20081315 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20080819

r?-eC,C`',
08--1315
THEISOUTH CREEK CORRIDOR MITIGATION SITE
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared by:
CZR INCORPORATED
4709 College Acres Drive, Suite 2
Wilmington, North Carolina
April 2008
THE SOUTH CREEK CORRIDOR MITIGATION SITE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................ ................................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................... ............................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................ ............................................... iii
LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ........................................................ ............................................... iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. ................................................1
2.0 TOPOGRAPHY ................................................................................ ................................................1
3.0 SOILS ............................................................................................... ................................................2
4.0 HYDROLOGY ................................................................................... ................................................3
5.0 BIOTIC COMMUNITIES ................................................................... ................................................4
5.1 Hardwood Forests ............................................................... ................................................5
5.2 Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest .............................................. ................................................6
5.3 Pine Plantation .................................................................... ................................................6
5.4 Pine Forest .......................................................................... ................................................6
5.5 Bottomland Hardwood Forest ............................................. .................................................7
5.6 Brackish Marsh Complex .................................................... .................................................7
5.7 Agricultural Land ................................................................. .................................................7
5.8 Herbaceous Assemblage ................................................... .................................................8
5.9 Shrub/Scrub Assemblage ................................................... ................................................8
5.10 Non-Vegetated/Maintained Areas ...................................... .................................................9
5.11 Ponds .................................................................................. ................................................9
5.12 Creeks ................................................................................ ................................................9
6.0 SECTION 404/401 JURISDICTIONAL AREAS ............................... .................................................9
7.0 WILDLIFE AND CORRIDOR BENEFITS ........................................ ...............................................12
8.0 SUMMARY ...................................................................................... ...............................................14
REFERENCES ............................................................................................. ...............................................15
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ..................................................................... ................................................29
Cover Photo - View to south along South Creek (SR 1923 bridge in foreground).
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan ii FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1 Characteristics of soil series occurring within the South Creek Corridor .......................................17
2 Corps stream evaluation scores .....................................................................................................18
3 Valuation of wetland communities using the NCDWQ wetland rating system ...............................19
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1 USGS Topographical Quadrangles South Creek Corridor ............................................................20
2 1998 Infrared Aerial South Creek Corridor ....................................................................................21
3 Soils South Creek Corridor .............................................................................................................22
4 LIDAR South Creek Corridor .........................................................................................................23
5 South Creek Corridor Biotic Communities (2 sheets) ...................................................................24
6 Wetland and Stream Data Points South Creek Corridor ...............................................................26
7 Soil and Vegetation Data Points South Creek Corridor ................................................................27
8 South Creek Corridor Mitigation Sites ............................................................................................28
LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Page
A Selected Site Photos of South Creek Corridor ...............................................................................29
B Vegetation and Soils Data Recorded on Routine Wetland Determination Forms (1987
COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) ...............................................................................................36
C North Carolina Division of Water Quality Wetland Rating Worksheets ........................................119
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan iii FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
1.0 INTRODUCTION
PCS Phosphate Co., Inc. located in Aurora, North Carolina has applied for a permit to
continue its mining operation into an area east of the mine's current operations. Approximately
4,135 acres of wetlands would be impacted within the project area if PCS Phosphate is granted
authorization for the L Alternative (first presented in the Supplement to the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (SDEIS) prepared for the project).
As part of the mitigation for mine continuation impacts under Alternative L, PCS
Phosphate has proposed to preserve a riparian corridor (referred to as the South Creek Corridor),
including wetlands and interspersed uplands, along South Creek south of Aurora, North Carolina.
South Creek Corridor would preserve 1,543 acres. Of the 1,543 acres, approximately 1,188 are
wetlands, 340 acres are upland, including 22 acres human-dominated/maintained. South Creek is
located on the south side of the Pamlico River, approximately 11 miles from the Pamlico Sound.
As a major tributary to the Pamlico River, South Creek has a drainage basin of approximately
50,000 acres and is designated a Special Secondary Nursery Area (SSNA).
The South Creek Corridor (SCC) includes 950 acres of property purchased over a period
of more than 10 years by PCS Phosphate. PCS Phosphate initially considered using this
property along South Creek for a riparian corridor in 1995; however, it was not utilized for
mitigation as part of the previous permit package (CZR Incorporated 1995). Since that time,
additional property has been purchased to expand the corridor and increase connectivity of
parcels.
The SCC is proposed for up-front mitigation by preservation. The SCC is located south
of NC Highway 33 along South Creek between SR 1925 and SR 1002, with the exception of a
small area crossing SR 1002 at the intersection of SR 1922 (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The SCC
contains an estimated 16 miles of property along stream banks of open water associated with
South Creek and named South Creek drainages (Broomfield Swamp Creek, Cypress Run, and
Gum Run). Representative photos of selected sites within the SCC are located in Supporting
Document A. CZR Incorporated (CZR) collected data to characterize vegetation, soils, and
hydrology within the SCC. On-site visits in 2007 and 2008 also included stream evaluation and
classification within the SCC. Data collected from previous on-site visits by CZR in 1995 have
also been referenced to create this report.
