION OF IDENTIFIED CONCERNS FOR NAHUNTA SWAMP WATE
Economic, Environmental. and Social Concerns
Streams/Water Quality
Protect/Treat Highly Erodible Cropland
Retention of Important Agricultural Land
Wetlands
Aquatic Habitat
Cultural Resources
Endangered and Threatened Species
Wildlife Habitat
.'Ground Water
Flood Water and Drainage
Human Health and Safety
Land Use J
Degree of.:Significance
to Decision Making
High
High
High
High
:High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
LOW
Low
Low
Based on the scoping process, the items of highest significance were
improving surface water quality and protacting/treating cropland. Although
not mentioned specifically, retention of important agricultural land was
assumed to be of high priority because of the concern expressed for protecting
cropland. Restoration of wetlands and protection of fish habitat also had a
high ranking.
Unidentified cultural resources including prehistoric and historic sites
could be present within the watershed and may be impacted during construction
of the animal waste management systems. The individual sites will not be
known until contracts are developed. Site evaluations will be addressed
during the detailed planning process according to NRCS policy. Wildlife and
land use concerns were mentioned in converting highly erodible cropland to
permanent vegetation. Other issues such as ground water were recognized but
determined not to be adversely affected by any alternative considered during
planning.
APRIL, 1995 13
FORMULATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Formulation-Process
Alternatives were developed to reduce erosion and improve water quality.
In all cases, each alternative addressed the significant concerns identified
by the sponsors, participating agencies and individuals. Each alternative
also was designed to pass the tests of completeness, effectiveness, efficiency
and acceptability. The four tests are defined as follows:
a. Completeness: the extent to which the alternative accounts for
all costs and other actions to achieve the planned effects
b. Effectiveness: the extent to which the alternative solves the
identified problems
c. Efficiency: the extent to which the alternative is the most
effective means of alleviating the problems
d. Acceptability: the workability and availability of the
alternative with respect to the NRCS, state and sponsors, and
compliance with all applicable federal laws, regulations and
policies
Three alternatives were developed: The ongoing prograri (future without
project conditions), the National Economic Development plan (NED), and the
Resource Protection plan (RP). Plan measures were evaluated using the
processes and procedures from the "P.L. 566 Land Treatment Evaluation,
Conservation Option Procedure" (USDA, NRCS Economic Technical Note No. 612,
December, 1987).
All practical land treatment practices, both enduring and management
practices, were considered for each evaluation unit. Off-site and on-site
economic and environmental damages and benefits were determined.
The initial data compilation for the project began with a 100 percent
inventory of conservation treatment needs for the agricultural lands in the
watershed. This inventory was conducted during 1991 by NRCS and District
field office personnel. Information from the inventory was sorted and
analyzed to determine present conditions and resource needs.
The woodland inventory was performed by the U.S. Forest Service with
cooperation from local N.C. Forest Service personnel. Information from the
woodland report is available at the local SWCD office.
In addition to the base data collected in the field, crop budget
information for the crops grown in the watershed was obtained from the
Agricultural Extension Service in Wayne county. Budgets which reflected local
cropping systems and cultural practices were generated using the individual
crop budget data from the Agricultural Extension specialists and additional
information obtained through interviews with local landowners and operators.
14 APRIL, 1995
The information compiled from the various inventories has been used to
identify those evaluation units with similar problems and characteristics
which could be treated using a similar system of practices. Ten evaluation
units were designated based on soil erosion classes, crops, wetland
restoration potential, and recommended treatments (ave.K=.28, T-5 TAY). The
evaluation units are:
Capability Class II cropland:
#1 Cropland eroding between 8-15 TAY in grain crop rotation.
#2 Cropland eroding between 8-15 TAY in specialty crop rotation.
#3 Cropland eroding between 8-15 TAY in Conservation Tillage Demonstration.
Capability Class III+ cropland:
#4 Cropland eroding more than 15 TAY in grain crop rotation.
#5 Cropland eroding more than 15 TAY in specialty crop rotation.
#6 Cropland eroding more than 15 TAY in Conservation Tillage Demonstration.
#7 Cropland eroding greater than 15 TAY converted to grass.
#8 Cropland eroding greater than 15 TAY converted to trees.
#9 Prior-converted wetlands to be restored to wetlands (bottomland hardwoods).
Livestock operations:
#10 Animal Waste Management Systems. (average 200-sow operation)
Evaluation unit numbers 7 and 8 contain those acres that are projected
to be converted to permanent vegetation by landowners due to land slope, Phase
III soil conditions, or other constraints that remove other conservation
practices as practical solutions to the resource problems.
Evaluation unit number 9 contains those acres that are projected to be
restored to wetlands by the landowners through wetland easements with the
local soil and water conservation districts.
Future income projections were derived from the budget data and the
evaluation units for each alternative considered. A "future without project"
25-year projection was made under the District's ongoing program (Forecasted
Conditions). Those measures predicted to be installed by the ongoing program
were considered in place.
Treatments considered for each evaluation unit were based on Resource
Management Systems developed for the Southern Coastal Plain (MLRA 133A) of
North Carolina. These Resource Management Systems are described in detail in
the Natural Resources Conservation Service Technical Guide, Section III for
North Carolina. The systems contain the following individual practices:
Conservation Cropping Sequence Conservation Tillage
Contour Farming Critical Area Treatment
Cropland Conversion Crop Residue Use
Water Disposal Systems
APRIL, 1995 15
Water Disposal Systems include diversions, field borders, and grassed
waterways. These measures control concentrated runoff, eliminate ephemeral
gullies and reduce sediment delivered from the field.
Installation costs of the individual practices were estimated based on
recent records and a projection of the current year cost.
The cost efficiency of the various conservation land treatment practices
was determined using the Universal Soil Loss Equation and information relating
soil erosion phase to crop yield. Crop yield and reduced productivity due to
erosion were based on North Carolina Department of Agriculture, agricultural
statistics information for Greene and Wayne Counties; soils information; and
interviews with staff at North Carolina State University, local Extension
agents and farmers within the watershed. Table G lists the average crop
yields by erosion phase for the watershed.
Based on the erosion phase table and definitions, budget information was
developed for different cropping patterns and then used to calculate the net
income per acre by evaluation unit over time. The income information was
discounted and amortized for "with" and "without" project conditions. The
project benefits are the difference. The project benefits reflect only damage
reduction benefits. Intensification benefits were deleted from the analysis.
The primary purpose in all alternatives was to reduce sediment and
nutrient loading in the stream system and maintain long-term productivity on
cropland. Water quality benefits were assumed to follow a reduction in
erosion rates. Off-site damages were evaluated to assess the environmental
and social impacts of each alternative. The results of the analysis are
summarized in Tab1_ K. The table is based on per acre calculations for land
treatment or the per unit basis on animal waste management systems.
Description of Alternative Plans
Each alternative was evaluated for cost-effectiveness and for the extent
to which the respective alternative solved the identified problems or
opportunities. The Alternatives evaluated included:
1. The Ongoing Program (No Action)
2. The National Economic Development Plan (NED)
3. The Resource Protection Plan (RP)
The ongoing program was projected to remain at present funding and
personnel levels over the life of the project. The NED plan is made up of
those practices that return more benefits than their cost (B/C ratio >1:1).
The RP plan adds additional practices that may not be as cost-effective as
those in the NED plan but are needed to protect the resources in the watershed
(soil productivity, water quality, etc.).
Alternative No. 1 - The Ongoing Program (No Action)
16 APRIL, 1995
This alternative consists of the ongoing districts, programs using
existing resources. Federal programs include the Conservation Operations
Program (CO-01) and the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP). The North
Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program (CSP) provides funds in the counties
for improving water quality with Best Management Practices.
Due to the workload across the counties, Greene and Wayne Soil and Water
Conservation Districts have the technical capability to treat about 1,440
acres of cropland in the watershed over a 6 year period (800 acres per worker-
year). Funding for this level of activity is approximately 20% federal and
80% state and local. This would leave 9,952 acres of cropland eroding greater
than 8 tons per acre per year. Also at the present time there is limited
cost-sharing available for installing Animal Waste Management Systems.
Alternative No. 2 - Nation Economic Development Plan (NED)
The objective of the NED plan is to accelerate the land treatment
program in the most economically efficient manner that will provide protection
to the soil resource base and be acceptable to local participants. This
alternative will treat 5,200 acres that are eroding at more than 8 tons per
acre per year and restore 500 acres of wetlands through permanent conservation
easements. Funds will also be provided for installation of 15 Animal Waste
Management Systems. The NED plan would require 5 years of accelerated
technical planning and application assistance at a cost of $242,930 (8.8
worker-years). Total installation cost would be $1,463,810. Annualized
installation cost would be $159,860. Average annual operation and maintenance
cost would be $42,900 for a total annualized cost of $202,760.
An exception to the NRCS policy concerning incentive payments has beer.
granted for the use of incentive payments to support a conservation tillage
demonstration project for cotton in the watershed. There will be a limit of
1,000 acres in the project with a limit of 100 acres per cooperator for
incentive payments. Other practices will be installed according to the field
to be treated, the cost-effectiveness of the system and the future management
needs of the landowner/operator. Resource management systems installed will
meet Food Security Act requirements.
The average annual benefits of the alternative would be $946,060. This
is composed of $602,320 from damage reduction benefits through maintaining
long-term productivity, $111,980 from concurrent damage reduction benefits (of
which $28,560 is from animal waste utilization), and $231,760 from off-site
benefits. Net benefits would be $743,300 and the benefit/cost ratio would be
4.7:1. An analysis of on-site benefits from cropland conversion was not
required, but average annual costs were included in the overall project
benefit/cost ratio.
The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, Conservation
Title, Subtitle E, Chapter 1, Section 1462, amended the Watershed Protection
and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-566) by inserting, after section 3,
language for acquiring wetland and flood plain easements. The provision
allows for cost share assistance to project sponsors to perpetuate, restore
APRIL, 1995 17
and enhance the natural capabilities of wetlands and flood plains. (National
Watersheds Manual, 390-PDM, Circular No. 9, 9/19/91)
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will provide
100% of the funds needed for acquisition of conservation easements and
installation of wetland restoration measures. Technical assistance would be
provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service for site evaluation and -
development of wetland restoration plans. US Forest Service/NC Division of
Forest Resources will assist in tree species selection, planting, and
developing wetland forest management plans. A Memorandum of Agreement has
been developed between the sponsors and NCDOT and was signed in October, 1994.
Alternative No. 3 - Resource Protection Plan (RP)
The objective of the RP plan is to improve/protect water quality and
reduce erosion to an acceptable level even if some components of the system
are not economically justified. The resource management systems that were
utilized in this alternative were the same as in the NED plan with the
addition of Evaluation Unit #1 (cropland eroding between 8-15 TAY in grain
crop rotation) and Evaluation Unit #7 (cropland conversion to grass). The use
of diversions and grassed waterways on low value grain cropland and conversion
of cropland to grass did not provide sufficient benefits to cover the costs of
the rescurce management system (including technical assistance) for a B/C
ratio of 0.9:1.
This alternative will treat 7,000 acres that are eroding at more than 8
tons per acre per year and restore 500 acres to wetlands through permanent
conservation easements. Funds will also be provided for installation of 15
Animal Waste Management Systems. The 5 years of accelerated technical
planning and application assistance would cost $323,660, (11.8 worker-years).
Total installation cost would be $1,696,020. Annualized installation cost
would be $189,180. Average annual operation and maintenance cost would be
$47,960 for a total annualized cost of $237,140.
The average annual benefits of the alternative would be $977,220. This
is composed of $613,510 from damage reduction benefits through maintaining
long-term productivity, $115,050 from concurrent damage reduction benefits, of
which $28,560 is from animal waste utilization, and $248,660 from off-site
