The comment period ends May 30, 2020

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPEN: Environmental Assessment for Proposed Pasquotank

Headwaters Hydrology Restoration Project, Great Dismal Swamp NWR

Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), in partnership with the North Carolina Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, is proposing to implement hydrologic restoration of the Pasquotank River headwaters area, located on refuge property in Pasquotank, Gates and Camden Counties, NC. The purpose of the proposed action is to restore the hydrologic conditions across a 12,000-acre area by slowing drainage and lengthening flow paths in order to mimic previous wetland conditions on Great Dismal Swamp NWR and provide flood mitigation benefits to adjacent communities. An Environmental Assessment has been prepared to evaluate the effects associated with this proposed action and complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500-1509) regulations as well as Department of the Interior (43 CFR 46; 516 DM 8) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (550 FW 3) regulations and policies. NEPA requires examination of the effects of proposed actions on the natural and human environment.

This document is now available for public review and comment. The comment period ends May 30, 2020. Please provide written comments to the Refuge Manager at the address provided below. In addition, if you would like to discuss any aspects of the project/document, please feel free to contact the Refuge Manager at the phone number listed below.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and The Nature Conservancy appreciate your interest in protecting and preserving the Great Dismal Swamp NWR for the benefit of wildlife and people. We look forward to your review and comments. Chris Lowie Refuge Manager Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge 3100 Desert Road Suffolk, VA 23434 757-376-2841 mobile

Environmental Assessment for the Pasquotank Headwaters Hydrology Restoration Project at

Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to evaluate the effects associated with this proposed action and complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1509) and Department of the Interior (43 CFR 46; 516 DM 8) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (550 FW 3) regulations and policies. NEPA requires examination of the effects of proposed actions on the natural and human environment. Proposed Action: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to restore the hydrologic conditions across a 12,000-acre area in Gates, Pasquotank, and Camden Counties, North Carolina by constructing 8 to 12 water control structures and low water crossings at key locations in the drainage infrastructure network (Figure 1). Once installed, water control structures will be managed to slow drainage and lengthen the flow paths, mimicking previous wetland conditions favorable for the re-establishment of wetland trees and providing flood mitigation benefits to downgradient communities. This work is in accordance with the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) (2006). Sheet-pile weir type water control structures will be constructed in the four primary ditches (Cross Canal Ditch, County Line Ditch, Bull Boulevard Ditch, and Insurance Ditch). Structures will be a combination of adjustable and fixed-elevation structures. Adjustable sheet-pile weirs will be installed where Service staff need to adaptively manage flow conditions to enhance downgradient flood mitigation. To complement the installation of water control structures, the proposed project will also plan to construct low water crossings on Weyerhaeuser Ditch Road, County Line Ditch Road, and Insurance Ditch Road to re-connect historic surface water flow paths disrupted by logging roads. A proposed action is often iterative and may evolve during the NEPA process as the agency refines its proposal and gathers feedback from the public, tribes, and other agencies. Therefore, the final proposed action may be different from the original. The proposed action will be finalized at the conclusion of the public comment period for the EA.

2

Figure 1. Area of the proposed action with approximate locations of structures.

3

Background: National wildlife refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (NWRSAA), as amended by the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. The mission of the Refuge System, as outlined by the NWRSAA, as amended by the Refuge System Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), is to: “... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” The refuge was established pursuant to the Dismal Swamp Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-402). The primary purpose of the refuge is to protect and preserve the unique and outstanding ecosystem, as well as protecting and perpetuating the diversity of animal and plant life therein. The vision of the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, refuge), as defined in the 2006 CCP is to: “endeavor to restore the biological diversity of the swamp ecosystem through hydrological restoration and fire management...” Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action: The NWRSAA mandates the Secretary of the Interior in administering the National Wildlife Refuge System to (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)):

• Provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within the

NWRS;

• Ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans;

• Ensure that the mission of the Refuge System described at 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) and the purposes of each refuge are carried out;

• Ensure effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with owners of land adjoining refuges and the fish and wildlife agency of the States in which the units of the Refuge System are located; and

• Assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and water quality to fulfill the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes of each refuge.

4

The purpose of this proposed action is to restore the hydrologic conditions across a 12,000-acre area by slowing drainage and lengthening flow paths in order to mimic previous wetland conditions on Great Dismal Swamp NWR and provide flood mitigation benefits to adjacent communities. Since establishment of the refuge, restoring the hydrology to pre-disturbance conditions has been a goal of the Service and a prioritized strategy in the refuge’s CCP. The Great Dismal Swamp NWR protects a 113,000-acre remnant of a once vast forested peatland on the Atlantic Coastal Plain in southeast Virginia and northeast North Carolina. When the land was transferred to the Service, the agency acquired a peatland with a 200-year history of logging and more than 150 miles of drainage ditches and logging roads. This drainage network has profoundly altered the natural hydrologic flow and storage capacity of the refuge, which in turn exacerbates flooding issues in adjacent communities. The long history of logging and the associated drying of underlying peat soil due to drainage are implicated in the transition from a diverse wetland forest community to one dominated by a monotypic upland-like forest community with reduced wildlife value and more prone to wildfire. Drier conditions have led to peat subsidence (loss of land elevation), elevated carbon dioxide emissions, increased risk of catastrophic peat wildfires, and homogenization of the once diverse wetland forest community of the swamp. This project aims to help reverse these conditions by building water control infrastructure that gives refuge managers the capability to slow drainage and mimic the pre-disturbance hydrology of the swamp. Alternatives Considered Alternative A – Maximize hydrologic restoration across 12,000 acres of the Pasquotank River Headwaters – [Proposed Action Alternative]: The refuge has prepared a plan, titled: Hydrologic Restoration Strategy: Pasquotank Headwaters Area Great Dismal Swamp NWR. Development of this document was a partnership project between the Service and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to conduct a systematic, thorough, and scientifically based assessment of the project area in preparation for conducting hydrologic restoration in the North Carolina portion of the Great Dismal Swam NWR. The Strategy is the basis for the Proposed Action Alternative. In addition, this work supports the Great Dismal Swamp NWR CCP (2006). This document is available upon request. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, we plan to install eight water control structures (low head weirs) and four low water crossings (Figure 1). The new structures will be as follows:

• Two adjustable weirs on Cross Canal Ditch; • One adjustable weir on Bull Boulevard Ditch; • Two fixed height weirs on Insurance Ditch; • Three adjustable weirs on County Line Ditch; • Two low water crossings on Weyerhauser Ditch Road (north of the sand ridges); • One low water crossing on County Line Ditch Road, near Insurance Ditch Road, and • One low water crossing on Insurance Ditch Road at the head of the Pasquotank River.

5

The work will be coordinated by the refuge, in cooperation with TNC in North Carolina. Water monitoring equipment has been installed in the project area to collect pre-project data on water levels and flow rates, in anticipation of this work. Water level data will continue to be collected for at least 2 years after completion of the work. Prior to implementing the proposed action, the refuge will acquire all necessary environmental permits. Installation of the water control structures and low water crossings will be contracted out to a qualified company, after a competitive bid process. It is anticipated construction will occur in the fall of 2020. Water level management using water control structures aims to slow drainage and raise wetland water levels in drained sections of the swamp. In practice, water control structures are managed to keep the ditch full (bankfull) and avoid extensive or prolonged inundation in the wetland areas adjacent to the ditch. To facilitate this management strategy, removable boards will be installed in three “bays” in the central section of each weir (Figure 2). Each bay will be capable of holding up to 10 4-inch by 6-inch by 5-foot boards (stop-logs) that can be added or removed by hand to adaptively adjust water levels in the ditch upstream of the structure. Stop-logs will be positioned high enough in the structure to raise ditch water levels to their bankfull height. Under typical flow conditions, stop-logs will placed below the elevation of the ditch bank, to accommodate water flowing over the stop-logs. Similarly, the fixed weirs on Insurance Ditch will be installed at an elevation to raise ditch water levels to their bankfull height.