Much of the current wildlife value associated with these parcels is directly related to the
preservation and management of the existing extensive wetland communities. The SCC will 1)
serve as an important buffer for an adjacent estuarine system, 2) provide valuable wildlife habitat,
and 3) protect a natural corridor in a fragmented landscape dominated by agricultural and
silvicultural activities. The preservation of the estimated 1,543 acres will provide the framework
for a conservation management plan when combined with other PCS mitigation sites within the
South Creek drainage basin.
2.0 TOPOGRAPHY
Topographic position and proximity to South Creek are the primary factors affecting the
soils, hydrology, and vegetation of the SCC (Figure 1). The corridor encompasses portions of
three general landscape positions; lower floodplain, terraces, and interstream flats.
A nearly level floodplain is found adjacent to South Creek and its tributaries. Elevations
in the floodplain are near or slightly above mean sea level. The width of the floodplain on either
side of the creek varies from a few hundred feet in the southernmost parcel to nearly a thousand
feet farther north.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 1 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
Stream terraces often parallel drainage ways and are variable in width. Elevations along
the terraces range from several feet to over 5 feet above mean sea level. Slopes are generally
gentle but range up to 12 percent in some areas on soils identified as Winton fine sandy loam.
Soil and vegetation boundaries of this landscape are generally more pronounced adjacent to
floodplain communities and are less defined adjacent to interstream flat areas.
Interstream flats occur in poorly drained areas between stream drainages, and are
generally located behind stream terraces near major streams and adjacent to drainages further
upstream. This landform occurs adjacent to the floodplain in the headwaters of South Creek.
Elevations of interstream flats range between 5 and 15 feet above sea level, have little
topographic variation, and contain no well defined drainage patterns.
Sources of human-altered microtopography exist within the SCC. These occurrences are
localized to channelized streams and ditch networks, and typically cover areas from two to 50 feet
in width. Actual height above sea level is unknown for these areas and the altered elevation
change is abrupt.
3.0 SOILS
Soil types within the SCC as shown in the Beaufort County soil survey map (Soil
Conservation Service 1984) were evaluated during on-site visits in 1995 when soil core data was
gathered during Corps routine wetland evaluations (Supporting Document B). Soil series of the
SCC are shown in Figure 3 and characteristics are described in Table 1.
Soil characteristics are largely determined by the landscape position and substrate type.
Predominant soil types and respective percentages (in parentheses) within the SCC are Tomotley
fine sandy loam (2.8), Augusta fine sandy loam (8.0), Muckalee loam (13.1), Dragston fine sandy
loam (15.1), Dorovan mucky peat (8.2), Ponzer muck (13.2), and Currituck muck (16.4). Each of
the other soil series in the SCC occupies no more than 5 percent of the Corridor.
Floodplain soils are composed primarily of three hydric soil series: Muckalee loam,
Dorovan mucky peat, and Currituck muck. All of these series are poorly drained or very poorly
drained, with a seasonal high water table between + 0.5 and 1.5 feet from the surface. Currituck
muck soils are the wettest of the floodplain soils and are found along the edge of South Creek.
The high water table found in association with Dorovan mucky peat and Currituck muck account
for the high organic composition of these soils.
Terrace areas are occupied by primarily non-hydric soil series that include Augusta fine
sandy loam, Dragston fine sandy loam, Altavista fine sandy loam, Lynchburg fine sandy loam,
Winton fine sandy loam, and Conetoe loamy sand. Drainage is variable, ranging from somewhat
poorly drained to well drained. Boundaries between soil series are generally more pronounced
adjacent to floodplain communities and are less defined adjacent to interstream flat areas.