benefits. Net benefits would be $740,080 and the benefit/cost ratio would be
4.1:1. An analysis of on-site benefits from cropland conversion was not
required, but average annual costs were included in the overall project
benefit/cost ratio.
Effects of Alternative Plans
Table H shows the economic, environmental and social fac`ors that were ,
significant to decision making in the formation of the alternatives. The 70
percent participation rate was determined through reviews of past involvement
in the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), interview data, and field
office recommendations, and by using the processes and procedures from the
18 APRIL, 1995
"Guide for Estimating Participation in Conservation Operations and Watershed
Protection Projects" (USDA, NRCS South Technical Service Center Technical
Note, Series no. 1801 (revised), February 3, 1989). Participation was
predicted based on availability of financial and technical assistance needed
to meet the planned installation and the influence of the Food Security Act of
1985. Where the National Economic Development Plan (NED) and the Resource
Protection Plan (RP) have similar effects on items of concern, their general
descriptions have been combined.
Streams/Water Quality/Aquatic Habitat
Future Without Project -
The Food Security Act of 1985 will not provide the protection needed for
Nahunta Swamp watershed. Although critically eroding acres (>2T) Make
up 25 percent of the cropland (7,780 acres), compliance provisions of
the Food Security Act of 1985 applies to only 12 percent of the cropland
in the watershed (3,737 acres). There are some local operators that are
not affected by the Farm Bill requirements because their fields may have
less than 1/3 highly erodible land designated and are not required to
treat those fields. Also, the Farm Bill has no provisions for
controlling animal waste. Sediment and nutrients will continue to
impact water quality in the watershed.
National Economic Development Plan (NED) -
Erosion will be controlled on 5,500 acres of cropland that are eroding
at more than 8 tons per acre per year. There will be 960 acres of
permanent vegetation established (210 acres of Water Disposal Systems,
250 acres of cropland conversion to trees, and 500 acres of restored
wetlands). This will improve water quality by filtering sediment and
nutrients from runoff. Off-site benefits include improved water quality
for aquatic habitat and increased recreational opportunity. Regional
benefits include reducing nitrogen and phosphorus loading in the
watershed.
Installation of the NED plan would decrease the sediment delivered to
the stream system by 14,000 tons per year. Animal waste nutrients
properly utilized as a result of this project include 492,750 lbs of
nitrogen and 143,720 lbs of phosphorus. Water quality in Nahunta Swamp
is expected to improve.
Resource Protection Plan (RP) -
Erosion will be controlled on 7,000 acres of cropland that are eroding
at more than 8 tons per acre per year. There will be 1,800 acres of
permanent vegetation established (300 acres of Water Disposal Systems,
750 acres of cropland conversion to grass, 250 acres of cropland
conversion to trees, and 500 acres of restored wetlands). This will
improve water quality by filtering sediment and nutrients from runoff.
Off-site benefits include improved water quality for aquatic habitat and
APRIL, 1995 19
increased recreational opportunity. Regional benefits include reducing
nitrogen and phosphorus loading in the watershed.
Installation of.the RP plan would decrease the sediment delivered to the
stream system by 15,900 tons per year. Animal waste nutrients properly
utilized include 492,750 lbs of nitrogen and 143,720 lbs of phosphorus.
Water quality in Nahunta Swamp is expected to improve.
Wetlands/Wildlife Habitat/Endangered & Threatened Species
Future Without Project -
There will be no improvements in the amount or quality of wetlands or
wildlife habitat. There are no endangered or threatened species in the
watershed.
National Economic Development Plan (NED)-
There will be 1,710 acres of permanent vegetation established (210 acres
of Water Disposal Systems, 250 acres of cropland conversion to trees,
and 500 acres of restored wetlands). This will provide additional
wildlife habitat within the watershed and will improve water quality by
filtering sediment and nutrients from runoff. There will also be 15
animal waste management systems installed. Regional benefits include
reducing nitrogen and phosphorus loading in the watershed.
Resource Protection Plan (RP) -
Thera will be 1,800 acres of permanent vegetation established (300 acres
of Water Disposal Systems, 750 acres of cropland conversion to grass,
250 acres of cropland conversion to trees, and 500 acres of restored
wetlands). This will provide additional wildlife habitat within the
watershed and will improve water quality by filtering sediment and
nutrients from runoff. There will also be 15 animal waste management
systems installed. Regional benefits include reducing nitrogen and
phosphorus loading in the watershed.
Protecting Cropland/Reducing Cropland Erosion
Future Without Project -
The Districts' programs do not have the technical and financial
assistance to prevent a decline in soil productivity at present erosion
rates. The change in erosion phase without an accelerated program will
cause a reduction of crop yields of 25 percent due to sheet and rill
erosion.
Although critically eroding acres (>2T) make up 25 percent of the
cropland (7,780 acres), compliance provisions of the Food Security Act
applies to only 12 percent of the cropland in the watershed (3,737
20 APRIL, 1995
acres). There are some local operators that are not affected by the FSA
requirements because their fields may have less then 1/3 highly erodible
land designated and are not required to treat those fields. The FSA
will not correct the problems of the watershed by itself. Serious
erosion control problems will continue.
National Economic Development Plan (NED) -
The installation of the NED plan will treat 5,500 acres that are eroding
at more than 8 tons per acre per year. This will decrease the annual
gross erosion in the watershed by 127,700 tons per year. This
alternative will not reduce the erosion rate on grain cropland eroding
between 8 and 15 tons per acre per year. This will allow 3,652 acres to
continue to erode at an excessive rate.
Resource Protection Plan (RP) -
The installation of the RP plan will treat 7,000 acres that are eroding
at more than 8 tons per acre per year. This will decrease the annual
gross erosion.in the watershed by 144,300 tons per year.
Cultural Resources/Ground Water/Other Issues
Future Without Project - No other items would be impacted.
National Economic Development Plan (NED)/Resource Protection Plan (RP) -
Unidentified cultural resources including prehistoric and historic sites
are present within the watershed and may be impacted during construction
of the animal waste management systems. The individual sites will not
be known until contracts are made. Site evaluations will be addressed
during the detailed planning process according to NRCS policy.
Ground water was recognized as a concern but determined not to be
adversely affected by any alternative considered during planning.
Employment opportunities are expected to increase due to more efficient
farm operations through participation in this program. Along with
installing enduring practices, the adoption of management practices will
improve farming operations and increase net farm income. Participation
of Limited Resource Farmers in USDA programs is expected to increase due
to additional technical and financial assistance and an outreach program
which will be initiated for the Limited Resource Farmers within the
watershed.
APRIL, 1995 21
Comparison of the Alternative Plans
Installation of either alternative should compliment any of the existing
or expected federal or non-federal projects in the watershed. Greene and
Wayne Counties receive cost-share funds for conservation measures under the
federal ACP program and the North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program.
The National Economic Development plan (NED) provides for 1,000 acres of
conservation tillage for cotton, 210 acres of water disposal systems, 250
acres of cropland conversion, 500 acres of restored wetlands, and 15 animal
waste management systems. This will maintain on-site productivity on 3,490
acres of cropland with an additional 960 acres removed from row crop
production. This will reduce sediment delivered to Contentnea Creek and the
Neuse River by 15,800 tons annually, improving water quality in Contentnea
Creek and the Neuse River. Total cost of the NED plan is $1,787,470 with the
PL-566 share of $824,740. Calculating on-site benefits from cropland
conversion is not required, but the costs are included, resulting in an
overall benefit/cost ratio for the NED plan of 4.7:1.
The added increment for the RP plan involves 700 acres of grain cropland
eroding between 8 and 15 ton/acre/year and 750 acres of cropland conversion to
grass. An additional 90 acres of water disposal systems will be installed.
The estimated cost-share increase is $233,490. This would reduce sediment
delivered to Contentnea Creek and the Neuse River by 15,800 tons annually,
improving water quality in Contentnea Creek and the Neuse River. The added
increment sacrifices $3,220 in net annual economic benefits to obtain these
benefits. Total for the RP plan is $2,019,680 with the PL-566 share at
$1,064,480. Calculating on-site benefits from cropland conversion is not
required, but the costs are included, resulting in an overall benefit/cost
ratio for the RP plan of 4.1:1.
All candidate plans provide benefits to the watershed by decreasing the
number of acres eroding at excessive rates. The NED and RP plans are the same
except for evaluation units #1 and #7. Here, treating grain cropland eroding
between 8 and 15 tons per acre per year and cropland conversion to grass had
an on-site benefit/cost ratio of 0.9:1. These evaluation units were included
in the RP plan.
Risk and Uncertainty
The evaluation of the alternative plans was based on projected future
conditions in the watershed. No significant change from the present
agricultural orientation of the watershed was expected through 2020. The
watershed is reasonably close to urban areas, which makes vegetable production
profitable. The risk and uncertainty related to changes in technology or
government programs are inherent in any evaluation, but all known changes were
considered during planning.
The program is voluntary but all known or perceived constraints were
included in the evaluations, and the selected alternative is projected to be
acceptable to all parties.
22 APRIL, 1995
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) could receive many critically
eroding acres, but limits on landuse in CRP may restrict participation by some
landowners within the watershed. Cropland conversion is a necessary part of
the PL-566 watershed plan.
Rationale for Plan Selection
The sponsors selected the Resource Protection plan (RP), Alternative 3,
y because it was cost-effective.and was an acceptable response to identified
watershed problems. The RP plan does not maximize net economic benefits.
This decision by the Sponsors requires an exception as stated in the National
Watershed Manual (NWSM), as amended (December, 1985). Section 504.05 of the
NWSM provides for the granting of an exception to the NED plan by the
Responsible Federal Official (RFO). For this project, the RFO is the State
Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
By addressing the problem of moderate erosion on low value grain
cropland, the RP plan is a more effective response to sediment and nutrient
loading problems that impact stream and water quality and fish habitat.
The project will offer technical (11.8 worker-years) and financial
assistance ($767,070--) to the landowners/operators for treating 7,500 acres
cf cropland and installing 15 animal waste management systems.
Off-site benefits include reducing sedimentation in ditches along 144
miles of public roads. Wildlife, especially small game, will benefit from the
increased vegetative cover and food made available with crop residue on 5,700
acres of cropland and permanent vegetation on 1,800 acres. Fishery resources
will benefit due to the decrease in sediment and nutrients delivered to ponds
and streams.
The treatment measures will maintain on-site productivity for 5,700
acres threatened by sheet and rill erosion and ephemeral gullying with 1,800
acres to be removed from row crop production.
APRIL, 1995 23
CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Greene and Wayne Soil and Water Conservation Districts have
recognized water quality problems in Nahunta Swamp Watershed as major concerns
based on contacts with local landowners and the work load in the field
offices. The Districts requested assistance in controlling soil erosion and
managing animal waste to protect water quality in the streams and maintain the
soil base.
In late 1989, the Greene and Wayne Soil and Water Conservation Districts
consulted with the Natural Resources Conservation Service and their local
district staffs. After reviewing the threat to water quality in the watershed
and the severity of the erosion problem, the Districts met on February 6 and
8, 1990 to discuss participation in a PL-566 watershed protection project.
On February 27, 1990 a public meeting was held in Goldsboro, North
Carolina to determine local interest in the problem and support for a project.
The response encouraged the Districts to continue with the application
process.
An application for federal. assistance was filed on March 1, 1990. The
North Carolina State Clearinghouse was notified on April 20, 1990. The
response to date has been from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. There were no objections to the project.
Alternatives have been developed through meetings with local Extension
Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and District personnel.
Preliminary work has been based on local conditions and locally acceptable
conservation practices.
Scoping has continue and the results of those contacts were used to
direct the planning efforts. The Districts are fully aware of the inter-
disciplinary approach to planning. There is local support for the project and
participation is expected to continue at a high level through installation.
Various federal, state, and local agencies were provided
Preauthorization Reports in May, 1994 and input was requested on significant
issues and reasonable alternatives to be addressed during the planning
process. Those agencies were:

N.C. Department of Cultural Resources - Division of Archives & History
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Division of Forest Resources
Division of Land Resources }
Division of Water Resources
Division of Parks & Recreation - National Heritage Program
N.C. Wildlife Commission *
U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers *
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
24 APRIL, 1995
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
Some agencies had provide scoping responses during preparation of the
preauthorization report. Those agencies that have provided comments are noted
with an asterisk (*).
Responses from the agencies, the public hearing, and subsequent studies
and meetings were documented and ranked to determine their significance to
i decision making for Nahunta Swamp Watershed (Table H).
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History requested the exact location of the animal waste sites
within Greene and Wayne Counties before they could complete their review.
The Division of Environmental Management supports the implementation of
erosion control best management practices (BMP's) and animal waste management
systems to protect water quality.
The Division of Water Resources is concerned with sediment and nutrients
in the Neuse River Basin and see the project as beneficial in reducing the
eutrophication. They believe this plan should help alleviate those problems
to a great extent.
The N.C. Wildlife Commission anticipate significant benefits to fish and
wildlife resources. They recommend the use of vegetation beneficial to
wildlife where possible in erosion control and cropland conversion.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stated that the land treatment work
included in the report would not have any effect on the 100-year flood plain
or the floodway. Also normal farming practices do not come under their
jurisdiction. The Corps also stated that the wetland restoration work would
require a "404" permit. They will work with the local sponsors in restoring
the wetlands.
Projection of future conditions was made through interviews with local
landowners/operators and representatives of local agriculturally related
agencies and businesses. No significant changes in land use or means of
subsistence were expected through 2020. These interviews were also used to
evaluate participation within the watershed and determine acceptability of
various conservation practices, current farming practices, local costs, and
any constraints. Throughout the planning and assessment stages, assistance
was solicited from the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service.
The draft watershed plan and environmental assessment was reviewed by
the Natural Resources Conservation Service state staff specialists with
responsibilities for engineering, soils, agronomy, biology, forestry and
geology. A similar review was provided by Forest Service personnel.
Meetings were held with the Greene and Wayne Soil and Water Conservation
District supervisors (sponsors) on October 4 and 11, 1994, respectively. The
supervisors voted to select alternative 3 (RP) for installation.
APRIL, 1995 25
On February 2, 1995, a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI) was
published in the Federal Register (Vol.60, No.22). The FONSI was a document
that accompanied the Environmental Assessment and contained a brief
presentation of why the proposed project action would have no significant
effect on the human environment and that no environmental impact statement was
to be prepared.
Copies of the draft Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment, the
FONSI and a request for comments were distributed to the following federal and
state agencies: L
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service
North Carolina Department of Administration (State Clearing House)
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Division of Forest Resources
Division of Land Resources
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
U.S. Department of the Army (Corps of Engineers)
U.S. Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Comments were received from the following agencies and groups:
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
U.S. Department of the Army (Corps of Engineers)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
A summary of comments received with the appropriate responses are listed
below:
NC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
General Comments: "... everyone felt the project was noteworthy and
supported the request for funding."
Response: No response necessary.
Comment 1: "There appears to be a lack of initial assessment,
monitoring, evaluation or final impact in the proposal. If the project
is successful, how will you know?"
26 APRIL, 1995
1
Response: "Watershed Problems and Opportunities" on pages 8 to 12
gives the initial assessment and evaluation of the problems in the
watershed. Detailed monitoring was not available. Water quality
information was developed from the best available sources (DEM's water
quality assessments, erosion rates, concentration of animal operations,
etc.). The anticipated results are documented in "Formulation and
Comparison of Alternatives" on pages 14 to 22. Participation in the
project by landowners is voluntary. Success of the project will be
measured by the number/percentage of landowners assisted, the
number/percentage of acres treated, and the number/percentage of animal
waste management systems installed. Installation of the Best Management
Practices will result in improved water quality.
Comment 2: "How does this project differ from 319 NPS projects?"
Response: PL-566 projects are funded through the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS - formerly the Soil Conservation Service).
Eligible purposes include watershed protection, flood prevention,
agricultural water management, nonagricultural water management,
groundwater recharge, water quality management, and municipal and
industrial water supply. The 319 NPS projects are funded through the US
Environmental Protection Agency for specific water quality objectives.
Comment 3: "Suggestion to alter the riparian restoration efforts to
include 100% of the stream length in the targeted area, not just the 500
acres."
Response: The 500 acres included in the project is considered to be a
practical goal for this voluntary program. This is the first time, to
our knowledge, that an effort like this has been made. The sponsors
hope that this will eventually lead to similar wetland restoration
efforts in other watersheds across the state.
Comment 4: "There does not appears (sic) to be any educational
objectives to inform area citizens of project intent, informational
updates or final results."
Response: Initial public contact and ongoing information efforts are
included in the "Consultation and Public Participation" on pages 23 and
24. Because this is a voluntary program, the success of the project
will depend on the sponsor's information and education efforts. The
sponsors will continue to cooperate with the NRCS and the local
Cooperative Extension Service (CES) office to reach all landowners in
the watershed and the surrounding area.
Comment 5: "In an environment of governmental cooperation (i.e.
Capacity Building) is there a reason Cooperative Extension was not or
should not be involved in this project? There does appear to be several
APRIL, 1995 27
roles Extension could play in this project (i.e. no-till cotton
production demonstrations, educational roles, and citizen field day
programs)."
Response: The expertise and input of the local CES office has been a
part of this project since its inception ("Consultation and Public
Participation", page 23 and 24). The local CES director's
recommendation for the cotton conservation tillage demonstration project
was crucial to its acceptance by the NRCS national office. The close
working relationship between the sponsors and their local CES offices is L
necessary to ensure the success of this project.
ql
Comment 6: "Are these funds particularly targeted for accelerated
adoption of legislated BMPs or should they go beyond what is required by
.0200 regulations and conservation compliance etc.?"
Response: This project will address locally identified problems
(accelerated soil erosion and water quality impacts). These funds are
not specifically targeted to meet either the requirements of the
Division of Environmental Management's .0200 regulations or the
conservation compliance provisions of the Food Security Act. However,
this project is a tool that the local sponsors can utilize to assist
landowners in meeting erosion control/water quality obligations.
NC DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES (DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY)
Comment 1: "... We request additional information be sent to us when
the sites are chosen so we can determine if any historic farms will be
affected. If any of the selected farms have a majority of buildings
over fifty years old, please send a county map showing the location of
these farms. We will continue our review at that time."
Response: Due to the voluntary nature of this project, it is
impossible to identify individual farms that will be participating at
this time. The District Conservationists assigned by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to the Greene and Wayne Soil and
Water Conservation Districts have attended Cultural 'Resources Training
Sessions (1992 and 1994). They will evaluate each site for potential
historic and cultural resources as individual plans are developed. The
State Historic Preservation Officer will be contacted if any potential
historic or cultural resources are identified or are suspected of being
present.
Comment 2: "... Contrary to the statement on page 35 that there will be
no effect on historic and cultural resources, each project will need
review to determine any potential effect."
28 APRIL, 1995
Response: It is the goal of the sponsors that there will be no effect
on historic and cultural resources. If the potential for historic
and/or cultural resources is indicated during development of the
individual plan or installation of the planned measure, the NRCS and
District staff will follow NRCS policy regarding cultural resources.
NC WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION
Comment 1: "This project should reduce the amount of silt and
sedimentation and nutrients entering streams within the watershed
improving water quality and benefiting aquatic resources within the
area. Also, increased vegetative cover resulting from the conservation
measures should enhance wildlife habitat and especially benefit small
game species."
Response: No response necessary.
Comment 2: "Although we acknowledge the positive benefits resulting
from the-restoration of wetland areas, we are concerned about using
these areas for mitigation banking purposes for NC Department of
Transportation projects. Along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
we would like to be included in the development process for the
mitigation banking plan. Also, we recommend that this mitigation bank
only be used for restoration credits for the loss of wetlands resulting
from projects located within the Nahunta Swamp Watershed and not for
areas outside this region.."
Response: Any mitigation banking plan will be developed between the NC
Department of Transportation and the US Army Corp of Engineers (COE)
with input from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, NC Wildlife Resources
Commission, and other interested agencies. The mitigation banking plan
is not a part of the PL-566 project.
Comment 3: "Another area of concern relates to the allowance of timber
harvesting within restored wetland areas. Although Best Management
Practices for forested wetlands will be used, we feel that these areas
should not be included within the mitigation banking plan and only areas
with a permanent conservation easement be included."
Response: Timber production is recognized as a wetland value.
Selective harvesting of mature hardwoods allows for regeneration of
ground level forbs and shrubs that improve the available wildlife
habitat. Selective harvesting can also avoid den trees or unique
species that may have become established. When harvesting is done in a
manner that also protects other wetland values (wildlife habitat,
filtration of nutrients and sediments, floodwater storage, etc.), it is
APRIL, 1995 29
consistent with the intent of the permanent conservation easement.
Comment 5: "Also, we would like (to) recognize the importance of such
conservation plans for this watershed and recommend that similar
measures be undertaken in other areas."
Response: There are a number of PL-566 watershed protection projects
across the state. NRCS and the NC Division of Soil and Water
Conservation work with local sponsors to develop such projects. The PL-
566 program is annually funded and measures can be installed only to the
extent funds area available. Other agencies or groups may provide
financial assistance to install needed conservation measures.
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Comment 1 - Flood Plains: "If any activities or planned improvements
will hydraulically affect these streams in Wayne County, we suggest that
you coordinate with that county for compliance with their flood plain
ordinance. In addition, if any fill is planned within the designated
floodways in Wayne County, a certification will be required indicating
that there will be no increase in the 100-year natural water surface
elevation."
Response: At this time, there are no activities planned for the flood
plain except for wetland restoration measures. There should be no
effect on the 100-year natural water surface elevation.
Comment 2 - Waters and Wetlands: "Review of the DRAFT document
revealed that all work is proposed to be undertaken within existing
cultivated cropland. Please be advised that any work proposed within
waters or wooded areas should be inspected by our regulatory Branch for
a determination of Federal jurisdiction and DA permitting authority."
Response: No response necessary.
Comment 3 - Waters and Wetlands: "Implementation of this watershed
project in no way obligates the Corps of Engineers to accept any of this
work as mitigation for North Carolina Department of Transportation
projects or any other project requiring DA permit authorization." `
Response: It is understood that the wetlands that will be restored
through this project will not obligate the US Army Corps of Engineers to
any future action with the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The
development of any mitigation banking plan for NCDOT is beyond the scope
of this PL-566 project.
30 APRIL, 1995