Figure 2. Example of adjustable weir to be installed.

6

Alternative B – Current Management Strategies – [No Action Alternative]: Under this alternative, no additional water control structures will be installed; resulting in no additional hydrologic restoration of the Pasquotank Headwaters area. In addition, no additional water monitoring would occur. Currently, there are 12 water control structures on the refuge within the Pasquotank Headwaters area. These structures were installed at key locations in the 1980s and 1990s. Although these structures provide some localized capability to implement hydrologic restoration, the existing water control infrastructure does not provide the management capability to meet the purpose and need of the proposed action, nor the goals and objectives of the refuge’s management plans. Specifically, the majority of these structures are located at the most downstream end of the ditch network and therefore cannot hydrate drained peat several miles upstream. In addition, the absence of sufficient water control structures at upstream locations does not adequately slow drainage. Instead, water tends to flow rapidly through the ditch network to downstream water control structures where it becomes ponded and exacerbates flooding at low elevation locales in the project area. Several of these structures are inadequately sized to accommodate high flows and meet the purpose and need of hydrologic restoration of the area. Furthermore, the location of existing structures are not adequate to provide flood mitigation benefits to downstream communities. Alternative C – Hydrologic restoration across 7,500 acres of the Pasquotank River Headwaters: Under this alternative, the refuge would implement the project on a smaller scale. This alternative would not provide the maximum hydrologic restoration and water management control capability, but is considered the minimum necessary to achieve the purpose and need of the project. Specifically, we would plan to install five water control structures (low head weirs) and two low water crossings. The new structures will be as follows:

• One adjustable weir on Cross Canal Ditch; • One adjustable weir on Bull Boulevard Ditch; • One fixed weir on Insurance Ditch; • Two adjustable weirs on County Line Ditch; • One low water crossing on Weyerhauser Ditch Road (northern most), and • One low water crossing on Insurance Ditch Road at the head of the Pasquotank River.

The work will be coordinated by the refuge, in cooperation with TNC in North Carolina. Water monitoring equipment has been installed in the project area to collect pre-project data on water levels and flow rates, in anticipation of this work. Water level data will continue to be collected for at least 2 years after completion of the work. Prior to implementing the proposed action, the refuge will acquire all necessary environmental permits. Installation of the water control structures and low water crossings will be contracted out to a qualified company, after a competitive bid process. It is anticipated construction will occur in the fall of 2020. Water levels would be managed the same as described in

7

Alternative A. Under this alternative, the benefits of hydrologic restoration would primarily be concentrated on re-wetting the most drained portions of the project area along Bull Boulevard Ditch and northern County Line Ditch. Additionally, we expect less benefit for neighboring landowners because only two low-water crossings would be installed, instead of four. This would result in only partially restoring the historic surface water flow path that traverses the project area from the Suffolk Scarp to the Pasquotank River. Thus, the amount of floodwater that is re-directed away from the Highway 158 ditch and through the wetland forest to the Pasquotank River would be limited. Alternative Considered, But Dismissed From Further Consideration We considered an alternative that included Alternative A, with the addition of a hydrologic bypass/spillway under North Carolina Route 158 (at Weyerhauser Ditch) and installation of a water control structure under Weyerhauser Ditch Road at the Route 158 Canal, Gates County. This alternative has been discussed with the various stakeholders in Gates, Pasquotank, Camden, and Perquimans Counties. At present, Highway 158 does not have culverts underneath that allow water from the swamp to follow its historic flow path to the Perquimans River. Because Highway 158 is a barrier to this particular flow path, water that once headed to the Perquimans River now flows to the Pasquotank River via the Highway 158 ditch. Adding a bypass, or spillway, under Highway 158 at Weyerhauser Ditch Road would resolve this problem and help alleviate flooding in the Newland Drainage District and portions of South Mills, North Carolina. This alternative is beyond the scope of this project. Although it would contribute to hydrologic restoration of the refuge and adjacent landscape and help reduce flooding on neighboring properties, this alternative includes the Perquimans River Watershed and would not contribute to the purpose and need of restoring the hydrology in the Pasquotank Headwaters area. It is recommended, and more appropriate for the County leaders to coordinate this initiative due to the additional economic, environmental, and legal aspects of this alternative. The refuge would participate as a vested stakeholder. Affected Environment The refuge consists of approximately 113,000 acres, an area of 175 square miles in the cities of Suffolk and Chesapeake, Virginia and the counties of Camden, Pasquotank, and Gates, North Carolina (Figure 3). Great Dismal Swamp NWR is primarily a forested wetland habitat. The proposed action is located within the three North Carolina counties; Camden, Pasquotank, and Gates; which encompass a total area of approximately 33,000 acres. The affected area of the proposed action is approximately 12,000 acres of refuge land, and 13,000 acres of off-refuge land in these counties (Figure 1). The off-refuge watershed that is impacted by drainage from the proposed restoration area encompasses agricultural lands, residences, and small businesses; primarily in

8

Pasquotank County with some acreage in neighboring Camden County. The impact area is bounded by North Carolina Highway 158 to the south and Highway 17 to the east. Tables 1 through 6 provide additional, brief descriptions of each resource affected by the proposed action alternative and other alternatives being considered. For more information regarding the affected environment, please see Chapter 3 of the refuge’s CCP, which can be found here: https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_5/NWRS/South_Zone/Great_Dismal_Swamp_Complex/Great_Dismal_Swamp/FinalCCP_GDS.pdf Environmental Consequences of the Action This section analyzes the environmental consequences of the action on each affected resource, including direct and indirect effects. This EA includes the written analyses of the environmental consequences on a resource only when the impacts on that resource could be more than negligible and therefore considered an “affected resource” or are otherwise considered important as related to the proposed action. Any resources that will not be more than negligibly impacted by the action and have been identified as not otherwise important as related to the proposed action have been dismissed from further analyses. Tables 1 through 5 provide:

1. A brief description of the affected resources in the proposed action area; and

2. Impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives on those resources, including direct and indirect effects.

Table 6 provides a brief description of the anticipated cumulative impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives. Impact Types:

• Direct effects are those which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

• Indirect effects are those which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.

• Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.

9

Figure 3. Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge

10

TABLE 1. AFFECTED NATURAL RESOURCES AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

NATURAL RESOURCES

AFFECTED RESOURCE

ANTICPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Wildlife and Aquatic Species The refuge supports a diversity of wildlife species common to northeastern North Carolina, including game and nongame species, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates, which are important contributors to the overall biodiversity on the refuge. Songbirds breed at the refuge. The project area hosts a healthy and dense population of white-tailed deer and black bear.