Interstream flats are predominantly occupied by poorly drained hydric mineral soils
including Tomotley fine sandy loam, Roanoke fine sandy loam, Arapahoe fine sandy loam, and
the very poorly drained hydric organic soil Ponzer muck. Areas of non-hydric soils (primarily
Augusta and Altavista fine sandy loamy) occasionally occur on remnant stream terraces found
within the interstream flats.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 2 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
4.0 HYDROLOGY
Surface hydrology within the SCC is influenced largely by tidal flooding (wind driven)
associated with South Creek and freshwater inflow via runoff and precipitation. High groundwater
levels also influence the hydrology of this system, especially on a seasonal basis. South Creek
drains generally to the north and has a drainage basin that encompasses approximately 50,000
acres. South Creek is a brackish to freshwater stream in the upper reaches, but is classified as
mesohaline in the lower reaches. Approximately 850 feet downstream from SR 1923, South
Creek becomes a channelized stream. South Creek continues as a channelized stream
upstream in a southward direction and then turns sharply to the west where it becomes the South
Creek Canal.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) classification of South Creek
0.75 mile downstream from SR 1924 to Deephole Point is "SC NSW" (North Carolina
Administrative Code 15A NCAC 28.0302 to .0307). The SC classification is defined as all tidal
salt waters protected for secondary recreation such as fishing, boating, and other activities
involving minimal skin contact; fish and noncommercial shellfish consumption; aquatic life
propagation and survival; and wildlife. The NSW classification is defined as a supplemental
classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to being subject to
excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. From source to a point 0.75 mile
downstream from SR 1924, South Creek is classified as "C Sw NSW". The C classification is
defined as fresh waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish
consumption, aquatic life including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity
and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human
body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or
incidental manner. The Sw classification is defined as a supplemental classification intended to
recognize those waters which have low velocities and other natural characteristics which are
different from adjacent streams.
Most creeks within the SCC south of NC 33 are unnamed tributaries to South Creek.
There are three named drainages portions of which are present within the SCC: Gum Swamp
Run, Cypress Run, and Broomfield Swamp Creek. Gum Swamp Run drains 4,411 acres in the
southeastern portion of the basin. Cypress Run drains 2,584 acres west of South Creek, and
Broomfield Swamp Creek drains 2,518 acres north of Cypress Run. The SCC has approximately
11.7 miles (61,760 linear feet) of property along South Creek and approximately four miles
(20,742 linear feet) collectively along Broomfield Swamp Creek, Cypress Run and Gum Swamp
Run.
Cypress Run, Broomfield Swamp Creek, and Gum Swamp Run are channelized
tributaries of South Creek classified as C Sw NSW, from their origin to South Creek. The riparian
zone along these creeks within the SCC consists of hardwood forests with spoil piles containing
some breaks along one bank, and a maintained unpaved spoil access road on the opposite bank.
Levees along these channelized creeks extend parallel to the drains and in most areas support a
dirt road. The roads are maintained and mowed regularly by the South Creek Drainage District,
Beaufort County, No. 18. Cypress Run and Broomfield Swamp Creek are deeply incised. The
access roads and spoil piles along these creeks block natural surface flow from the surrounding
floodplain, and inhibit the exchange of water, nutrients, and sediments to the floodplain area that
occurs with natural flooding. Occasional culverts under the access roads provide avenues for
some surface water exchange from the floodplain to the streams. Groundwater flow is the only
other avenue for water to leave the floodplain on the side with access roads. Flooding is inhibited
on the opposite side due to channelization which has lowered the normal high water such that
only extreme events exceed bankfull stage.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 3 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
Parcels underlain with Currituck muck and much of the Dorovan mucky peat areas are
highly influenced by sea level. Flooding in these areas is controlled by wind direction and force,
as well as seasonal fluctuations. Parcels underlain with Muckalee loam soils generally have
shorter hydroperiods than other floodplain soils and have unidirectional flow. Interstream flats are
influenced primarily by precipitation, having strong seasonal fluctuations and weak lateral flows.
Alterations to the natural hydrologic conditions have occurred primarily through the
channelization of larger creeks and ditching of some interstream flats. Ditching and
channelization of wetlands often result in shorter hydroperiods for adjacent wetlands and altered
drainage patterns. The network of ditches throughout the interstream flats facilitates drainage
into these channelized creeks and is maintained by the South Creek Drainage District, Beaufort
County, No.18. The ditching and channelization of streams probably dewatered interstream
wetlands more than floodplain wetlands. Channelization appears to have enhanced the effects of
sea level rise, enabling brackish water to reach further upstream compared to historic conditions.
The apparent increase in salinity in the headwaters of South Creek is reflected by changes in the
adjacent wetland vegetation. Freshwater woody vegetation is dying back and salt-tolerant marsh
species are increasing in some of the fringe wetlands. The presence of extensive wetlands on
the low elevation floodplain indicates that the hydrology is more closely related to the sea level.
Streams within the SCC were evaluated and classified in 2007 and 2008 by CZR (Table
2). Beaufort County soil survey maps and USGS quadrangles were used to identify potential
streams (Figure 1 and Figure 3). Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) was also used to identify
additional potential streams not depicted on soil survey maps or USGS quadrangles (Figure 4).
An estimated total of 16,365 linear feet of potential streams (unnamed tributaries to South Creek)
were evaluated and classified within the Corridor. A jurisdictional status of the potential streams
has not been determined. US Army Corps of Engineers stream quality forms were completed for
streams within the SCC by CZR (Table 2). Corps stream quality scores for perennial streams
ranged from 47 to 75.5. The average Corps score for perennial streams was 64. Corps stream
quality scores for intermittent streams ranged from 35.5 to 59.5. The average Corps score for
intermittent streams was 50.5. Very few of the potential streams evaluated exist in a natural
state. The most common occurrence within potential streams is channelization.