r

R
?
CC
C
y a•

0 c
W'
Q
4E
?G 'C

q
4ao
E U
0

r
-
M
rA 4.
?
4
>4 k'
Al
0
- 3
3 z
?
J 0
W
4,
z `z r-I
••-I W a
4•+,x W,
of alxa
14 z.01%

M'

A

E

m
r
. U
.
d

•ri

r?
b
4J
m

H
l
O O O O O o C 0 o O If O 00
rf 10 0% N t0 V O t0 O o II N t0 co
0 N N rn to %0 co O O O to 11 o to to
v-4 V t0 V-t ?T to to t0 t0 r- to r` II to
' M 0t
. o to OD v v N N r-4 N In II ot. N 1--i
i4 v yr vt .•4 t? r-t yr in ra II to m o
owl
v}
v?
v}
U
v} ?
E
11

92
H

O a ft co to to O N O, t- I1 tn'- 1n O
-0 1- oo .-t to 0% co .-t ° co, II 0% : N
?
to ..:
en
co
to
co
O
n
to
to
o
If,ao
to to`,
v} N
, r? II (4 N to
in ona 41* a%

N O C)
LM to
N N

ka %0 ko
d1 t/}

\ O O O O o o O O O O 11 O O O
t0 N .? o to -W o 0% - O -v
th
ii t`
t0 eh
'
to co to t0 ri r-t m N at to 11 0 .-1
N
to O ? ?. 11
1 U O n to o t` r cc a4 CO
A O to M (M ? co r-1 co 11 to, 01 to
Oo yr yr v} yr v? yr rh II o
VJ- %
?4
a
04
sa o o o C C o 0 0 0. an II )
o er to o to c to to Q . + II o
l? O eh. M " m - N N in " r In _
ri II n
z
m m ID m 0 QI m m m m.
r; $4 1a >4 $4 $4 $4 $4 " $4 $4 }.t
0 U U U U U U U U U G U-'
x a a a a a a s a a z a.
m
?
of m
0 m ? >,
E E•t E-4 4 0 to
A O
W
H
H
O
to to 0 to 4J
E .- 1•1 0 r-t 0 0 0 C: m
H 4-) 4j 4j 4j
-4 ? 41 r a a 0 a' r r 0 m
.. ..
(s? 0 0 0 +3 0 V q 43 V +) •rt •ri •rI ld
U J- b i-) m +-) 0 m m m m 0 4J M .
U r-I 0 14 rI 1.1 0 w w $4 $4 0 r.. U
a ru OD 04 OD m '0 0 04 m O m m m m m r.
0 0 0 4J 0 4 >~ 4-) > > > 5 0
1 0 5 14 5 (D 0 0 0 N of m 0 C R a m' 4-)
J-I .-I O U 0 0 O :-I 0 U 0 0 m 0 O O 4-) 03 m
E4 -1 04 1•r 14 14 ¢ 3.t_ N w U U U m m •r•I
z 0 O 4-1 >i 44 E 44 0 O+ p+ co E G+ 0 L4 m Ea
W D 34 4-) U k, 4-) U T! TI b. 3 H m U
U Cn -4 IT bt U 0) r-I Ot Ct r. I~ 0 a W
E+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I~ 12 ttl b b r4 10 h
4 O 0 rI •ri -11

' O •11 f7 -H

' -H -H 0 •rI

) .-1 r-A
r1
^

9
0

0
.-I
O
0 a
r?
4-) r,
too U
0
m 0 4.) v
+) O -H
0 Cl
0 U V
m 0 V
4-
"+J 0 a
0 a
0 0 -q t-a U P4
14 sa 04 14 0 M P P 04 1a 0 1.t W w w fy
e H
'? C7 m W m U m U m ?? U m U U U ?i r f. 1?
Q r-I

z o 4
.
U E-4
> e 1 N M v to t0 I? co 01 r-I 0 m C
t? W #1: -M ft: ## :m #h =w -M E-4 E•+ H
Ot
Ot
w
m
U
0
O m>
s? g
W 4-)
0 m
M $4
w '0
3 r.
0 w
0 0
0 v
i•t 40
.-I o
ri 4J
V 01
"
m
44
? p
b+ •r1
•? c
4L) 4.)
0 S4
,' 0
m 04
N m
0 0
b
$4 P
0 E
44 0
m
•? 0 ,
0
a
Of to,
qw to
a, U
!~ U
m 0z
m to
04 l
(1) 14 U m -1
-H 10 0 wwH
r? N m .
Table 4 - Estimated Average 'Annual Resource Protection Costs
Project, utlayw
Amortization of Operation,,
Evaluation unit installation maintenance, and
cost 2/ replacement cost Total
#1 Grain Cropland .
eroding from 8 to 15 TAY $15,100 $5,060 $20,160
#2 Specialty'Cropland-
eroding from 8 to 15 TAY $50,860 $21,960 $72,820
#3 Cotton CT Demonstration
eroding from 8 to 15 TAY $8,420 $4,050 $12,470
#4 Grain Cropland
eroding greater than 15 TAY' $5,580 $2,170 $7,750
#5 specialty Cropland
eroding greater than 15 TAY $17',900 $6,940, $24,840
#6 Cotton CT Demonstration
eroding greater than 15 TAY $3,580 $1,280 $4',860
#7 Cropland conversion to grass $14,220 $0 $1`4,220
#8 Cropland conversion to trees $2,180 $0 $2,180
#9` Cropland conversion to wetlands $54,900 $500 $55,400
-110 Animal Waste Mana ement Systems, - $16,440, $6,000 $22,446.
Grand Total $189,°180 $47,960 $237 140
December 1994-
1/ Price, base 1994, amortized over 25 `years at a discount rate of 8-percent.
2/ Includes Technical' Assistance
32

December 1994
1/' Price Base: 1994 and 5-year average agricultural commodity prices.
2/ 'Crop stand damage reduction includes 'Now-Time,' benefits from improved utilization of seed,
fertilizer, and herbicide onecropland acreage and the net nutrient value.,from utliization
of the animal` waste.;'
3/ Annual Offsite/Public benefits were distributed on a soil erosion reduction Per acre basis
in absence ofdetailed geological determination- of cropland evaluation units, while
improved water quality resulting from"the animal waste management systems and cropland
conversion"to-grass,,trees and wetlands`"were distributed using a regional benefit model.
Conversion to grass, trees and wetlands includes annual wildlife habitat' benefits of`$5.63/acre.
Conversion to wetlands through easement acquisition for mitigation "of unavoidable losses are assumed
to return benefits equal to the'cost of acquisition-plus restoration I measures paid by the NCDOT.
4/ From Table 4
5/ Onsite economic analysis of conversion to grass, trees'or wetlandswas not required;
however' offsite-benefits from wildlife habitat and `water !quality were estimated.
N/A - not applicable
34
Agriculture-re lated,DAMAge eduction
Total Total Damage
Maintaining Crop stand Offsite/ Average Average Reductio
Accatlerated Land '.Treatment Long-term Damage Public Annual Annual B/C
Evaluation Units' Productivity Reduction 2/ Benefits' 3/ Benefits costs 4/ Ratio
#1 Grain cropland -
1
8 to 15 T/A/Y $11,190 $3;070 $4,370 $18,630 $20,1G0 0.9 :1
#2 Specialty Cropland
8 to 15 T/A/Y $327,510 $49,920 $20,000 $397,430 $72,820 5.5 :1
#3 Cotton CT Demonstration.
8 to 15 T/A/Y $81,880 $12,480 $5,320 $99,680 $12,470 8.0 :1
#4 'Grain cropland
> 15 T/A/Y $11,520 $1;320 $2,940 $15,780 $7,750 2.0 :1
#5 Specialty cropland
> 15 T/A/Y $145,160 $15,760 $10,000 $170,920 $24,840 6.9 :1
16 Cotton CT Demonstration
> 15 T/A/Y $36,250 $3,940 $2,700 $42,890 $4,860 8.8 :1
17 Conversion to Grass /5 N/A N/A $12,530 $12,530 $14,2201 0.9 :1
#8 Conversion to Trees N/A N/A $4,180 $4,180 $2,180 1.9 :1
#9 Conversion to Wetlands N/A N/A $63,750 $63,750 $55,400 1.2 :1
W t t. Systems
,#10 Animal N/A $28,560, 122870 $151,430 $22,440, 6.7 :1
TOTALS 613 510 $115,6501 248:660 977 220 $237,140 . 4.1::1
RECOMMENDED PLAN
Purpose and Summary
Alternative 3 (RP) was chosen because it addresses the long-.range goals
of the Greene and Wayne Soil and Water Conservation Districts. It provides
protection for 7,000 acres of cropland, restores 500 acres of wetlands,
installs 15 animal waste management systems, and is acceptable to potential
participants. Approximately 74 percent of the major identified problems will
be treated with the combined recommended plan and the ongoing district
programs. Expected results include improved water quality and improved
aquatic and wildlife habitat in the watershed. The project will be
implemented under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act (PL-566, 83rd Congress), as amended. The sponsors will be the
Greene and Wayne Soil and Water Conservation Districts.
The recommended plan will be implemented by contacting landowners and
operators with cropland eroding at greater than 8 tons per acre per year. A
plan/schedule of operations will be the basis for long-term contracts (see
Installation and Financing). The land treatment systems will be installed
according to the NRCS Technical Guide.
Measures to be Installed
T:e recommended plan is for an accelerated technical and financial
assistance program. Public Law-566 technical assistance will accelerate
planning and installation of the land treatment systems. Federal funds
($767,070) in the form of cost-share payments will accelerate the treatment of
7,000 acres of cropland and install 15 animal waste management systems. NCDOT
will provide $551,250 for conservation easements and wetlands restoration on
500 acres of prior converted wetlands. The systems to be applied include:
1. Resource Management Systems using conservation tillage and water
disposal systems, with other cultural management practices
including contour farming, crop rotations, crop residue
management, and winter cover crops.
2. Resource Management Systems using water disposal systems, with
other cultural management practices including contour farming,
crop rotations, crop residue management, and winter cover crops.
3. Cropland conversion to permanent vegetation (grass, trees, and
wetland restoration).
4. Animal Waste Management Systems
Conservation practices to be cost-shared include:
Conservation Tillage (1,000 acres) Conversion to Grass (750 acres)
Diversions (50 acres) Conversion to Trees (750 acres)
GWW/FB (250 acres) Animal Waste Management Systems (15 units)
APRIL, 1995 35
Cropland conversion to permanent vegetative cover (grass or trees) will
be considered for fields or parts of fields as determined and recommended by
the local technical staff. These areas designated to be converted to
permanent vegetative cover may be eligible for the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP). Landowner constraints dictate that funds for cropland
conversion to permanent vegetative cover be provided without the CRP
restrictions. Under the PL-566 program, 6 percent of the cropland is expected
to be converted to permanent vegetation.
Conservation practices will be installed according to land treatment "
needs of the fields, the cost-effectiveness of the system and the future
management needs of the landowner/operator as documented in the plan/schedule
of operations. The program is strictly voluntary and alternative practices
which provide equal or greater benefits can be installed, but the cost-share
amount is limited to the amount per acre shown in the watershed agreement.
The ongoing program (CO-01, ACP, N.C. Agriculture Cost-Share Program) is
scheduled to treat 1,440 acres of eroding cropland over the next 6 years. The
accelerated PL-566 program will treat 70 percent of the remaining acres of
cropland eroding greater than 8 tons per acre per year.
Permits and Compliance
During the planning process, the Natural Resources Conservation Service
field office personnel are responsible for determining whether any earth-
disturbing activity will occur as part of an LTC. When earth-disturbing
activity is included as part of an LTC, the District Conservationist will
follow NRCS policy. The North Carolina State Historic Preservation. Officer
address is:
State Historic Preservation Officer
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
According to the Natural Heritage Program administered by the Division
of Parks and Recreation (NCDEHNR), there are no federally listed endangered or
threatened species in the watershed. The recommended plan will apply
conservation practices to cultivated cropland and provide for construction of
animal waste management facilities. None of these measures should adversely
affect any species of concern and should improve habitat for fish and wildlife
in the watershed.
The wetland reestablishment will be done on existing cropland and will
not require a "404" permit.
36 APRIL, 1995
TABLE J - EFFECTS ON RESOURCES OF NATIONAL RECOGNITION
Types of Resource Principal Sources of Measure of Effects
National Recognition
Air Quality
Clean Air Act, as amended,
(42 USC 7401, et seq.)
No effect.
Areas of Particular
rt Concern within the
Coastal Zone
Endangered and
Threatened Species
Critical Habitat
Fish and Wildlife
Habitat
Flood plains
Historic & cultural
properties
Prise & unique farmland
Water quality
Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972, as amended,
(16 USC 1451, et.seq.)
Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended, (16 USC
1531, et seq.)
Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, (16 USC
661, et seZ . )
Executive Order 11988,
Floodplain Management
National Historic
Preservation act of 1966,
as amended, (15 USC 470,
ec sec.)
CEQ Memorandum of August
1, 1980: Analysis of
Impacts on Prime or Unique
Agricultural lands in
Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act,
Farmland Protection Policy
Act of 1981
Clean Water Act of 1977,
(33 USC 1251, et seq.)
Wetlands Executive Order 11990,
Protection of Wetlands;
Clean Water Act of 1977,
(33 USC 1251 et seq.);
Food Security Act of 1985
Wild & scenic rivers Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act, (16 USC 1271, et
seq.)