Alternative A: Any anticipated short term impacts to terrestrial wildlife would be the noise and human disturbance during construction at the 12 locations. Terrestrial wildlife will vacate the area during construction (approximately 1 week at each site) and likely return or establish a new territory nearby. These short-term impacts are expected to be negligible. Long-term impacts are expected to benefit terrestrial wildlife, particularly migratory birds. Appropriate management of proposed infrastructure will raise groundwater levels, re-wet the peat soil profile to the greatest extent that is desirable for target forest communities, and decrease the risk, severity, and intensity of peat fires. Establishing the desired forest communities (see Vegetation below) will increase the habitat value, particularly for neotropical migratory birds that prefer cypress/tupelo and Atlantic white cedar forest communities. In addition, reducing wildfire risk will protect forest communities from complete loss of the canopy and acute loss of ground elevation through burning the peat soil. Installing weirs would have a direct impact on resident aquatic species by reducing their movement within the ditch. Low water crossings would allow added movement during high water events. These impacts on movement are anticipated to have a negligible effect on aquatic populations. According to North Carolina Department of Marine Fisheries, there are no anadromous aquatic species within the refuge ditches. Alternative B: The no action alternative would have no short-term noise or human disturbance, impacts to terrestrial wildlife, nor movement impacts to aquatic life. This alternative would not provide the appropriate management capability of infrastructure to raise groundwater levels, re-wet the peat soil profile for target forest communities, and decrease the risk, severity, and intensity of peat fires. Such catastrophic peat fires negatively impact the

11

forest community through complete loss of the canopy and acute loss of ground elevation through burning the peat soil. This alternative would not provide increased habitat value for wildlife. Alternative C: Any anticipated short term impacts to terrestrial wildlife would be the noise and human disturbance during construction at the seven locations. Terrestrial wildlife will vacate the area during construction (approximately 1 week at each site) and likely return or establish a new territory nearby. Impacts are expected to be negligible, and less than Alternative A due to five fewer locations. Long term impacts are expected to benefit terrestrial wildlife, particularly migratory birds; however, not to the extent of Alternative A (see above). The acreage of impact of this alternative is 7,500 acres, versus 12,000 acres of the proposed alternative due to a reduced number of structures installed. This alternative does not fully meet the purpose of the project. Installing weirs would have a direct impact on resident aquatic species by reducing their movement within the ditch. Low water crossings would allow added movement during high water events. These impacts on movement are also anticipated to have a negligible effect on aquatic populations, and less than Alternative A due to five fewer locations. According to North Carolina Department of Marine Fisheries, there are no anadromous aquatic species within the refuge ditches.

Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Special Status Species The federally threatened long-eared bat inhabits the project area. Long-eared bats live in mature hardwood (deciduous) trees. Federally endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers reside on the refuge; however, not in the project area. It is possible spotted turtles (at-risk) live in the ditches within the project area; the preferred habitat are shallow, slow-

Alternative A: Implementing the proposed alternative could have negative impacts to long-eared bats due to construction activities causing disturbance and possibly relocation. Some grubbing and cutting of several hardwood trees would also occur for installation of structures. This impact is expected to be negligible because very few mature trees will be taken and the project area is dominated by hardwood forest for bats to relocate, if needed. In addition, this impact can be minimized by restricting construction activities during critical life stages of the bat or siting new construction at locales where mature hardwood trees do not need to be removed. The refuge will coordinate and implement Endangered Species Act Section 7 regulations.

12

moving waters with aquatic vegetation.

Implementing the proposed alternative would have no positive or negative impacts to red-cockaded woodpeckers because they do not reside in the area nor is the habitat in the project area preferred for that species. Any anticipated short-term impacts to spotted turtle would be the noise and human disturbance during construction. These short-term impacts are expected to be negligible. Installing weirs could have a direct long term impact by reducing their movement within the ditch. Low water crossings would allow added movement during high water events. These impacts on movement are anticipated to have an even less negligible effect on spotted turtles due to their ability to move over land as well as water. Alternative B: Implementing the no action alternative would have a slight positive impact on long-eared bats because there would be no disturbance or removal of trees that could cause relocation, if necessary. The no action alternative would have no positive or negative impacts to red-cockaded woodpeckers because they do not reside in the area nor is the habitat in the project area preferred for that species. Alternative C: Implementing this alternative could have negative impacts to long-eared bats due to construction activities causing disturbance and possibly relocation; however, less than Alternative A due to five fewer locations. Some grubbing and cutting of several hardwood trees would occur for installation of structures. This impact is expected to be negligible because very few mature trees will be taken and the project area is dominated by hardwood forest for bats to relocate, if needed. In addition, this impact can be minimized by restricting construction activities during critical life stages of the bat. The refuge will coordinate and implement Endangered Species Act Section 7 regulations. This alternative would have no positive or negative impacts to red-cockaded woodpeckers because they do not reside in the area nor is the habitat in the project area preferred for that species. Any anticipated short- or long-term impacts to spotted turtle would be possible (see Alternative A above); however, less

13

than Alternative A due to five fewer locations. Impacts are expected to be negligible.

Vegetation (including vegetation of special management concern) Vegetation varies quite widely, encompassing shrubby and herbaceous communities, as well as forested communities. Although vegetation is quite variable in this area, recent vegetation surveys found the area is 85 percent dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum) and gum species (Liquidambar styraciflua and Nyssa sylvatica). There are small components of bald cypress and tupelo gum along County Line Ditch. Mixed stands of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and oaks (Quercus spp.) are also scattered on higher elevation in the project area. Atlantic white cedar once was a dominant species in the project area, with scattered individuals currently mixed with pine and hardwoods. Understory species are mixed, but include shrubs such Galberry, sweet pepper bush, red bay, blueberry. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Data Explorer was consulted and listed one state endangered plant, Trillium pusillum var. virginianum (Virginia Least-Trillium) that was documented in 1985. The Virginia Least-Trillium is not federally listed.

Alternative A: The proposed alternative is expected to have no net negative impact on vegetative communities; however, implementing this alternative will allow refuge management the capability to strategically alter vegetative communities, to be more diverse and valuable to wildlife over time, through increased water levels in the project area (see Soil and Water Resources below). The intent is to reduce the red maple and sweet gum component for additional acreage of bald cypress, tupelo gum, and Atlantic white cedar. Installing structures will allow for increased surface water levels in ditches and ground water levels within the forested wetlands where it is heavily drained, allowing for species that prefer wetter conditions to re-establish. Installing low water crossings will reduce high water areas of prolonged inundation, which can lead to tree stress and mortality, such as evidenced in the project area west of Weyerhauser Road and north of Insurance Road. This alternative is not expected to impact Virginia least trillium, if it still resides in the project area. This species in the Virginia portion of the refuge is found on higher elevation sites with more mineral soils. There are some islands and high ground along Insurance Ditch Road. If implemented, the refuge would conduct a presence/absence survey where it was previously located. Appropriate management of proposed infrastructure will raise groundwater levels, re-wet the peat soil profile to the greatest extent that is desirable for target forest communities, and thus decrease the risk, severity, and intensity of peat fires. Such catastrophic peat fires negatively impact the forest community through complete loss of the canopy and acute loss of ground elevation through burning the peat soil. Alternative B: Implementing the no action alternative would not allow for increased habitat diversity and wildlife value due to the lack of water management capability (see Soil and Water Resources below). No structures would be installed to slow drainage. Not installing low water crossings would enable roads to continue acting as dams to natural flow paths, potentially

14

inundating areas along the ditch and causing tree stress and/or mortality. This alternative does not enable improved water management capability to strategically manage water and vegetative communities. With this alternative, refuge staff would not have appropriate infrastructure to raise groundwater levels, re-wet the peat soil profile to the greatest extent that is desirable for target forest communities, and thus decrease the risk, severity, and intensity of peat fires. Such catastrophic peat fires negatively impact the forest community through complete loss of the canopy and acute loss of ground elevation through burning the peat soil. Alternative C: This alternative is the minimum necessary to provide some water management capability; however, this alternative will not allow refuge management the capability to strategically change vegetative communities, to be more diverse and valuable to wildlife over time (see Soil and Water Resources below). This alternative would provide other benefits (see Soils and Water Resources below), but it would not provide the necessary benefits to change vegetative communities to meet our habitat management objectives to reduce the red maple and sweet gum component for additional acreage of bald cypress, tupelo gum, and Atlantic white cedar. In addition, installing fewer low water crossings will potentially keep areas inundated along the ditch and causing tree stress and/or mortality. This alternative is not expected to impact Virginia least trillium, if it still resides in the project area. This species in the Virginia portion of the refuge is found on higher elevation sites with more mineral soils. There are some islands and high ground along Insurance Ditch Road. If implemented, the refuge would conduct a presence/absence survey where it was previously located.