5.0 BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Plant communities were characterized by CZR during 1995, 2001, 2007, and 2008. Each
community type was characterized and mapped by ground truthing at specific sites within the
SCC and then supplemented by use of Beaufort County soil maps, 1998 infrared color aerials,
2001 black and white aerials, 2006 color aerials, USGS topographic maps, LIDAR, and National
Wetlands Inventory maps. Furthermore, classification of plant communities was based upon
biotic communities used for the PCS Phosphate EIS process and community data available from
South Creek Riparian Corridor (CZR Incorporated 1995). The term "biotic community" has been
used to designate a distinct assemblage of flora and fauna that is associated with a particular
type of dominant vegetation (e.g. bottomland hardwood forest, pine plantation, herbaceous
assemblage, and others). A biotic community map has been created where each community is
designated as wetland or upland within the dominant vegetation types (Figure 5 sheets 1 and 2.
Most plant communities are dynamic and evolve with respect to the surrounding physical
environment and mature through the process of ecological succession. As a consequence of
succession or disturbance, some of the habitats in the SCC represent intermediate stages or
ecotonal phases of the distinct plant communities described in this report. These areas have
been included with the most characteristic or representative community.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 4 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
Ground truthing methodology included characterization of the dominant vegetation found
in the canopy, subcanopy, shrub, and herbaceous strata. Few communities exist in a completely
natural state, as most have been influenced at some time by disturbances such as logging, other
silvicultural practices, suppression of natural fires, and modification of hydrologic regimes by
ditching. On-site visits determined that areas subjected to clear cutting had the potential to
improve through preservation, by allowing natural succession to continue. Therefore, using the
baseline year of 2006, a system using two biotic community numbers separated by a slash was
implemented to acknowledge projected future conditions within the SCC. The first number is the
current condition and the second number is the future projected community.
Areas extensively modified by man's activities were placed in a non-
vegetated/maintained category. These areas are represented by roads and other areas where
natural plant succession is restricted by man's continued use and routine management. Most
communities, although somewhat modified, still exhibit many characteristics of natural plant
communities. On-site visits in 1995 were conducted January through May and routine wetland
determination forms were used in the field to document plant communities in wetland and upland
communities (Supporting Document B). The methodology used to characterize biotic
communities in 1995 differs from the methodology utilized for the EIS. Wetland delineation forms
and wetland value rating forms from the 1995 South Creek Riparian Corridor report were
referenced to resolve discrepancies between current and past methods of biotic community
characterization.
Plant communities or land types were identified and described for the SCC. Of these
plant communities, three are human-influenced land types (non-vegetated/maintained area, pine
plantation, and agricultural land). The following discussion characterizes each community and is
in accordance with biotic communities described in the EIS for the PCS Phosphate Mine
Continuation.
5.1 Hardwood Forest. Hardwood forests are characterized by a canopy of mixed
hardwood species whose composition is largely dictated by hydrologic conditions. This
community was more prevalent prior to conversion of large expanses of land for agricultural and
silviculture uses. The soils have been ditched in wetter areas, changing moisture regimes.
However, these areas retain low soil chromas and vegetation indicative of earlier hydric
conditions
Hardwood forests on wetter soils support canopy species such as red maple (Acer
rubrum), sweet-gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), willow oak
(Quercus phellos), swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), water oak (Q. nigra), and black gum
(Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora). The understory typically consists of red bay (Persea borbonia),
sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), holly (Ilex opaca), and horse sugar (Symplocos tinctoria).
Commonly occurring herbaceous species are Virginia chain-fern (Woodwardia virginica), netted
chain-fem (W. aereolata), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), royal fern (Osmunda regalis var.
spectabilis), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and slender
spikegrass (Chasmanthium laxum).
On better-drained soils, common canopy species are white oak (Quercus alba), southern
red oak (Q. falcata), post oak (Q. stellata), water oak, mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), and
beech (Fagus grandiflora). The understory consists of American beautyberry (Callicarpa
americana), witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), sassafras
(Sassafras albidum), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium
corymbosum). Hercules' club (Aralia spinosa) is common on disturbed sites. Herbaceous species
include partridge berry (Mitchella repens), Virginia heartleaf (Hexastylis virginica), little-brown-jug
(H. arifolia), and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides).
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 5 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
Common vines in hardwood forests throughout the range of moisture regimes are yellow
jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), muscadine
(Vitis rotundifolia), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), rattan vine (Berchemia scandens), and
particularly in drier areas, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
5.2 Mixed Pine-hardwood Forest. This community represents an intermediate
successional stage between pine forest and hardwood forest. It is also found in situations where
a hardwood forest has been disturbed through fire or selective cutting.