Project is not in
the Coastal Zone.
Not present in
planning area.
1,500 acres of
cropland converted
to permanent
vegetation
500 acres of
wetlands restored in
the flood plain.
No Effect.
4,275 acres of Prime
and Important
farmland protected.
Long term benefits
from reduced farm
impacts.
500 acres of
wetlands (bottomland
hardwoods) restored.
Not Applicable.
APRIL, 1995 37
TABLE K - COMPLIANCE WITH WRC-DESIGNATED ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES
NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED
Federal Policies Compliancelo
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act,
16 USC 469, et seq Full Compliance
Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 USC 1857h-7, et seq Full Compliance
Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act),
33 USC 1251, et seq Full Compliance
Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended,
16 USC 1451, et seq Not Applicable
Endangered Species Act, as amended, 16 USC 1531, et seq Full Compliance
Estuary Protection Act, 16 USC 1221, et seq Not Applicable
Federal Water Project Recreation Act,
16 USC 460-1(12), et seq Full Compliance
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 USC 661, et seq Full Compliance
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act,
16 USC 450/-460/-11, et seq Not Applicable
'iarine Protection, Research, and Sanctuary Act,
33 USC 1401, et seq Not Applicable
National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC 4321, et seq Full Compliance
National Historic Preservation Act, 15 USC 403, et seq Full Compliance
Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403, et seq Not Applicable
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act,
16 USC 1001, et seq Full Compliance
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 USC 1271, et seq. Not Applicable
loFull Compliance - Having met all requirements of the statute for the
current stage of planning.
Partial Compliance - Not having met some of the requirements that normally
are met in the current stage of planning.
Non-Compliance - Violation of a requirement of the statute.
Not Applicable - No requirements for the statue require compliance for the
current stage of planning.
w
M
R
38 APRIL, 1995
The project as planned, is consistent with the findings of past studies
and with the policies of NCDEHNR. The PL-566 program will allow the Greene
and Wayne Soil and Water Conservation Districts to provide more technical
assistance in the planning and installation of Best Management Practices to
protect water quality in the watershed. The PL-566 financial funds will allow
an accelerated program of land treatment not possible under the present
ongoing program.
i Costs
The cost of the project is estimated to be $2,019,680 (Table 1). Public
Law-566 funds will be used for technical assistance ($297,410) to the
districts and for cost-share payments ($767,070) to the landowners and/or
operators. The PL-566 portion is 53 percent of the total costs. The North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is responsible for costs
associated with the wetland restoration ($551,250). Other costs ($403,950)
will be the responsibility of the local sponsors and the landowners/operators.
Installation and Financing
The Greene and Wayne Soil and Water Conservation Districts (Sponsors)
will encourage landowners/operators to install, operate, and maintain the Best
Management Practices proposed. The Districts will approve all plans/schedules
of operations and determine eligibility for cost sharing. Where operators are
not the landowners, a permit or 'Lease will be needed to insure adequate
control of the land under contract for accelerated technical and financial
assistance.
MRCS will provide accelerated technical and financial assistance through
Long Term Contracts (LTCs) under PL-566 guidelines. Use of PL-566 funds will
be limited to the most cost-effective conservation practices. Other practices
which achieve the same level of protection can be substituted but cost sharing
will be limited to what would be needed for the most cost-effective
conservation practices. The estimated schedule of obligating PL-566 is
displayed in Table L.
NCDOT will provide 100% of the funds needed for the conservation
easements and wetland restoration measures in accordance with the Memorandum
of Agreement between NCDOT and the Districts.
Landowners or operators must apply for assistance through the Soil and
Water Conservation District by completing the prescribed form. Priority for
assistance will be based on those areas with the most severe water quality
impacts those practices that will result in maximum benefits, and those
landowners or operators who are ready to execute LTCs.
APRIL, 1995 39
TABLE L - SCHEDULE OF OBLIGATIONS
NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED
Year Measures PL-566 Funds Other Total
1st Land Treatment" $115,060 $139,340 $254,400
Project Administration $ 44,620 $ 3,940 $ 48,560
2nd Land Treatment $153,410 $185,790 $339,200
Project Administration $ 59,480 $ 5,250 $ 64,730
3rd Land Treatment $191,780 $232,240 $424,020
Project Administration $ 74,350 $ 6,560 $ 80,920
4th Land Treatment $153,410 $185,790 $339,200
Project Administration $ 59,480 $ 5,250 $ 64,730
5th Land Treatment $153,410 $185,790 $339,200
Project Administration $ 59,480 $ 5,250 $ 64,730
The plan/schedule of operations will be used as a basis for developing
the LTC with NRCS. Funding will be based on eligible Best Management
Practices in the plan/schedule of operations. Cost-share payments will be
made to the landowner/operator on completion of installation of practices or
components of practices. Cost-share payments are to be based on a percentage
of average costs and will be recorded in the LTC.
Average costs are to be developed for each practice or component of a
practice and are to be included in a plan/schedule of operations developed
with the landowner/operator. PL-566 funding on LTCs is limited to a total of
$100,000 with an individual landowner or operator.
The number of contracts on cropland has been estimated at 375 (average
20 acres per contract). An additional 15 contracts will be needed for animal
waste management systems. The cost-sharing rate will be limited to 65 percent
of the average cost for enduring conservation practices and 50 percent for
animal waste management systems.
Incentive payments for the Conservation Tillage Cotton Demonstration
Project will be limited to a total of 1,000 acres at $10 per acre for a period
of not more than tree years and a maximum of 100 acres per operator.
Estimated installation costs (including distribution of contracts and
conservation practices) are summarized in Table 1.
11Technical assistance includes project administration.

k
40 APRIL, 1995
4
TABLE M PROJECTED WORK SCHEDULE FOR NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED
YEAR PERCENT CONTRACTS' ACRES AWMS WORKER-YEARS
NRCS FS TOTAL
1 15 59 1,125 2 1.7 0.2 1.9
2 20 78 „ 1,500 3 2.2 0.2 2.4
3 25 98 1,875 4 2.5 .0.2 2.7
4 20 78 1,500 3 2.2 0.2 : 2.4
5 20 78 1,500 3 2.2 0.2 2.4
TOTAL 100 390 7,500 15 10.8 1.0 11.8 ;
.Average size of contract: 20 acres or 1 AWMS
Average NRCS Worker-Year: 800 acres or 10 AWMS
PL-566 funding will be available for a 5 year sign-up period. The
contract period for LTCs will be not less than 3 years and will extend for at
least 2 years after the initial application of the last required conservation
treatment to ensure adequate establishment of the treatment. The selected plan
provides for approximately 11.8 worker-years of technical assistance for the 5
years. The ongoing conservation program through the Greene and Wayne Soil and
Water Conservation District will be responsible for follow-up on the LTCs
after the last year of the project.
The conservation compliance provisions in the Food Security Act of 1985
and the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 will increase
participation in the project area. Local landowners will be directed to the
District offices for conservation plans and installation of conservation
practices. Those landowners within the watershed can participate in the
project through LTCs with NRCS.
The State Agricultural Cost Share Program is operating in the watershed
area. This program provides funding for installing Best Management Practices
that improve water quality. Many management practices (sod rotation, animal
waste utilization, etc.) that are not available through PL-566 are available
through the State program. The sponsors will utilize both the PL-566 project
and State Cost Share program together for a highly effective treatment of the
water quality and erosion problems within the watershed.
Operation. Maintenance, and Replacement
The landowners or operators will be subject to reimbursement of payments
(or portions thereof) should they fail to properly operate and maintain the
conservation systems and practices for the life of the practice or the
duration of the easement. Operation and maintenance requirements will be
included in the plan/schedule of operations for each contract or easement.
Conservation easements for the restored wetlands will be held by the
local Soil and Water Conservation Districts in perpetuity.
APRIL, 1995
41
REFERENCES
Clark, E. H. II, J. A. Haverkamp, and W. Chapman, Eroding Soils: The Off-Farm
Impacts 1985
Conservation Foundation, The, Protecting America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda
(The Final Report of the National Wetlands Policy Forum), 1988
Fish, F.F. A Catalog, of the Inland Fishing Waters in North Carolina, Division
of Inland Fisheries. 1968
Frye, W. W., 0. L. Bennett, and G. J. Buntley, "Restoration of Crop
Productivity on Eroded or Degraded Soils" Soil Erosion and Crop Productivity,
1985
Larson, W.E., F. J. Pierce and R.H. Dowdy. "The Threat of Soil Erosion to Long
Term Crop Production", Science 219: 458-465, 1983
North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service. Soil Facts: Swine Manure as a
Fertilizer Source. 1990
North Carolina Agricultural Research Service. Soil Svstems in North Carolina.
1984
North Carolina Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. North Carolina
Agricultural Statistics. Annual
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, hater Quality Section, water Quality
Pro=ress in North Carolina. 1988 1989 3P5b Reoor` Report 90-07, November,
1989
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section, Neuse Basinwide
Water Qualitv Management Plan - DRAFT -, October, 1992
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development,
Division of Environmental Management. Assessment of Surface Water Quality in
North Carolina. 1985
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Greene Soil and Water
Conservation District, and Wayne Soil and water Conservation District,
Memorandum of Agreement for Restoring Wetlands in Nahunta Swamp Watershed,
October, 1994
North Carolina Soil and Water Conservation Commission and the "208"
Agricultural Task Force. Water Quality and Agriculture: A Management Plan.
1979
North Carolina State University, Agricultural Extension Service. Farm
Enterprise Budget Guidelines. Annual
APRIL, 1995
43
North Carolina State University National Water Quality Evaluation Project..
Rural Clean Water Program - Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Report.
1985
Pionke, H. B. and J. B. Urban. "Effect of Agricultural Land Use on Ground-
Water Quality in a small Pennsylvania Watershed," Ground Water, 23 (1): 68-80,
1985
Rosenberry, P., R. Knutsen, and L. Harmon, "Predicting the Effects of Soil
Depletion from Erosion," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 35 (3):
131-134, 1980
Shaw, S.P., and C.G. Fredine, Wetlands of the United States, Circular 39, US
Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior, 1956
Soil Survey of Greene County (March, 1980)
Soil Survey of Wayne County (June, 1974)
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. An Appraisal of Potentials for Outdoor Recreational Development for
Greene Countv. North Carolina. 1973
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. An Appraisal of Potentials for Outdoor Recreational Development for
Javne Countv. North Carolina. 1973
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation.
Service. Erosion and Sediment Inventorv for North Carolina. 1977
United States Departments of Comaerce (Bureau of the Census) and the Interior
(Fish and Wildlife Service), 1980 National Survev of Fishing. Hunting and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation - North Carolina.
United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States Department of
the Army, Memorandum of the Field Establishing and Use of Wetland Miti ag_tion
Banks in the Clean Water Act Section 404 Regulatory Program, August 23, 1993
World Health Organization, 1977, Environmental Health Criteria 5 - Nitrates.
Nitrites, and N-Nitroso Compounds
A,
M
44 APRIL, 1995
LIST OF PREPARERS
Nahunta Swamp Watershed
Greene and Wayne Counties, North Carolina
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
a
Carroll Pierce, Assistant Director for Technical Services
David Harrison, Watershed Planning Conservationist
Glenn Sappie, Economist
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Natural Resources Conservation Service
STATE OFFICE
James Canterberry, State Resource Conservationist
Kim Kroger, Geologist
FIELD OFFICE
Deirdre Debrule, District Conservationist, Greene County
Patricia S. Gabriel, District Conservationist, Wayne County
FOREST SERVICE
SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE
Elizabeth Caldwell, Watershed Specialist
Dale Rapin. Watershed Specialist
APRIL, 1995 45
J?,<EO V4.,eS
J
1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Fhr4i a+olt." REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365 nM
January 18, 1995
j
State Conservationist
Natural Resources Conservation Service
4405 Bland Road
Suite 205
Raleigh, NC 27609
Subject: Environmental Assessment (EA) and "Finding Of
No Significant Impact" (FONSI) for the Nahunta
Swamp Watershed, Greene and Wayne Counties, NC
Dear Mr. Gallo:
Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, EPA, Region IV
has reviewed the subject EA which describes the measures to
address excessive erosion and nutrients impacting the Nahunta
Swamp Watershed. These. problems are the result of sedimentation
produced from row crop farming and discharges of waste from animal
operations into receiving waters. The proposed corrective plan
will provide conservation tillage for 1000 acres, 15 animal waste
management systems, wetland restoration, and water disposal
systems.
On the basis of the information provided it does not appear
that the scope /consequence of the proposal will required its
evaluation in the context of an environmental impact statement.
Moreover, the significant and/or long-term adverse environmental
impacts of the action are within acceptable limits to achieve
project objectives. Therefore, we have no significant objections
to the proposed FONSI.
If we can be of further assistance in this matter, Dr. Gerald
Miller 404-347-3776 will serve as initial point of contact.
Sincerely yours,
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
Environmental Policy Section
Federal Activities Branch
49 Printed on Recycled Paper