Soils The soils of Great Dismal Swamp NWR play a critical role in supporting its wetland communities. Organic soils predominate, with mineral soils confined to the toe of the

Alternative A: The proposed alternative would increase soil moisture conditions through increased water levels in the ditches and project area (see Water Resources below). Increased soil moisture would be most apparent nearest the ditch, with a decreasing effect proceeding away from the ditch. Increasing soil moisture is beneficial to the organic (peat) soils by creating conditions more favorable for peat

15

Suffolk Scarp and to historic Outflows. In general, the organic soils of the refuge are black, fine-grained, highly decomposed mucky peat. Partially decomposed logs and stumps are buried in the decomposed organic material at depths ranging from a few inches to 5 feet. These soils are characterized by poor or very poor drainage, high acidity, and mean annual soil temperatures between 59 and 72 degrees Fahrenheit. Permeability varies with the composition of the subsoil.

accumulation and reduce land-surface subsidence caused by the construction of ditches for drainage. Creating conditions favorable for peat accumulation will help regeneration of native peatland tree species like Atlantic White Cedar and re-establish water holding characteristics of peat. Additionally, we expect increasing soil moisture will reduce the probability and severity of smoldering ground fire during drought conditions. Lastly, the vegetation of the swamp needs sufficient peat soil to sustain the root system, which is lost by excessive drainage, subsidence, and wildfires. Alternative B: Implementing the no action alternative would not allow for increased soil moisture and positive conditions for peat accumulation due to the lack of water management capability (see Water Resources below). No structures would be installed, continuing current drainage peat subsidence, and higher risk of smoldering ground fire. Drier peat soils will continue to have a greater vulnerability to catastrophic groundfire. Alternative C: Implementing this alternative would increase soil moisture through increased water levels; however, not to the extent of the proposed alternative (see Water Resources below). The acreage of impact of this alternative is 7,500 acres, versus 12,000 acres of the proposed alternative due to a reduced number of structures installed.

Water Resources In the project area, there are 17 miles of linear ditch, which holds surface water. Water enters the ditches from subsurface (i.e., groundwater) flow and surface flow throughout the ditch network during years of average (or above average) precipitation. During low precipitation years, portions of the ditches can dry up during the summer months. The water generally flows across the landscape northwest to southeast, with most water entering the Pasquotank River

Alternative A: Once installed, water control structures are managed to raise water levels in ditches to slow drainage by reducing the hydraulic gradient between the surrounding peatland and the ditch. In practice, water control structures are managed to keep the ditch full (bankfull) and avoid extensive or prolonged inundation in the wetland areas adjacent to the ditch. Additional water control structures in project area drainage ditches are expected to raise water levels in drained areas 1 to 2 feet so they are consistently 0.5 to 1.5 feet (15 to 45 cm) below land surface. The objective of installing low-water crossings is to reduce the damming effect of historic logging roads. The roads in the project area are elevated 2 to 3 feet above the wetland surface. In places, the roads act as dams, which further disrupts the hydrology of the wetland by prolonging inundation. Low-water crossings are lowered sections of road that are engineered to pass flowing water during flood

16

or Highway 158 ditch via the ditch network.

events. These structures are designed to reduce the damming effect, and re-connect historic, surface water flow paths in the swamp. Historic flow paths are longer than ditches and contain elements like trees and shrubs which slow water as it traverses the swamp, which allows floodwater to traverse the swamp more slowly than currently using the existing ditch network. Appropriate management of proposed infrastructure will raise groundwater levels, re-wet the peat soil profile to the greatest extent that is desirable for target forest communities, and thus decrease the risk, severity, and intensity of peat fires. Alternative B: Implementing the no action alternative, with no water control structures installed, will not raise water levels so they are consistently 0.5 to 1.5 feet (15 to 45 cm) below land surface. This inability to raise water levels will also eliminate the ability to raise soil moisture and provide a more diverse and valuable forest community for wildlife (see Vegetation and Soil above). In addition, this alternative will have no impact to alleviate peak flood flows to downstream communities. The project area will remain dryer in some areas and wetter in others than undisturbed peatlands. This alternative does not meet the purpose of the project. This alternative does not enable improved water management capability to strategically manage water and vegetative communities. With this alternative, refuge staff would not have appropriate infrastructure to raise groundwater levels, re-wet the peat soil profile to the greatest extent that is desirable for target forest communities, and thus decrease the risk, severity, and intensity of peat fires. Such catastrophic peat fires negatively impact the forest community through complete loss of the canopy and acute loss of ground elevation through burning the peat soil. Alternative C: Implementing this alternative would increase water levels; however, not to the extent of the proposed alternative. The acreage of impact of this alternative is 7,500 acres, versus 12,000 acres of the proposed alternative due to a reduced number of structures installed. This alternative does not meet the purpose of the project.

17

The flood reduction benefits associated with re-connecting historic flow paths will be less than Alternative A because there are fewer proposed low- water crossings. This alternative will do little to capture flood runoff that is routed towards the Highway 158 ditch and will provide less pathways for flood waters to traverse the swamp towards the Pasquotank Headwaters.

Wetlands The project area is designated a palustrine forested wetland. Wetland forest communities as defined by the Virginia Natural Communities are: Non-Riverine Swamp Forest: Tupelo-Bald Cypress type, Pond Pine Woodland/Pocosin and Peatland Atlantic White Cedar. Currently the dominant vegetation class over most of the area is maple/gum, as identified by 2015 aerial data.

Alternative A: Water level management using water control structures aims to slow drainage and raise wetland water levels in drained sections of the swamp (see Soils and Water Resources above). In practice, water control structures are managed to keep the ditch full (bankfull) and avoid extensive or prolonged inundation in the wetland areas adjacent to the ditch. Results from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) groundwater and surface water model indicate the water table in the project area is well below land surface during typical spring-time weather patterns. The effect is particularly pronounced east of Weyerhauser Ditch along Cross Canal, Countyline, and Bull Boulevard Ditches. These ditch reaches contain no water control structures and therefore drain freely to lower elevation points near the headwaters of the Pasquotank River. The model also suggests placing water control structures at the eight locations will raise the water table in the peat throughout the project area. Raising the water table in the peat reduces the negative effects of peat drainage and will optimize wetland conditions. Re-wetting drained soils will optimize the benefits of wetlands on the landscape such as; filtering pollutants to downstream waterbodies, reducing flood flows, sequestering carbon, and providing more suitable conditions for (peat) soil accumulation, habitat diversity, and valuable wildlife habitat. Furthermore, this alternative supports the purpose of the project and the refuge purpose. Alternative B: Implementing the no action alternative will retain drier wetland conditions within the project area, resulting in reduced beneficial wetland characteristics for wildlife and people as described in Alternative A.

18

Alternative C: This alternative will enhance wetland conditions; however, on a much smaller scale. The acreage of impact of this alternative is 7,500 acres, versus 12,000 acres of the proposed alternative due to a reduced number of structures installed. This alternative does not meet the purpose of the project.