Species composition is similar to hardwood forests although the relative abundance of
each species differs. In this community, pines make up at least 30 percent of the canopy. Loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda) is the most common pine species, interspersed in the canopy with sweet-gum,
red maple, tulip tree, willow oak, water oak, and southern red oak. Shrub and herb species vary
little from those mentioned for hardwood forests with the exception of huckleberry (Gaylussacia
sp.), wax myrtle (Morelia cerifera), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinium), ebony spleenwort
(Asplenium platyneuron), and pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata). Other common species include
red bay, sweet bay, holly, horse sugar, American beautyberry, witch-hazel, ironwood, sassafras,
flowering dogwood, and highbush blueberry.
5.3 Pine Plantation. Pine plantations within the SCC are managed either by
Weyerhaeuser or PCS. Loblolly pine is the dominant species planted because it has a wide soil
moisture tolerance and is quickly established. Most pine plantations have been ditched.
Unlike pine forests, pine plantations are typically managed for maximum timber
production. Stands are thinned and competing hardwoods are removed by controlled burns,
chemicals, or mechanical means. Trees are harvested 25 to 30 years after planting. If left
unmanaged, the canopy closes and allows little sunlight for understory growth, encouraging
shade tolerant hardwood species to encroach. Red maple, sweet-gum, sweet bay, black gum,
holly, various oaks, wax myrtle, dangleberry (Gaylussacia frondosa), and blueberries (Vaccinium
sp.) are typical invading shrubs. Muscadine, Virginia creeper, yellow jessamine, and catbriers
(Smilax spp.) are common vines. Virginia chain-fern, false nettle, poison ivy, and cane are typical
herbaceous species. Additionally, southern twayblade (Listera australis) occurs in some mature
pine plantations.
5.4 Pine Forest. The pine forest community consists of naturally occurring stands of
pine, as opposed to planted pine plantations. Remnant pine forests are dispersed throughout the
landscape surrounding Aurora, North Carolina. Loblolly pine typically dominates the canopy and
generally is larger and older than in pine plantations.
Subcanopy, shrub, herbaceous species, and vines in the pine forest are frequently the
same as those in pine plantations. Common subcanopy and shrub species are red maple, sweet-
gum, sweet bay, black gum, holly, various oaks, wax myrtle, dangleberry, and blueberries.
Common vines are muscadine, Virginia creeper, yellow jessamine, and catbriers. The
herbaceous layer is usually sparse. Pipsissewa, favoring acidic soils, is encountered more
frequently in pine forests than in mixed pine-hardwood forests. Pink moccasin flower
(Cypripedium acaule) is found occasionally.
Another distinct type of pine forest occurs within the SCC. In this area, the dominant
canopy species is pond pine (Pinus serotina), which is interspersed with loblolly pine. The
majority of shrubs are evergreen, with leucothoe (Leucothoe axillaris), and fetter-bush (Lyonia
lucida) being the most common species present. Catbriers are frequently encountered in these
pond pine stands.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 6 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
5.5 Bottomland Hardwood Forest. Bottomland hardwood forests occur along creeks and
drainage ways in Beaufort County (Blair 1967). This community is characterized by a natural
hydrologic regime of alternating annual wet and dry periods (Wharton et al. 1982). Trees are
buttressed and some are fluted in response to anaerobic conditions caused by periodic
inundations. Root systems are shallow and frequently visible. Trees are frequently blown over
during storms due to the extremely saturated soils and shallow roots.
Species composition of bottomland hardwood forest varies with local moisture regimes.
Black gum, tulip tree, laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), green ash, red maple, willow oak, sweet-
gum, swamp chestnut oak, and American elm (Ulmus americana) are canopy species common in
areas of less frequent flooding. Red maple, holly, red bay, sweet bay, wax myrtle, dwarf palmetto
(Sabal minor), and tag alder (Alnus serrulata) are frequently found in the understory. Bald
cypress (Taxodium distichum) is found where there exists, or has historically been, permanent
standing water. Lizard's tail (Saururus cernus), netted chain-fern, royal fern, arrowhead
(Saggittaria spp.), false nettle, knotweed (Polygonum spp.), marsh pennywort (Hydrocotlye
umbellata), climbing hydrangea (Decumaria barbara), rattan vine, and muscadine are common
ground cover and vine species of bottomland hardwood forests.