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO February 16, 1995
Planning Division
RECEIVED
FEB 22 M5
SOIL & WATER
Mr. C. Dewey Botts, Director
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Botts:
This is in response to your letter of December 27, 1994,
requesting our comments on the "draft Watershed Plan-Environmental
Assessment (Plan EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
for the Nahunta Swamp Watershed, Greene and Wayne Counties, North
Carolina" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199501258)..
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional
resources, such as waters, wetlands, and Corps of Engineers'
projects. The proposed watershed plan does not appear to impact
any Corps-constructed flood control or navigation project. Our
comments on the other issues are enclosed.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we
can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
?r
Wilbert V. Paynes
Acting Chief, Planning Division
Enclosure
50
February 16, 1995
Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
Draft Watershed Plan-Environmental Assessment (Plan EA) and Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Nahunta Swamp Watershed, Greene and Wayne
Counties, North Carolina (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199501258)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC -
The portion of Nahunta Swamp considered in the proposed watershed plan is
located in Greene and Wayne Counties and has been identified through flood
insurance studies as a flood hazard area. It is a detail study stream with
100-year flood elevations determined and a floodway defined. From a review of
the September 1983 Wayne County Flood Insurance Rate Map, the Slough is also a
detail study stream. This stream, identified as Exum Mill Branch on the Wayne
County Soils Map, is a tributary of Nahunta Swamp and is shown in the
Environmental Assessment as a part of the watershed study area.
Wayne County participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP),
but Greene County does not. If any activities or planned improvements will
by-'-aulicaily affect these streams in Wayne County, we suggest that you
coordinate with that county for compliance with their flood plain ordinance.
In addition, if any fill is planned within the designated floodways in Wayne
County, a certification will be required indicating that there will be no
increase in the 100-year natural water surface elevation. Although Greene
County does not participate in the NFIP, it is recommended that the hydraulic
effects of any planned improvements be considered in the Greene County portion
of the study area as well.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - David Lekson, Washington F
a. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended,
prior Department of the Army (DA) approval is required for the discharge of
dredged or fill material and/or excavation within waters of the United States,
including wetlands. Review of the DRAFT document revealed that all work is
proposed to be undertaken within existing cultivated cropland. Please be
advised that any work proposed within waters or wooded areas should be
inspected by our Regulatory Branch for a determination of Federal jurisdiction
and DA permitting authority.
b. On February 6, 1990, the Department of the Army and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
establishing procedures to determine the type and level of mitigation
necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines.
This MOA provides for sequencing by first, avoiding impacts to waters and
wetlands through the selection of the least damaging, practicable alternative;
second, taking appropriate and practicable steps to minimize impacts to waters
and wetlands; and finally, compensating for any remaining unavoidable impacts
to the extent appropriate and practicable.
51
February 16, 1995
Page 2 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
Draft Watershed Plan-Environmental Assessment (Plan EA) and Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Nahunta Swamp Watershed, Greene and Wayne
Counties, North Carolina (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199501258)
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (continued)
To enable us to process any permit application in full compliance with this
MOA, a detailed alternatives analysis must be submitted addressing the above
sequencing requirements.
c. On October 20, 1994, Messrs. David Lekson and Ken Jolly of the
Regulatory Branch met with Mr. David Harrison, Watershed Conservationist.
Mr. Dennis Pipkin and Mrs. Robin Little, North Carolina Department of
Transportation; Mr. Ron Ferrell, North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management; and Mr. Eric Penley also attended this meeting. The purpose of
this meeting was to discuss this project in relation to Corps of Engineers'
guidelines regarding acceptable compensatory mitigation, as well as the
potential for the North Carolina Department of Transportation to utilize these
restored areas for mitigation credits. Mr. Harrison has been provided with
written Wilmington District Regulatory Branch guidance regarding development
of mitigation plans and projects. Concurrence by our Regulatory Branch is
required prior to the acceptance of any restored areas for mitigation credits
on highway projects.
d. Implementation of this watershed project in no way obligates the Corps
of Engineers to accept any of this work as mitigation for North Carolina
Department of Transportation projects or any other project requiring DA permit
authorization.
If you have any questions or comments related to DA permits, please
contact Mr. Lekson.
RE.
FEB 22 1995
So? -R
52
, North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service
y NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & LIFE SCIENCES
ANR/CRD Office • Box 7602 • Raleigh, NC 27695-7602 e Tel: [phone] FAX (919) 515'`3135` ,
••• 5 h
i ?? ice?
February 10, 1995
Mr. C. Dewey Botts
Division of Soil and
Water Conservation
512 N. Salisbury Street
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Dear Dewey,
We're writing in response to your letter to Dr. Wells on
December 27, 1994 to review the Nahunta Swamp Watershed Plan and
Assessment document. The document was reviewed by Drs. Greg
Jennings, Robert Evans, Roger Crickenbercer and Joe Zublena. As an
overview of the reviewers comments, everyone felt the project was
noteworthy and supported the request for funding. Several diverse
question were raised that may be easily answered by your Division
due to greater familiarity with the funding sources. I will list
the cuestion and comments below in no particular order of
i:..pV_ Lance•
1. There appears to be a lack of initial assessment,
monitoring, evaluation or final impact in the proposal.
If the project is successful, how will you know?
2. How does this project differ from 319 NPS projects?
3. Suggestion to alter the riparian restoration efforts
to include 100% of the stream length in the targeted
area, not just the 500 acres.
4. There does not appears to be any educational objectives
to inform area citizens of project intent, informational
updates or final results.
5. In an environment of governmental cooperation (i.e.
Capacity Building) is there a reason Cooperative Extension
was not or should not be involved in this project? There
does appear to be several roles Extension could play in
this project (i.e. no-till cotton production
demonstrations, educational roles, and citizen field day
programs).
Employment and program opportunities are offered to all people regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, age or handicap.
North Carolina State Uruversity, North Carolina A&T State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local governments cooperating.
53
Page Two
February 10, 1995
6. Are these funds particularly targeted for accelerated
adoption of legislated BMPs or should they go beyond what ,
is required by .0200 regulations and conservation
compliance etc.?
Sincere y,
Roger G. Crickenb ger
Interim Assistant Director, ANR/CRD
Joseph P. Zublena
Associate State Program Leader, NR/CRD
JPZ/tpM
54
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
`"208 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
02-15-95

INTERGOYERNT,?!„f??ilD
W COMMENTS
MAILED TO RR tt?,yyLL FROM
N.C. DEPT- OF EHNR FEB 17 1993 MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
DEWEY BOTTS iRECTOR
DIV. OF SOIL 6 WATER CONS. SOIL & WATER C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
ARCHDALE BLDG/INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DRAFT EA/FCNSI FOR THE WATERSHED PLAN FOR THE NAHUNTA SWAMP
WATERSHED
SAI NO 95E43000457 PROGRAM TITLE - DRAFT EA/FONSI
THE ABCVE PRCJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHCULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONSt PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]-
C.C- REGION P
55
? l
iaT/t•?..t%?1.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 10, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Division of Soil and Water Conservation
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Na ura Resources
FROM: David Brook 1'14
Deputy State is oric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Draft Watershed Plan EA/FONSI, Nahunta Swamp
Watershed, Greene and Wayne Counties, CH 95-E-
4300-0457
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
r
We contacted the Natural Resources Conservation Service to get more information
on the proposed animal waste sites. We understand these animal waste sites will
consist of small lagoons or, individual farms and the exact locations will depend
upon requests by individual -arm owners. We request additional information be
sent to us when the sites are chosen so we can determine if any historic farms will
be affected. If any of the selected farms have a majority of buildings over fifty
years old, please send a county map showing the location of these farms. We will
continue our review at that time.
We note that an archaeological overview of the area has been completed by
Coastal Carolina Research. The overview delineates areas of archaeological
sensitivity and establishes a resource management plan which should be followed
for development projects. Contrary to the statement on page 35 that there will be
no effect on historic and cultural resources, each project will need review to
determine any potential effect.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, Noah Carolina 27601-2807
56
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
'?L3

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
EHN
TO: Chrys Baggett
FROM: Melba McGee
RE: 95-0457 EA/FONSI Nahunta Swamp Watershed Pland, Green
and Wayne Counties
DATE: February 10, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are for
the applicant's consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments

i r L5 L9
cm 15 1994
J
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
A?
Equal 0;=rturnty A,firmcfive Action Employer °o recycled/ 10°o post-consumer p=er
50
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LATE
TEL:y19-52S-9S3a
Jan ?b' 95 10:52 Nn .0071' P _ C)3
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM : Franklin T. McBride, Manager
Habitat C^nservaticn Program
Date: January 26, 1995
Subject: Environmental Assessment/Finding o No Signi=icant
Impact for Nahunta Swamp Watershed Plan and
Envirorimental Assessment, Greene and Wayne Counties,
tiorc:: Carc_i na. F_c;ec- 9=-04-57.
Staff, hiclogists with the Wildlife :resources Commission have
reviewed the subject Environmental Assessment/Finding of No
Significant Impact (EA/FONSI). Our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions o` the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et. seq.) and the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)).
The EA/FONSI concerns conservation land treatment programs
within the Nahunta Swamp Watershed developed by the NC Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Soil
and Water Conservation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service. Proposed measures
include conservation land treatment measures on 7,000 acres of
cropland, the restoration of 500 acres of wetlands, and the
installation of animal waste management systems. This project
should reduce the amount of silt and sedimentation and nutrients
entering streams within the watershed improving water quality and
benefiting aquatic resources within the area. Also, increased
vegetative cover resulting from the conservation measures should
enhance wildlife habitat and especially benefit small game
species.