19

TABLE 2. AFFECTED VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

AFFECTED RESOURCE

ANTICPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

The project area currently hosts two types of wildlife dependent recreation; deer hunting and hiking, biking, and wildlife observation/photography. Access to the latter activity is only provided by the North Carolina Dismal Swamp State Park road network that connects to the refuge road network. Hiking and biking visitation to the area is very low due to the travel distance (approximately 8 miles) to the beginning of the project area. Hunters can drive to the area but numbers are also low.

Alternative A: During construction there would be some impact to visitor use due to possible road closures preventing access to the area. In addition, if visitors were allowed into the area during construction, there would be some level of noise disturbance at the local construction site. After construction, one negative impact may be visitors traversing three wet low water crossings versus a dry roadbed previously. Signage could be installed to notify visitors of the potential foot or vehicle hazard, and road closures could likely increase. No other negative impacts would be anticipated, including visual impacts. The two fixed weirs could be a benefit to hunters because they will improve access to more area to hunt across ditches. Negative impacts during or after construction will be negligible due to the low visitation to the project area. Alternative B: There would be no change or impact to visitor use of the area. Alternative C: During construction there would be some impact to visitor use due to possible road closures preventing access to the area. In addition, if visitors were allowed into the area during construction, there would be some level of noise disturbance. After construction, one negative impact may be visitors traversing two wet low water crossings versus a dry roadbed previously. No other negative impacts would be anticipated, including visual impacts. The fixed weir could be a benefit to hunters because they will be able to cross the ditches for more area to hunt. Negative impacts during or after construction will be negligible due to the low visitation to the project area.

20

TABLE 3. AFFECTED CULTURAL RESOURCES AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

CULTURAL RESOURCES

AFFECTED RESOURCE

ANTICPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Archaeological studies of Great Dismal Swamp NWR have been mostly limited to project-specific surveys in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, and no comprehensive archaeological survey has yet been completed. In the project area, there are 17 miles of linear ditch and roads, which may or may not have historic significance. Beginning in the 18th century, Euro-Americans established farms on the swamp edge and began to exploit the swamp’s cypress and white cedar through logging. Canals also began to be dug deep into the swamp to drain land for farming and also to ship out forest products. Enslaved African Americans were the primary labor force for all this work, and local Native Americans were probably also employed. The Great Dismal Swamp served as a hiding place for African-Americans escaping slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries. These people established “maroon” communities deep in the swamp that possibly spanned several generations. Over 10 years of research has identified several

Alternative A: The proposed alternative could have an impact on cultural resources associated with historic ditches. Installing water control structures and low water crossings will disturb soil on the road, in the ditch, and lands in the immediate construction area. Most ditches and roads in the project area were built between 1940 and 1970; however Cross Canal Ditch (also Hamburg Ditch) was first dug in the early 1800s and deepened in the 1940s to1970s. The refuge has implemented like projects in other areas of the refuge, and therefore is familiar with the necessary process. The refuge will coordinate with the Service’s Regional Historic Preservation Officer, obtain concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Office, and comply with all National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) requirements to obtain the proper permits prior to implementing the work. The project area includes several small “islands” of mineral soil where the escaped slave maroon communities were located. These islands sit 4 to 8 feet above the existing surface of the peat soil and are not affected by water levels in the surrounding peat. Therefore, they will not be influenced by changes to peat water levels by the proposed alternative which aims to raise water levels below the peat surface and reduce inundation above the peat surface. Alternative B: Implementing the no action alternative will have no impact on cultural resources due to no construction activities. Current water management practices will not be changed. Alternative C: This alternative could have an impact on cultural resources; however, at a lesser degree than the proposed alternative due to few structures being installed. Installing water control structures and low water crossings will disturb soil on the road, in the ditch, and lands in the immediate construction area. Most ditches and roads in the project area were built between 1940 and 1970; however, Cross Canal Ditch was dug in the early 1900s. The refuge has

21

sites, including a suspected maroon plantation within the project area.

implemented like projects in other areas of the refuge; and therefore, is familiar with the necessary process. The refuge will coordinate with the Service’s Regional Historic Preservation Officer, obtain concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Office, and comply with all National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) requirements to obtain the proper permits prior to implementing the work. The mesic islands in the project area, which is where the escaped slave maroon communities were located, will not be impacted by this alternative because no construction will occur in the vicinity of these historic communities.

22

TABLE 4. AFFECTED REFUGE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

REFUGE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

AFFECTED RESOURCE

ANTICPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Land Use In the project area, there are 17 miles of linear ditches, which hold surface water. Associated with the ditches are adjacent roads used for administrative and visitor access. In addition, there are currently 12 existing water control structures. Eight more structures and four low water crossings are proposed to be added, which will increase the infrastructure on the refuge.

Alternative A: The proposed alternative will add eight new pieces of infrastructure, which will incur staff resources to operate and maintain (see Administration below) and financial resources to maintain into the future. However, the overall impact will be negligible. These structures last 50 to 70 years. The low water crossings will be a positive impact to our road infrastructure. Low water crossings will reduce the possibility of washouts at certain “choke points” during high water periods, thus reducing the expense and lost access associated with repairing washouts Alternative B: Implementing the no action alternative will have no impact on infrastructure or staff resources due to no construction activities. Alternative C: This alternative will add five new pieces of infrastructure, which will incur staff resources to operate and maintain (see Administration below) and financial resources to maintain into the future. However, the overall impact will be negligible. These structures last 50 to 70 years. The low water crossings will be a positive impact to our road infrastructure. Low water crossings will reduce the possibility of washouts at certain “choke points” during high water.

Administration The refuge currently has 13 full time employees and 2 temporary staff. The staff consists of administration, management, maintenance, biologist, hydrologist, fire, and equipment operation.

Alternative A: Estimated cost to implement this alternative is $650,000 for construction, which is non-Service funds (outside partner funding). In addition, this will require approximately 20 percent of the two refuge hydrologists’ time to oversee installation and continual monitoring of the impact of the proposed action. It will also result in 5 percent of the refuge manager’s and administrative staff’s time for permitting of the proposed alternative and overseeing the alternative. While this would moderately impact the administration of the refuge, it would not be significant because it is a priority action for the refuge and fulfills

23

obligations in meeting the purpose of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System, such as habitat restoration and management. Alternative B: Estimated costs of construction to implement the no action alternative is $0. This alternative will require approximately 1 percent of the refuge hydrologists’ time for continuing to monitor the existing management actions. It will also result in 1 percent of the refuge manager’s time for overseeing the alternative. This would result in no significant impact on refuge staff and budget. Alternative C: Estimated cost to implement this alternative is $500,000 for construction, which is non-Service funds (outside partner funding). In addition, this will require approximately 7 percent of the two refuge hydrologists’ time to oversee installation and continual monitoring of the impact of the proposed action. It will also result in 5 percent of the refuge manager’s and administrative staff’s time for permitting of the proposed alternative and overseeing the alternative. While this would moderately impact the administration of the refuge, it would not be significant because it is a priority action for the refuge and fulfills obligations in meeting the purpose of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System, such as habitat restoration and management.