5.6 Brackish Marsh Complex. The estuarine waters of the SCC are sufficiently
separated from the ocean, such that salinity is most heavily influenced by tidal action, local
freshwater runoff, and discharge from the Tar/Pamlico River. Tides are wind-dominated, with
lunar influence being minimal. Irregular tidal flooding allows for minimal mineral sedimentation
and a high accumulation of organic matter. In general, the marsh complex lacks mud flats, and
open-water edges of this community are eroded to an escarpment (Copeland et al. 1984). Unlike
more uniform marsh systems which occur nearer ocean inlets where salinities are stable, this
complex consists of a mosaic of vegetation, zoned by the variations in salinity from the
headwaters to the mouth of the creek (Bellis and Gaither 1984). The brackish marsh complex
occurs as a transition community between terrestrial communities and the creeks community.
Rise in mean sea level of 1.22 feet per century at NOAA station 8656483 Beaufort, North
Carolina (NOAA CO-OPS unpublished website data) undercuts the peaty substrate on which the
brackish marsh complex grows (Benton 1979). This results in a gradual migration of the marsh up
onto the low slope of the land. The landward extent of the marsh complex is limited by the height
of the flooding from wind tides. As the outer perimeter is eroded away, the upland edge of the
marsh complex encroaches inland (Bellis et al. 1975).
Needle rush (Juncus roemerianus) is the dominant species in the brackish marsh
complex and is interspersed with big cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides). Salt grass (Distichlis
spicata), smooth cordgrass (Spartina altemiflora), and saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens)
colonize areas near the mouths of creeks. Upstream, these communities become dominated by
saw grass (Cladium jamaicense) and southern cattail (Typha dominagensis). Rose mallow
(Hibiscus moscheutos), seashore mallow (Kosteletskya virginica), saltmarsh morning glory
(Ipomoea sagittata), and spike-rush (Eleocharis spp.) are other common species. The shrub
border of the marsh is dominated by wax myrtle, silverling (Baccharis halimifolia), and black
willow (Salix nigra). Black gum, bald cypress, and loblolly pine are found scattered along creek
edges and in the upper reaches, although most are dying or dead.
5.7 Agricultural Land. Agriculture has historically been the primary human-related land
use within the SCC. Some agricultural lands were allowed to naturally succeed to forest, while
others were planted as pine plantations, primarily by Weyerhaeuser, in the 1960s and 1970s. An
extensive ditch system was used to effectively drain the soils to facilitate agricultural uses in
hydric soil types. This community contains only those lands currently managed for agriculture,
including fields under cultivation, fields temporarily fallow, and adjacent support areas associated
with farming these fields.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 7 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
Agricultural lands produce corn, soybeans, small grains, and forage crops in the SCC.
Because of routine management practices associated with farming, this community is considered
to retain only isolated remnants of its native character, and does not provide the same wildlife
habitat value as the original community. However, many crops at various growth stages are
favorite forage for many species. Remnants of native vegetation and various invading weedy
species occur within the agricultural fields and along field edges, ditches, canals, or natural
drainages (some of which have been channelized).
Trees and saplings commonly found in such areas include sweet-gum, red maple, and
loblolly pine. Other common plants include tall goldenrod (Solidago canadensis var. scabra), dog-
fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), cranesbill (Geranium carolinianum), fall panic grass (Panicum
dichotomiflorum), black nightshade (Solanum americanum), hairy crabgrass (Digitaria ciliaris),
and panic grass (Dichanthelium acuminatum).
5.8 Herbaceous Assemblage. The vegetation of this community consists primarily of a
mixed assemblage of herbs, with less than 50 percent cover of shrubs. This biotic community
contains areas timbered and cleared within the last five years and not replanted, abandoned
agricultural fields, and human-altered sites which have been allowed to revegetate naturally, such
as powerline rights-of-way, Typical of early stages of succession, these areas are characterized
by plants that have short life cycles, are relatively small in size, reproduce annually by seeds, and
produce an abundance of small seeds which are able to persist in the soil until conditions are
right for germination and growth (Smith 1980). This type of community is considered the first
phase of revegetation, or successional stage, that develops in a highly disturbed area. Areas of
herbaceous assemblage created by human disturbances are scattered throughout the SCC.
Common plant species occurring within well-drained areas within this community include
broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), trumpet vine (Campsis radicans), lamb's quarters
(Chenopodium album), Mexican-tea (C. ambrosioides), cypress witchgrass (Dichanthelium
dichotomum), dog-fennel, flat-topped goldenrod (Euthamia tenuifolia), rabbit tobacco
(Gnaphalium obtusifolium), pineweed (Hypericum gentianoides), Japanese clover (Kummerowia
striata), Japanese honeysuckle, vasey grass (Paspalum urvillei), pokeweed (Phytolacca
americana), dewberry (Rubus trivialis), catbrier (Smilax bona-nox), tall goldenrod, and poison ivy.