58
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LRKE TEL:[phone] Jan 25'95 10:53 No.003 P.04
Nahunta Swamp watershed Plan 2 1/26/55
Project No. 95-0457
Although we acknowledge the positive benefits resulting from
the restoration of wetland areas, we are concerned about using
these areas for mitigation banking purposes for NC Department of
Transportation projects. Along with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, we would like to be included in the development -
process for the mitigation banking plan. Also, we recommend that
this mitigation bank only be used for restoration credits for the
loss of wetlands resulting from projects located within the
Nahunta Swamp Watershed and not for areas outside this region.
Another area of concern relates to the allowance of timber
harvesting within restored wetland areas. Although Best
Management Practices for forested wetlands will be used, we feel
that these areas should not be included within the mitigation
banking plan and only areas with a permanent conservation
easement be included.
A
Provided the aforementioned areas of concern are addressed,
we will concur with the EA/FONSI. Also, we would like recognize
the importance of such conservation plans for this watershed and
recommend that similar measures be undertaken in other areas.
Thank you f---r the opportunity to comment on this project
If you have any concerns about our cc-mmencs, please contact Brad
E. :Hammers at (919; -9s?-1167.
2t/fm
CC • ?rG? Hammers, D'4 Qzr4C.
Wave Jones, Discric- 4 Fisheries Bioloc'sty
Bobby Maddrey, District 2 Wildlife Biologist
Bennett Wynne, Fisheries Coordinator
59
w
1
Selected Alternative
Regional Development Account
Nahunta Swamp Watershed
Greene and Wayne Counties, North Carolina
Measures of Effects
Components State of NC Rest of Nation
(Average Annual) 1
Beneficial Effects
A. The value of maintaining
productivity on cropland $613,510 0
B. The value of reducing
concurrent damage $115,050 0
C. The value of off-site
Damage Reduction $248.660 0
Total beneficial effects $977,220 0
Adverse Effects _ s
A. The value of resources
contributed from within the
region to achieve the outputs
1. Accelerated Land Treatment
Project Installation $112,160 $77,020
OM&R $ 47 960 0
Total adverse effects
$160,120 $77,020
Net beneficial effects $817,100 -$77,020
1 Period of analysis of 25 years at 8 percent discount rate.
Price Base: 1994
Economic Analysis of on-site benefits of conversion was not conducted
and those benefits were not estimated.
APRIL, 1995
63
Selected Alternative
National Economic Development Account
Nahunta Swamp Watershed
Greene and Wayne Counties, North Carolina
Components 1 Measures of Effects
(Average Annual)
Beneficial Effects
A. The value of maintaining
productivity on cropland $613,510
B. The value of reducing
concurrent damage $115,050
C. The value of off-site
Damage Reduction $248,660
Total beneficial effects $977,220
Adverse Effects
A. The value of resources required
for a plan:
i. Accelerated Land Treatment
Project Installation $189,180
OM&R $ 47 960
Total adverse effects
$740,080
Net beneficial effects
$740,080
1
Period of analysis.of 25 years at 8 percent discount rate.
Price Base: 1994
Economic Analysis of on-site benefits of conversion was not conducted
and those benefits were not estimated.

64 APRIL, 1995
Selected Alternative
Environmental Quality Account
Nahunta Swamp Watershed
Greene and Wayne Counties, North Carolina
r

Components Measures of Effects
Beneficial and Adverse Effects
A. Quality considerations of 1. Reduce sedimentation and
water, land and air resources nutrient loading of Nahunta
Swamp Watershed
2. Protect soil resource base on
5,700 acres of cropland
B. Biological resources and
selected ecosystems
1. Improve small game habitat
on 7,500 acres
2. Improve fishery habitat by
reducing sediment delivery by 15,800
tons per year
3. Improve fish habitat in 136
miles of` stream and 43 ponds
C. Irreversible or irretrievable
commitments
Social Well-being Account
Nahunta Swamp Watershed
Greene and Wayne Counties, North Carolina
Components Measures of Effects
Beneficial and Adverse Effects
Life, Health and Safety
1. Commit labor and capital
resources needed for project
installation
1. Allow farm operators to better
utilize available cropland and
conduct farming operations more
efficiently
2. Decrease non-point source
pollutants into the stream system
APRIL., 1995
65

APPENDIX C - MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN NCDOT AND GREENE AND WAYNE SWCDS
APRIL, 1995
67
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
a
1
GREENE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT,
AND WAYNE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on the date
hereinbelow last written, by and between the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Greene Soil and Water
Conservation District (SWCD), and Wayne Soil and Water
Conservation District (SWCD).
WHEREAS, under existing provisions of State and Federal law
the NCDOT, Greene SWCD, and Wayne SWCD are.authorized to enter
into agreements; and
WHEREAS, the Nahunta Swamp Watershed Project (PL-566) has an
estimated 1,200 acres of prior converted wetlands that have
potential to be restored to their previous condition through
appropriate restoration and management techniques;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed a7mong the three
parties that the following general provisions are adopted and
will be implemented as indicated.
General Provisions
1. The Greene and Wayne SWCDs will act as agents between the
landowner and the NCDOT. The SWCDs will contact eligible
landowners in the Nahunta Swamp Watershed for the purchase
of conservation easements during the five (5) year
installation period for the Nahunta Swamp Watershed Plan
(PL-566). The SWCDs will develop a reasonable easement
purchase price in consultation with local sources to be
offered to all landowners, subject to NCDOT approval. The
SWCDs will hold the conservation easement in perpetuity.
2. The Greene and Wayne SWCDs will develop the wetland
restoration plans in cooperation with other agencies. The
plans will identify measures which will be implemented by
the landowner to restore the wetlands. All plans will be
approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to
mitigative action.
69
3. The NCDOT will provide funds for all costs associated with
the purchase of conservation easements and implementation of
wetland restoration measures. The NCDOT will provide legal
and surveying services for the easements as needed.
4. Two (2) years after implementation of a wetland restoration
plan, a complete review of the wetland restoration effort
will be made by the parties involved to evaluate success and
to take corrective actions as needed. The NCDOT will
provide funding for the corrective actions provided that all
mitigation measures are installed and implemented in
compliance with the approved plan.
5. This MOA does not eliminate the landowner's or agencies'
responsibilities under all applicable Federal, State, and
local laws and/or regulations.
6. Amendment or modification of the MOA may be proposed at any
time, but will not be adopted unless agreed to by all
parties. If proposed revisions are not agreed to within one
(1) year after submission, then the party proposing the
revision may elect to terminate its participation in the
agreement at the end of that one year period.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement
to be executed on the date hereinbelow last written.
/f z4/E
Secretar Date
N.C. Department of Transportation
Cha rman Date
Greene Soil and Water Cons ation District
Chai an Date
Wayne Soil and Water C reservation District
19

70
TYPICAL WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN OF OPERATION
The primary goal in this wetland restoration plan is the restoration of
bottomland hardwood habitat adjacent to Nahunta Swamp and it's tributaries
(riparian areas) to improve water quality and improve wildlife and aquatic
habitat. The vegetation to be established will trap sediment and nutrients
from adjoining cropland as well as provide food and cover for both game and
non-game species. The restroed riparian area will also provide valuable
travel corridors along the stream.
Field No. 2 represents a typical proir converted wetland in Nahunta
Swamp Watershed. The fieldconsists of 8 acres of Johnston loam soils
currently being farmed. Johnston soils are very poorly drained, nearly level
soils on wide, flat low flood plains along large drainageways. The seasonal
high water table is at the surface. Flooding is very frequent. A
representative profile near the junction of Exum Mill Branc and Nahunta Swamp
includes:
Ap - 0 to 10 inches, very dark-grey (10YR 3/1) loam
Al - 10 to 28 inches, black (10YR 2/1) loam
Blg - 28 to 32 inches, grey (10YR 5/1) sandy loam
B2g - 32 to 45 inches, grayish-brown (10YR 5/2) sandy loam
Cg - 45 to 65 inches, light grey (10YR 7/1) sand
There are no restrictive layers in the soil. Hydrology is a function of
landscape position and frequent flooding.
There is an intercepter ditch (Ditch 1) running parallel with Nahunta
Swamp, seperating hte upland area from the flood plain. There is a property
line ditc'^ (Ditch 2) that directs the flow from Ditc,11 1 to ' ahiinta Swamp.
Ditch 2 must remain open for the adl oining landowner unless he ca-. be
persuaded to cooperate with the wetland restoration program. A major goal of
the Soil & Water Conservation Districts will be to have as many adjacent
landowners cooperating as possible to increase the effectiveness of the
project.
NRCS's standards and specifications for wetland restoration 12 will be
followed execpt that the US Army Corps of Engineers' recommendations 13 for
species composition and survival rates will take precedence. The US Army
Corps of Engineers recommend a minimum of 6 hardwood species with no more than
20% of any one species. Planting will be on a 10 by 10 foot spacing (435
trees per acre). The goal will be a minimum of 320 trees per acre surviving
for 3 years after the wetland hydrology has been reestablished. Pine will not
be planted and should account for less than 10% of the total site species.
12 Natural Resorces Conservation Service Technical Guide, Section IV,
Practice Code 657, Wetland Restoration, (July, 1992)
13ComDensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines, US Army Corps of Engineers,
December, 1993
APRIL, 1995 73
Tree planting will be done before the hydraulic modifications are made
to reduce seedling mortality. The wetland hydrology will be reestablished in
as simple a manner as possible to reduce operation and maintenance costs.
Earthen plugs, 100 feet in length, will be used to block the drainage ditches.
The number of plugs and their location will be determined during individual
field planning. Overland flow from the adjacent slopes and the periodic
flooding of Nahunta Swamp will be sufficient to restore the wetland hydrology.
There will be no need for diking, levees, or other ponding structures.
At the landowner's request, and with the concurrence of the sponsors and
the US Army Corps of Engineers, wildlife/waterfowl enhancement measures
(shallow open Water) may be allowed but will be limited to less than 10% of
the surface area of the site. The costs associated with the installation of
these enhancement measures will be the responsibility of the landowner. The
acreage devoted to enhancement measures will not be abailable for use in the
proposed mitigation bank.
Timber harvesting will be permitted in accordance with a wetland timber
management plan developed with the concurrence of the US Army Corps of
Engineers. Best Management Practices for forested wetlands will be used to
maintain the hydrology, vegetative communtiy, and other wetland functions and
values. Clear cutting will not be allowed.
The NC Department of Transportation will be providing funds for purchase
of the conservation easements and restoration of the wetland areas. After the
wetlands have been restored, a wetlands mitigation bank plan will be developed
with the concurrence of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Included in the
mitigation bank plan will be as-built plans of the wetland restoration and a
report on the restored hydrology. Best Management Practices on Critically
eroding cropland adjacent to the restored wetland areas will reduce
sedimentation. Provisions in the conservation easements will protect the
restored wetland areas from destruction by h wman/animal actions (4-wheel drive
vehicles, beaver foraging, etc.).
74 APRIL, 1995
CONSERVATION PLAN/SCHEDULE OF OPERATIONS 1 of 2