24

TABLE 5. AFFECTED SOCIOECONOMICS AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

SOCIOECONOMICS

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

ANTICPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Local and regional economies Census estimates place the population surrounding the Great Dismal Swamp NWR (Hampton Roads, Virginia, and adjacent North Carolina counties) at more than 1.5 million people. Furthermore, the region is continuing to develop rapidly. The cities of Chesapeake and Suffolk, where most of the refuge is located, have the highest growth rates in the region. The North Carolina section of the refuge falls within the counties of Gates, Camden, and Pasquotank. Total population in these counties is 52,298. The base economy within the refuge’s service area is generally dominated by: (1) military bases and defense-related activities in the Hampton Roads area and (2) extensive manufacturing, particularly shipbuilding activities, on the Peninsula. Historically, farming has been a large part of the local economy, and still continues to play an important role west and southeast of the refuge. Other important sectors are food processing, trade, retail sales, and services industries. The

Alternative A: With full hydrologic restoration infrastructure in place, storm waters are anticipated to follow longer flow paths through the forest and transit the project area more slowly. Under this alternative, the magnitude of storm water peak flows are also expected to decrease. In turn, the arrival of storm waters to the ditch network shared with downgradient private lands would be delayed and outflow rates diminished. The proposed eight water control structures will enable managers to maximize control of the distribution of drainage from the project area to its three primary outlets at (1) the NC-158 ditch, (2) the head of the Pasquotank River near the County Line / Insurance Rd intersection, and (3) the Bull Boulevard Ditch. Agricultural lands adjacent to the project area are primarily within the Newland Water Services District, south of the refuge. This district is most impacted by drainage that exits the refuge via the NC-158 ditch at its southern boundary, which could effectively be reduced and directed to the other two primary outlets. We expect that the construction of four low water crossings would optimize pressure reductions to key drainage pinch points that in turn would also reduce the volume of drainage water directed to the NC-158 ditch. Following storm events, the combination of reduced runoff rates, decreased peak flow magnitude and drainage outflow distribution will provide private lands a longer time-frame to drain prior to the arrival of additional storm water from up-gradient. During small to medium sized storm events, it is anticipated that restoration infrastructure can provide flood resilience and improve outcomes for these economically important adjacent agricultural lands. Appropriate management of proposed infrastructure will raise groundwater levels, re-wet the peat soil profile to the

25

tourist industry is important in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and in the Outer Banks of North Carolina. Agriculture and forestry are primary industries in the outlying rural areas. The major agricultural products are cotton, soybeans, corn, livestock, and poultry. The number of farms has declined, as is the case nationwide. The cities of Suffolk and Chesapeake Tourism Departments list the refuge as one of the area’s main attractions. The refuge averages about 75,000 visitors per year. Visitors can participate in bird and other wildlife watching, fishing, and hunting. Lake Drummond is a popular attraction for tourists. It is the largest natural lake in the State of Virginia. Total expenditures from visitors were $2,732,200 with non-residents accounting for $2,275,900 or 83 percent of total expenditures. Expenditures on hunting activities accounted for 0.5 percent of all expenditures, followed by non-consumptive activities and fishing at 83 and 0.01 percent, respectively (Banking on Nature 2019).

greatest extent that is desirable for target forest communities, and thus decrease the risk, severity, and intensity of peat fires. Such catastrophic peat fires influence a broad geography with tremendous impacts to human health, military operations, tourism, and other industries while threatening adjacent lands under commercial uses. Alternative B: There would be no change of impact to local or regional economies; however, it can be projected that the impacts would be more negative if the frequency and intensity of natural disasters continue into the future. With the insufficient water management infrastructure currently in place, the dominant linear flow of storm water through the project area via the ditch network will continue to allow rapid runoff rates and greater peak flows from the refuge following storm events. Controlling the distribution of drainage waters from the project area as it leaves the refuge will not be possible. This alternative offers no reduction to the impacts of flooding. Drier peat soils will continue to have a greater vulnerability to catastrophic groundfire and its resulting regional socioeconomic impacts. Alternative C: With partial hydrologic restoration infrastructure in place, storm waters are anticipated to follow somewhat longer flow paths through the forest and transit the project area more slowly but to a lesser extent than Alternative A. Under this alternative, the magnitude of storm water peak flows are also expected to decrease. In turn, the arrival of storm waters to the ditch network shared with downgradient private lands will be delayed and outflow rates partially diminished. The proposed five water control structures will enable managers more control of the distribution of drainage from the project area to its three primary outlets (from west to east) at (1) the NC-158 ditch, (2) the head of the Pasquotank River near the County Line/Insurance Rd intersection, and (3) the Bull Boulevard Ditch. Agricultural lands adjacent to the project area are within the Newland Water Services District, south of the refuge. This district is most impacted by drainage that exits the refuge via the NC-158 ditch, which could effectively be reduced and routed to the head of river or Bull Boulevard ditch outflows. We expect that the construction of two low water crossings would achieve some pressure reductions at key drainage pinch points that in turn

26

would also reduce the volume of drainage water directed to the NC-158 ditch. The combination of reduced runoff rates, decreased peak flow magnitude, and drainage outflow distribution will provide private lands a longer time-frame to drain prior to the arrival of additional storm water from upgradient. Thus during small to medium sized storm events, it is anticipated that restoration infrastructure can provide flood resilience and improve economic outcomes for adjacent agricultural lands; however again, not as beneficial as Alternative A. Appropriate management of proposed infrastructure will raise groundwater levels, re-wet more of the peat soil profile to provide conditions that are more appropriate for target forest communities, and thus decrease the risk, severity, and intensity of catastrophic peat fires. Such fires influence a broad geography with tremendous impacts to human health, military operations, tourism, and other industries while threatening adjacent lands under commercial uses.

Sector of the Economy: Agriculture

Alternative A: As detailed above, this alternative is anticipated to provide the greatest flood risk reduction on adjacent downgradient lands within the Newland Water Services District, which are dominated by row-crop agriculture. District members were consulted in the drafting of alternatives and their input resulted in enhancements to the placement of low water crossings in order to maximize flood reduction benefits while meeting refuge management goals. It is important to note that in the case of significant storm events, there is a practical limit to the ability of the project area to improve economic outcomes and moderate flood conditions off-refuge, specifically in the case of extreme precipitation levels. The extent of flood resilience benefits provided by restoration infrastructure will be partially depend on storm severity and the seasonal weather conditions leading up to storm events. Alternative B: There would be no change of impact to the agricultural lands downgradient from the project area; however, it can be projected that the impacts would be more negative if the frequency and intensity of natural disasters continue into the future. For example, a paper in 2018 found peak flows increased between 10 and 35 percent in three drained peatland watersheds when compared to similar undrained watersheds.

27

Alternative C: As detailed above, this alternative is anticipated to provide moderate flood risk reduction on adjacent downgradient lands within the Newland Water Services District, which are dominated by row-crop agriculture. District members were consulted in the drafting of alternatives and their input resulted in a prioritization of the placement of just two low water crossings in order to provide flood reduction benefits while meeting refuge management goals. It is important to note that in the case of significant storm events, there is a practical limit to ability of the project area to improve economic outcomes and moderate flood conditions off-refuge, specifically in the case of extreme precipitation levels. The extent of flood resilience benefits provided by restoration infrastructure will be partially depend on storm severity and the seasonal weather conditions leading up to storm events.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires all Federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations and communities.

The Service has not identified any potential high and adverse environmental or human health impacts from this proposed action or any of the alternatives. The Service has identified that Pasquotank County, a portion of which is the primary impact area of the proposed project, is identified as a Tier 1 County by North Carolina Department of Commerce. This represents the highest rating for economic distress based upon average unemployment rate, median household income, percentage growth in population, and adjusted property tax base per capita. According to 2018 estimates, 20.2 percent of the population lives below the poverty line and 71.2 percent of public-school students receive free or reduced school lunches. Racial minorities make up approximately 41.3 percent of Pasquotank County’s current population. However, the Service has determined that minority and low-income communities will not be disproportionately affected by any impacts from this proposed action or any of the alternatives. The proposed Alternative A, and Alternative C, would have a positive impact to these low income and minority populations through reduced flood risk within the project area.