Species common in wetter areas include cane, false nettle, slender spikegrass, broom panic
grass (Dichanthelium scoparium), sugar cane plumegrass (Erianthus giganteus), boneset
(Eupatorium perfoliatum), round-leaf thorough-wort (Eupatorium pilosum), leathery rush (Juncus
coriaceus), soft rush (J. effusus), climbing hempweed (Mikania scandens), marsh-fleabane
(Pluchea camphorata), little water pepper (Polygonum opelousanum), dotted smartweed (P.
punctatum), lizard's tail, and wool-grass (Scirpus cyperinus). Reed (Phragmites australis) is often
located on fill material mounds. As succession continues, various shrub species invade and, if
allowed to proceed naturally, will dominate within three to five years.
5.9 Shrub/scrub Assemblage. Two distinct types of shrub/scrub communities occur
within the SCC. The most common is produced as a result of woodlands harvested more than
five years ago in which debris remains and where no site preparation or replanting has occurred.
In some areas, cull trees or seed-source trees have been left, while in others, most standing
timber has been removed. Characteristically, waste and debris have not been cleared,
windrowed, or burned, and no site preparation or tree-planting has been performed. A second
community type occurs where agricultural land or other previously cleared areas have been
abandoned and result in greater than 50 percent coverage of shrubs and a sparse or absent tree
canopy. Dominance by shrub species may result from the succession of herbaceous cover or
from removal of the canopy layer for silvicultural management. Commonly associated species are
joint-head arthraxon (Arthraxon hispidus), dog-fennel, tall goldenrod, dewberry, wool-grass,
slender spikegrass, and soft rush.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 8 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
5.10 Non-Vegetated/Maintained Areas. This biotic community is comprised of areas
where human structures or activities (exclusive of agriculture or silviculture) either eliminate
vegetative cover or prevent natural plant succession. Examples of non-vegetated areas include
paved, graveled, or graded roads, parking lots, railroads, buildings, and unvegetated mounds of
spoil material. Maintained areas include lawns, yards, and road edges where existing vegetation
is restricted by human's continued use and routine management.
Vegetation in maintained areas consists primarily of herbs but also contains landscape
tree species including pecan (Carya illinoensis), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweet-gum,
red maple, and flowering dogwood. Representative herbs of this community include
pyrrhopappus (Pyrrhopappus carolinianus), white clover (Trifolium repens), bitter-weed (Helenium
amarum), false garlic (Nothoscordium bivalve), wild onion (Allium canadense), sandspur
(Cenchrus Ion gispinus), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale),
rye grass (Lolium multiflorum), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa
pratensis). Common vines include poison ivy and trumpet vine.
5.11 Ponds. Two man-created ponds are present within the SCC. The original intent of
creation is unknown. One area, south of Cypress Run, is likely a borrow pit used to create
microtopography within the NCSU study site. These depressions exhibit little vegetation other
than emergent aquatic vegetation.
5.12 Creeks. Creeks and potential streams have been classified as perennial or
intermittent streams. Creeks within the SCC are present in fresh and brackish waters. Three
larger named creeks drain into South Creek within the SCC: Broomfield Swamp Creek, Cypress
Run, and Gum Swamp Run. These channelized creeks average 20 feet across in width and
depth is unknown. These creeks are documented on Beaufort County Soil Surveys and USGS
topographical quadrangles. Sampling or classification of aquatic vegetation within these creeks
has not been conducted. The other creeks in the SCC are unnamed tributaries of South Creek.
These creeks are two to 15 feet across in width and one to four feet deep. Beaufort County soil
survey maps indicate four unnamed tributaries of South Creek within the SCC. USGS
quadrangles depict a total 16 blueline streams as unnamed tributaries of South Creek within the
SCC. However, not all indicated features shown on the soil survey map or as blue lines on the
quadrangle are streams because they lack the biological and/or geomorphological characteristics
of streams, have been plugged, or have been significantly altered by human activity.
6.0 SECTION 404 JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
Wetlands of the SCC were estimated using information gathered from on-site inspections
in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental
Laboratory 1987). Wetlands corresponded closely with the mapping of hydric soils; however,
additional wetland acreage was found in areas mapped as non-hydric. Only wetland inclusions
that exhibited strong signs of hydrology in the field and were discernable from the aerial
photographs were included on the biotic community map (Figure 5 sheets 1 and 2). Additional
"Waters of the U.S." under Section 404 jurisdiction exist in the SCC as open water creeks,
intermittent drains, and ponds.
Most of the SCC wetland communities are classified on the National Wetland Inventory
(NWI) maps as palustrine forested and emergent wetlands. Wetlands classified as estuarine are
also identified along South Creek downstream and near the confluence of Broomfield Swamp
Creek with South Creek.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 9 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
Coastal wetlands, as protected by the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) and
regulated by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission through the Division of Coastal
Management (DCM), are found within the preservation parcels. These coastal wetlands along
with the open water (PublicTrust areas) associated with the creeks are classified as Areas of
Environmental Concern (AECs) by the DCM. The SCC contains an estimated 110 acres
(4,838,559 square feet) of riparian buffer regulated by the Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer rules.