NAME: EXAMPLE
COUNTY: WAYNE
STATE: NC
CONTRACT NO.: 1-T-5431 TOTAL ACRES
UNDER CONTRACT: 8.18
SUMMARY OF WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN OF OPERATION (WRPO)
PURPOSE AND FUNCTION:
This Wetland Restoration easement will restore a palustrine forested wetland
(bottomland hardwood). Wetland values that will be restored include wildlife
L habitat, water quality improvement, recreation, and forest resources.
SUMMARY:
The 8.18 acres shown on the attached plan of operation map will be placed under a
perpetual conservation easement. The WRPO will:
1. Restore the bottomland hardwood community by planting trees (water hickory,
overcup oak, laurel oak, willow oak, persimmon, cottonwood, green ash, american
elm, and river birch) on a 10 foot by 10 foot spacing (435 trees per acre).
2. Restore the wetland hydrology by installing a ditch plug (100 ft. long) where
shown on the plan of operation map.
3. Allow the NC Department of Transportation to secure mitigation credits with
the US A=.y Corps of Engineers.
COMPATIBLE USES:
The following uses have been determined to be compatible with the purpose for
which this wetland Restoration cC=tract and conservation easement is establis:ed:
1. Hunting, fishing, trapping, birdwatching, and recreational hiking that is
fully consistent with state and federal regulations, including the leasing of
such rights to others.
2. Selective timber harvesting in accordance with a wetland timber management plan
developed with concurrence by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The plan will
utilize approved Best Management Practices for wetlands to maintain the hydrology,
the vegetative community, and other wetland functions and values. Clear cutting
will not be permitted. Streamside Management Zones will be established adjacent
to Nahunta Swamp and its tributaries.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE:
1. Adequate maintenance will be provided to facilitate establishment of woody
vegetation. This may require some suppression of weeds and pine species. The area will
be considered established to woody vegetation if 320 stems per acre are surviving for
three growing seasons after the wetland hydrology has been reestablished. Species
composition will include at least 6 hardwoods with no single species accounting
for more than 20% of the population.
2. The ditch plugs will be maintained for the life of the easement.
75
O O O O
O O O O
F? n O co N

C,4 Aq E N CN M
. 0 CD
E N
.r
Gr
O W
W

N
04 W
v
U >4

E-4 W ?q
m rn
O O U
V
i
E U
O x
H o 0 0 0 0 0
I
E
w o 0 0 0 0 0
E-g

114
U -4 V). -4
z
O p
U W

to 0
z -, E-4
4
0
0
p E C
U H
E I Ln n
N
I n)
N I
H
E .
9
I , 01 I C ''
E
E-4 I
W 1
? c
z I ?
04 1
U 4
O
.
w W dP Co. dP dP dP
p .. o 0
f 0 0 0
W
a E U W
W E+ o o o
0 o
) 0 ol
01
1
a z
E
E -'' ?
i `? I
w I I
I I
I

V i U I ?

?
I l i l I I

' ! I i I i ? ? ? ! I
I I
I
i
I I
\. I I ? I I O i
I O , i .
I ? ? C f•a ' I ? O L'1 O ?
: O O. N ?f1 ? I

N I
E
H!
I I
I
, O ! ( ! •--? CT N n
?
i I U ? I I ? I ?': I I I j i ?• I
I ? i i i . : I V?
? I ? j i ? I I i i
11 i

Ey : W l
I
I
E: j p. U1
?' m I I p N 1 0 .•-1 Q' cf 4j:
3
I
w
E
E-4
Z
W'
?
:
I
? ?' I
? I ?- I '. I I ; I
I I iC
?
?
i •
? ?
H
I
UI U 3 W V I I I I I i I ,
I l l i l l
V I I I I i
i
E-f Cal
Wi I I r. i
I
I
I
I
I
i
z!
O!
q
I
i
I
mi
zI O; yl
I NI O: •?! r: OI I L4
x ?I ?i I ,1 ?I of ml
H U $4 .-I U t U I -P m x
m I i a
2 as 01 ) H 4 1
4 -
w U7 . .1
£ E -4 N U1 H I +- m 4-) 4-) m
CA W m a0 .Z %D G O .9 N 44
W W
m q
•,? m
>a O
H
m
a -4 O
w -P m
S4 0
m ri
1-1 t1?
E
A x ?o l) +1 > 4 H ra O 4-) ?4 b 0 m
w W
> O q O m O -4 t?
O 0
O z a
m 0 •-I
? -4
1 U
z
Z U co ' U -P , 4 ' r
3 0
O O .-1 + O co ra . C A C7

a H U m
U a
'0
4J E-4
U) m
U ?4
O o
W o
4J r.
W m
U)
m
-4 .-4
1 c
U
w w -1 (D ri w •r{ 4.) b m •-1 -4 0 34 0 o r 1 E?
> +) m m a 4-) CO G
f b :3 -4 r-4 v o
a H
E O
0 w
E1 -4
w q
g
Q U
co m
a o
I
'O
m x
in ++
x a
a
1 2: E
W
to f4 ra Z w m ra =
. H m ?
z E? a N 1- a a '0 y a m 41 0 z sa w r+
O w r+ m a a ? r+ -1 m m m ro
E ) 0 4 a
4-) ? ' 0 U)i
I I
.0 0
? -4
. N r. ? 3 .0 ?
- 'd V .0 m 7-1
? I 14. m
w 41 a' a 1
o w E 3 U
i w a
w
a
£
°a
W N N
H
G"
W I I
W
-
T I T
E-i
Z
?
N!
Z H I i

76
00
Oil
y??gj •"'
All
14 a j ? `?
F
??. ? .?? gig. _ ?-?-,,?y?:x
13
x.a
y
. f
> t 0" c.. -, ? 7l
r. ????? Sri ? -? ?+? ? ? l '` - ' f : ¢•
* t
lAt.
clo
- ,
? 7: Y ? J.. in,1T ? ?(.?.? *A' ?'-•? '??O?:fiy? '1:^- ?? ? q.+ 7i a., t? ?7g ? F Y .. ?.,s
+• ?`" ' ? -?-?..? :.? it ,? ? ?` ,?? ' ? ?-??
.x y
.? o
oot -7
::
fib. y '.. ' ? h *'? F' tt^. Jk K l?y. ?3. a-
-lip
.? 00 r
T n
Fie 3JJJ I` p ' g y .:s 1r?,6 V' ?tiL1 rQ t iw.
?.?-?, 9 ESN 4.:f ,,?? -???? ?''r _ •`?
- ,r`..•?' J Iwo ? jr ` .. - s.. ?? ?r*• . ? ?
77
X
?+ V V I J• I V,.,,, V. V
(Joins sheer 81
I
N ,w a
r;r
NoA- Cr _ WaB aG is We
•;` , _= O Gp ryoA NOA • • . ?L
Nr 2 NOB` __=:--• Bb `y
y ?-
Ex NoA r82 t?.l s rypa
Cr82 "\\ _ / as O Was
Js Was a Cd NoC
N _ b Cr@
Tr oil
i Ays •.NUt. LY W • N0C ?.... `_ .... w y8 Ru8
AYA CtB 3q ?..• 'ii ed R
Or ?, uq
NrB2 NoA Was co ?s
NoA Nos was Was 1t
j / C • °__? r :...? /-
I
- sb Bb / No Ly
S • Antioch Nr82 Was _
LY Ex Church AyA Le Bb Nos NoA LYX NoA
Ex Was Go ?.
J • . . Js / Nos Ly
I AYA 1"., W?.... _ lr / No /.... • Gy
1 ' Was Na ?.... » Was ?/ Was a. Nos I
NOA r
Ly AYB Nob sG \ ....? o
•..,, c? NoA
Wa ? •-• n B i
Jy ? ? 7y.:it Nos ,wr
1\ ?f0
is
a It o i BD ° Na AYA P WaE \ Wa8 ; rr \We Was \
Was NoA Was Tr \ b RM LY
:j 6
_ o I C182
Ly 2 _ Wa
. NoA Dr ?a9 C P J 0r 4. .
I
_ S Dr
j • Ra / We
J LY ` r Cr82 tip ;?` RY82 NoB r ` t J
was La ?W `` ape Or
\ e
I was NCA wa8• Was Jo ¢ Tr ro To
O n
III 6 arm p9 [' ?o? ?~ JS We
No .
C _ Nob NoB / KaA Ke ?-? /? -' • SuamP
I II p ??.w - NOB
II II N of JS. , \Or Ws \O17 / Noc JS
We Ke I Nos Dr
?... /"
N _ \_ ?} Js•'f=? Bb ,( Js 9G, b Wad
wa ac
JS Ke l la - ?0 r ? z` Wa;.
!I / waB Wn8 T Was
We Or
C:' : +, •
?o Was La Or / La
Was i' Tr Dr Co Ka La
v ?I& Wad \ - was r Was `u
Lv Or 1 Or d wa8 kf \
I? Lv Lv cs eC, e We Wa8 •D Dr ?aG
' 711
WaB = .? \ \ La
h =O= `.= NoA
MCI Or Tr Go Was
i ?t ?. / _ • • • ? u• •
o
11 1, as
F5 XaA
Nob WaC - '.WaB-_ Nob Wa8 G AYB f
Cr82 ?f . ?_ uB CfC2 ' V
• ?.>: .%• ?: ti a• AYB Bb •••
?Bb La sb ,1 c; Ex N G?`? AyA f W.0
- u : WaE
;. • cm AyA No$ ' a . . .? I' f
s / N
s- \) was y ?:; AYA AYB Bb Cr82
*. Wa8' / rr • AYB2
62
La rz _ , AY
i
Lu AyA My AYA •' \\
ell,
9 ?b RuA Ex • Na -
YB » ( Ru8 . A. Tr .? _ MY AYA AYA 4? - AY82 -
_ RuA RuA • Y Ex ?v Ry9Z RY
RY82 NOC • My AVE.
O • yB? AYB • .Z
ye RuA A A Cem Na AyA
AyA • 2 ?' C? RuA - AYA /
A . Na C.
_ A
AY Ex
Na
CrC-?- -'= Y Ne
Ex fJorns sh - a
• eerh _--
Ru8
78
It
Johnston Co.
r/
1r?
Pinkney
II D
a °96 p e
a 8
l -J
l
Nahunta
l
11 NC 581
1
LEGEND
Watershed Boundary
Stream l-'\
Road --------
County Line -------
8 - 15 Tone per Acre O
per Year ?i
> 15 Tone per Acre per Year
I
Wayne Co, i Greens Co.
US 117! Eureka
?? ? 1 1
1 Fr%-4!%.mont ?> l
??? NC 222 r ?? 1 1
Contentnea Creek
d
4q ? f i O ,?? `NC 58
I l ? ?
D
13
?? 7 Fero ?` I? 1 o `
Pik villa SR 105k
0 ' ^Ne /
%
a
o 'b
I Petetown rl Q ,?,/?
US 117 1 Q / WJ
i
D ?
NC 11.1
SR 1556 US 13
Saulaton US 13
I Oakdale
EXCESSIVE CROPLAND
EROSION
NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED
Greene, Johnston, and Wayne Counties
Bees oompiled from U.S.O.S. topographic mope and N.C. road mope ..??
Materiel prepared by the N.C. Department of Environment. Health. and Natural Resources 0 1 2 3 Km
Division of Soil and Water Conservation. Watershed Planning Seotion Coale
Raleigh. North Caroline 1994

Johneton Co.
Pinkney
a
Nahunto
l
i NC 881
1
1
LEGEND
Watershed Boundary
Stream
Road ... .. ?„??•
County Line -----------
Potential Wetland
Wayne Co.
U9 117
r Fremont
??? NC 222
1 C
1
Pik,vills
!
1
I
I
i
U8 117 1
1
1
_ I
1
1
r
1
/
i
ownr?
Greene Co.
Eureka r
? I 1
i r Contentnee Creek
1 1 NC 38
1
'%
1 •
Fero. I ~?
i
8R 1038?? ; % II
I?? I II
? II
r •I
II ?'
,.' SR 1388
NC 111 /I II ^?
/ II
I I
8auleton U8 13
,
?v II
i
II
I
i
I
I .. U8 13
Oakdale
WETLAND RESTORATION
Restoration Fields NAHUNTA SWAMP WATERSHED
Greene. Johnston. and Wayne Counties
Bass compiled from U.S.S.S. topographic maps and N.C. road maps
Material prepared by the N.C. Department oP Environment. Health. and Natural Resources 0 2 Km
Division oP soil and Welter Conservation. Watershed Planning Section
Raleigh. North Carolina 1994 scale
.Kdoo aad Li7•Tt jo `OL'917T$ 30 :Isoo v :ls
pa4uiad aaaM quamnoop oiTgnd szuq go saidoo OOT