28

INDIAN TRUST RESOURCES

There are no federally recognized Tribes located in northeast North Carolina. The Nansemond Tribe is located in Suffolk, Virginia.

There are no Indian Trust Resources on this refuge and this action will not impact any Indian Trust Resources. There are no federally recognized Tribes located in northeast North Carolina. The Nansemond Tribe is located in Suffolk, Virginia, and will be consulted on the proposed project.

Cumulative Impact Analysis: Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Aside from the existing water control structures discussed in Alternative B, and the structures proposed to be added in Alternatives A or C, the Newland Water Services District manages two primary structures at the southern end of the project area, which impact the Route 158 Ditch and Newland Ditch. In addition, the agriculture lands adjacent to the project area, which are privately owned, have many smaller ditches to help drain the farmland. These ditches and structures are managed for the primary purpose of protecting farmland from inundation. Specifically, they are managed to hold water upstream to allow drainage of the (downstream) farmland; and when large storm events occur, they are opened to allow the water to pass through for later drainage. This is very similar to the management capacity we intend to achieve through the proposed action. Therefore, their management will not be affected by installation and management of the newly proposed structures and vice versa. The two management agencies will continue to work cooperatively with each other regarding water management. Above, we identified an alternative that was dismissed from further consideration because it was beyond the scope of this project by including the Perquimans River Watershed, which would not contribute to the purpose and need of restoring the hydrology in the Pasquotank Headwaters area. This alternative has been discussed with the various stakeholders in Gates, Pasquotank, Camden, and Perquimans Counties. If this project was implemented, it would substantially add to the beneficial impact of reducing flood flow to the communities that border the refuge. It would also restore natural hydrologic flow paths on and off the refuge; and, reduce forest inundation that is created by Route 158 acting as a dam to southward flows. This project will not negatively affect or deter the refuge from meeting the purpose and need of the proposed alternative for the Pasquotank Headwaters restoration project. The Dismal Swamp Canal and South Mills lock, in Camden County, North Carolina is managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Canal serves as the east end of the landscape surrounding the impacted area. Although the canal does not impact the purpose and need of the Pasquotank Headwaters Restoration Project, the Restoration Project and management of the canal, together, impact flooding issues in the North Carolina Counties. The USACE staff

29

are working with the County administrators in a similar attempt to reduce flood impacts associated with management of the Canal and lock. Cumulatively, any actions (even small) can benefit these Counties from flood impacts and better secure the socioeconomic condition of the area. TABLE 6. ANTICIPATED CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ANY ALTERNATIVES

Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable

Activity Impacting Affected Environment Descriptions of Anticipated Cumulative Impacts

Development and Population Increase According to the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management (2018), the cumulative population of Camden, Gates, and Pasquotank Counties is projected to increase by just 1.8 percent by 2038, from 61,567 to 62,671. The U.S. population is projected to increase by 17 percent over the same time interval. This suggests a relatively low rate of additional development adjacent to the proposed project area.

The limited future development anticipated in the counties adjacent to the proposed project area could result in a slight increase in impervious surfaces and water quality impacts, though not in the project area. This project is not expected to have any cumulative negative impacts on an increasing regional population. However, the flood mitigation benefits anticipated following full hydrologic restoration of the project area could result in more positive impacts to downgradient communities if there is a higher population density within the off-refuge portion of the Pasquotank River watershed west of Highway 17 and north of Highway 158. Likewise, the decreased risk of catastrophic wildfire that accompanies higher average annual soil moisture levels following restoration would reduce health impacts from smoke inhalation to the growing population of both the adjacent northeast North Carolina counties as well as the more rapidly growing Tidewater region of southeast Virginia.

Agricultural land uses

Please refer to the Agriculture subsection in the Socioeconomic Impacts section above.

Climate Change Warming, whether it results from anthropogenic or natural sources, is expected to affect a variety of natural processes and associated resources. However, the complexity of ecological systems means that there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty about the impact climate change will actually have. That said, the combination of increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts, and wildfire could dramatically reduce the amount and quality of forested wetlands. As a result, it is imperative to implement mitigation measures now to alleviate the impacts of these severe events. The proposed alternative would mitigate by providing increased resiliency

30

within the project area. Re-wetting the peat soil increases the suitability for peat accumulation, which supports forest health and diversity. It reduces the potential for long term, deep burning peat fires. The added water control structures allows greater management capability to manage floodwater and drought conditions. The proposed alternative would result in the retention of a greater volume of storm water in the project area and an overall decrease in drainage outflow from the project area to the Pasquotank River. As a result, the proposed alternative will offer a net benefit to adjoining lands as future sea level rise impacts the ability of these low-lying areas to rely on gravity drainage.

Mitigation Measures and Conditions Other mitigating measures and conditions will be taken during all construction activities. For example, the contractor will be required to provide and have approved a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan, Safety Plan, Staffing Plan, and Construction Schedule. In addition, they will follow all Federal, State, and local regulations. The contractor will be required to maintain and repair all roads in a condition found prior to mobilization. Time of year restrictions will be established to minimize disturbance to threatened and endangered species. Grubbing and clearing of vegetation at construction sites will be minimized to the greatest extent practical. Monitoring Service staff follow USGS techniques and methods on measuring and monitoring surface water and groundwater conditions across the refuge. Surface water flow (discharge) in ditches entering the project area has been monitored continuously since 2011. Flow in ditches exiting the project area has been measured approximately quarterly since 2012. In 2019, the existing monitoring network in the project area was expanded by adding continuous ditch water level monitoring stations at the principle project area outflows at Countyline Ditch, Bull Boulevard Ditch, and Weyerhauser Ditch. These data will be used to evaluate how surface water discharge from the project area changes after new water control infrastructure is installed. In addition, groundwater conditions in the project area have been monitored at four locations in the project area. Once the project is approved, additional groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to evaluate how much the new water control structures raise the water table in the drained peatlands.

31

Summary of Analysis: The purpose of this EA is to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Alternative A (Proposed Action Alternative) – Maximize hydrologic restoration across 12,000 acres of the Pasquotank River Headwaters: Under the Proposed Action Alternative, we plan to install eight water control structures (low head weirs) and four low water crossings. As described above, this alternative will mostly impact water and soil resources, and the socioeconomics of adjacent communities downgradient of the refuge. Installing up to eight water control structures in the drainage ditches are expected to raise water levels in drained areas 1 to 2 feet so they are consistently 0.5 to 1.5 feet (15 to 45 cm) below land surface and slow drainage to downgradient communities. The objective of installing low-water crossings is to reduce the damming effect of historic logging roads, which can prolong inundation, and re-connect historic surface water flow paths in the swamp, which slows water as it traverses the swamp versus using the existing ditch network. The proposed alternative would increase soil moisture conditions through increased water levels in the ditches and project area. Increased soil moisture would be most apparent nearest the ditch, with a decreasing effect proceeding away from the ditch. Increasing soil moisture is beneficial to support healthy forest communities and reduce the severity of ground fires. Increasing water levels and protecting the peat soil will allow refuge management the capability to strategically alter vegetative communities, to be more diverse and valuable to wildlife over time. Under this alternative, the arrival of storm waters to the ditch network shared with downgradient private lands would be delayed and outflow rates diminished. Following storm events, the combination of reduced runoff rates, decreased peak flow magnitude and drainage outflow distribution will provide private lands a longer time-frame to drain prior to the arrival of additional storm water from up-gradient. During small to medium sized storm events, it is anticipated that restoration infrastructure can provide flood resilience and improve outcomes for these economically important adjacent agricultural lands. This alternative could have negative impacts to federally endangered long-eared bats due to construction activities causing disturbance and possibly relocation; however, it is expected to be negligible. This impact can be minimized by proper scheduling of construction work, according to Federal regulations. This alternative helps meet the purpose and need of restoring the hydrologic conditions across a 12,000-acre area by slowing drainage and lengthening flow paths in order to mimic previous wetland conditions on Great Dismal Swamp NWR and provide flood mitigation benefits to adjacent communities.

32

Alternative B – Current Management Strategies (No Action Alternative): Under this alternative, no additional water control structures will be installed; resulting in no additional hydrologic restoration of the Pasquotank Headwaters area. Currently, there are 12 water control structures on the refuge within the Pasquotank Headwaters area. Although these structures provide some localized capability to implement hydrologic restoration, the existing infrastructure does not provide the management capability to meet the purpose and need of the proposed action, nor the goals and objectives of the refuge’s management plans. Implementing the no action alternative will not raise water levels so they are consistently 0.5 to 1.5 feet (15 to 45 cm) below land surface. This inability will also eliminate the ability to raise soil moisture and provide a more diverse and valuable forest community for wildlife, and have no impact to alleviate peak flood flows to downstream communities. Specifically, the location of existing structures and the absence of structures at upstream locations prevents hydrating drained peat several miles upstream, and does not adequately slow drainage nor provide flood mitigation benefits to downstream communities. The project area will remain dryer in some areas and wetter in others than undisturbed peatlands. Alternative C – Hydrologic restoration across 7,500 acres of the Pasquotank River Headwaters: Under this alternative, the refuge would implement the project on a smaller scale. Specifically, we would plan to install five water control structures (low head weirs) and two low water crossings. As described above, this alternative will mostly impact water and soil resources. Implementing this alternative would increase water levels; however, only across 7,500 acres, versus 12,000 acres of the proposed alternative due to a reduced number of structures installed. This alternative will not provide the refuge optimal water management capability to restore wetland conditions. This alternative will do little to capture flood runoff that is routed towards the Highway 158 ditch and will provide less pathways for flood waters to traverse the swamp towards the Pasquotank Headwaters. This alternative also helps meet the purpose and need of restoring the hydrologic conditions; however, to a much lesser extent than the proposed alternative to slow drainage and lengthen flow paths in order to mimic previous wetland conditions and provide flood mitigation benefits to adjacent communities. Implementing this alternative could have negative impacts to long-eared bats due to construction activities causing disturbance and possibly relocation; however, less than Alternative A due to five fewer locations. This impact can be minimized by proper scheduling of construction work, according to Federal regulations.

33

List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted: Ken Bowman, Camden County Manager Sarah Hill, Camden County/Dismal Swamp Visitors Center Assistant Director Sean Lavin, Pasquotank County Commissioner Brian Lannon, Camden County Soil and Water Conservation District Technician Doug Temple and John Spence, Newland Water Services District Citizens: John Taylor Kittrell, Bryan Poovey, Jeffery McCoy, Edward Pearce, Lynn Needham, Leon Needham, Vickie Stafford, William Stafford, Wayne Weeks, Kay Weeks, Steve Fachko References: Upon request, see document: Hydrologic Restoration Strategy: Pasquotank Headwaters Area Great Dismal Swamp NWR List of Preparers: Chris Lowie, Refuge Manager, Great Dismal Swamp NWR, Suffolk, VA Fred Wurster, Hydrologist, Great Dismal Swamp NWR, Suffolk, VA Eric Soderholm, Restoration Specialist, The Nature Conservancy, Kill Devil Hills, NC Jen Wright, Biologist, Great Dismal Swamp NWR, Suffolk, VA State Coordination: The refuge has contacted the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the Natural Heritage Program to inform them of this project. No substantial comments were received. The agencies will receive a personalized copy of the Draft EA to solicit formal review and comment. In addition, they will be invited to future public meetings, which will be held during the public review period. Tribal Consultation: There is one federally recognized Tribe in North Carolina; the Eastern Band of Cherokee Nation, which is located in south-central North Carolina approximately 430 miles from the project area. The Nansemond Tribe in Suffolk, Virginia, has been contacted about the project. No substantial comments were received. The Tribal Nations will receive a personalized copy of the Draft EA to solicit formal review and comment. In addition, they will be invited to future public meetings, which will be held during the public review period. Public Outreach: A public scoping meeting was held on July 22, 2019, where the refuge and TNC provided a presentation of the hydrology of the swamp, past restoration efforts in other areas of the refuge, and the concept of the proposed action. A total of 18 citizens participated. Comments received were incorporated into this Draft EA. Due to the COVID-19 viral pandemic, public meetings will not be held during the public review period of May 1 to May 30, 2020. The Fish and

34

Wildlife Service is available to accept phone calls to discuss the project. Written comments are strongly recommended. Determination: This section will be filled out upon completion of any public comment period and at the time of finalization of the Environmental Assessment.

The Service’s action will not result in a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. See the attached “Finding of No Significant Impact.”

The Service’s action may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and

the Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. Preparer Signature: __________________________________________Date:________ Name/Title/Organization: _______________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Reviewer Signature: ___________________________________Date:________ Name/Title: ______________________________________________________________

35

APPENDIX 1 OTHER APPLICABLE STATUES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS & REGULATIONS

STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS

Cultural Resources American Indian Religious Freedom Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1996 – 1996a; 43 CFR Part 7. Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431-433; 43 CFR Part 3. Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470aa – 470mm; 18 CFR Part 1312; 32 CFR Part 229; 36 CFR Part 296; 43 CFR Part 7. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470-470x-6; 36 CFR Parts 60, 63, 78, 79, 800, 801, and 810. Paleontological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470aaa – 470aaa-11. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; 43 CFR Part 10. Executive Order 11593 – Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 36 Fed. Reg. 8921 (1971). Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites, 61 Fed. Reg. 26771 (1996).

The refuge has not completed any actions to comply with the applicable laws and regulations at this time. Compliance with NEPA is the first action for a major Federal action such as the proposed alternative. Once the NEPA compliance process is complete, the refuge will continue with any and all other applicable laws and regulations. If a FONSI is determined, the refuge will proceed with a Joint Permit Application through the USACE, Wilmington, North Carolina District. This application will request necessary permits that would impact wetlands, coastal areas, endangered species, other wildlife, and archaeological resources. If it is determined to prepare an EIS, the refuge will continue with NEPA compliance.

Fish and Wildlife

36

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668-668c, 50 CFR 22. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 36 CFR Part 13; 50 CFR Parts 10, 17, 23, 81, 217, 222, 225, 402, and 450. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742 a-m. Lacey Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 10, 11, 12, 14, 300, and 904 Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 703-712; 50 CFR Parts 10, 12, 20, and 21. Executive Order 13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, 66 Fed. Reg. 3853 (2001). Natural Resources Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q; 40 CFR Parts 23, 50, 51, 52, 58, 60, 61, 82, and 93; 48 CFR Part 23. Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq. Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species, 64 Fed. Reg. 6183 (1999).

Water Resources Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et

37

seq.; 15 CFR Parts 923, 930, 933. Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly referred to as Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 320-330; 40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, 230-232, 323, and 328. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 114, 115, 116, 321, 322, and 333. Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 141-148. Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management, 42 Fed. Reg. 26951 (1977). Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands, 42 Fed. Reg. 26961 (1977).