Wetlands within the preservation parcels were evaluated using the Fourth Version
Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina as developed by the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources; Division of Water Quality (NCDENR
1995). This system rates six values of wetlands including: 1) water storage, 2) bank/shoreline
stabilization, 3) pollutant removal, 4) wildlife habitat, 5) aquatic life value, and 6)
recreation/education. Using a system of flow charts, each function is evaluated via choices
selected from scientifically based questions about the wetland system. Each value is given an
individual score and then weighted by relative importance. These weightings reflect the Division
of Water Quality's regulatory emphasis on protecting water quality. The NCDWQ no longer uses
this rating system and is transitioning to the new Draft NC Wetlands Assessment Methodology
(NCWAM); however, NCWAM is not yet officially in place for public use.
Wetland value rating forms have been completed for sites evaluated in 1995 and 2007 by
CZR (Table 3, Figures 6 and 7, and Supporting Document C). The bottomland hardwood forest
community score averaged 64, with a range from 30 to 84. In the bottomland hardwood forest
community, 25 data points were evaluated. Of the total 25, three of these points represent areas
where bottomland hardwood forest occurred, but were clearcut in the last eight to ten years and
CZR has projected the bottomland hardwood forest occurrence. The brackish marsh complex
community score averaged 79, with a range from 67 to 86. In 1995 and 2007, Wetland Value
Rating Forms were used to evaluate brackish marshes even though they are not designed to rate
these systems. Brackish marsh has a high value and function within an ecosystem, and data
points within these areas were used to document existing conditions. The wetland hardwood
forest community score averaged 34, with a range from 14 to 63. In the wetland hardwood forest
community, 14 data points were evaluated. Four of the 14 data points evaluated were in areas
subjected to clearcut within the last eight to ten years and CZR has projected the wetland
hardwood forest occurrence. The wetland mixed pine-hardwood community score averaged 39,
with a range from 19 to 69. In the wetland mixed pine-hardwood community, eight data points
were evaluated. Six of the eight data points were in areas subjected to clearcut within the last
eight to ten years and CZR has projected the mixed-pine hardwood community. One data point
was evaluated in a wetland pine plantation community and is presented in Table 3. A discussion
of the evaluated wetland values is presented below. Descriptions of functions were taken from the
Fourth Version Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. Wetland types for
the Wetland Rating Worksheet were determined using the key presented within the guidance
manual, which differs from the SCC biotic community classification and the Draft NCWAM.
The ability of most preservation parcels in the SCC to store water is moderate to high due
to the microtopography present on the various parcels. The ability of these parcels to receive,
store, and filter run-off water entering an estuarine wetland complex is one of the Corridor's
greatest functions. One factor that limits water storage scores is that many wetland areas within
the SCC can not be considered contiguous to streams due to channelization and no overbank
flooding. Microtopographic relief within the wetlands, especially bottomland hardwood forests, is
a good relative indicator of the system's depressional storage capacity. Most parcels are part of
larger wetland tracts within a gently sloping topographic basin. Within the SCC, wetland width is
typically greater than 100 feet and wetland size exceeds two acres. These conditions and a
predominance of upright, persistent vegetation also increase the wetland's ability to store water.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 10 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
Bank and shoreline stabilization is an important value associated with communities
adjacent to surface waters. The ability of wetlands within the SCC to stabilize a shoreline in an
area exposed to potentially erosive forces is probably higher than values indicate. Erosive forces
are generalized in the rating system to be associated with steep gradient basins and in urbanized
watersheds (i.e. greater than 10 percent impervious surface within one-half mile upstream).
Because these two erosive forces are not prevalent within the preservation parcels and lack of
wetlands contiguous to surface water due to channelization, scores for this value are lowered.
The rating is generalized and does not include erosive forces exerted on a system exposed to
wind tides and a rising sea level.
Because most of the parcels are 1) near surface water, 2) vegetated with persistent
species, 3) part of larger wetland tracts, 4) in a gently sloping topographic basin, and 5) receiving
water from surrounding extensive agricultural operations, the wetlands of the SCC serve an
important role in pollutant removal. Sites received lowered scores in pollutant removal due to
permanent bodies of water being less than 100 feet in width. Bottomland hardwood forests and
brackish marsh communities received the highest scores for this value.
Factors affecting the value of wetlands for wildlife habitat include 1) diversity of vegetative
structure, 2) diversity of vegetative species (for both food and cover), 3) surrounding land use, 4)
spatial patterns within and between wetlands, 5) size of the wetland, and 6) water quality and
quantity. Generally, large undisturbed wetlands that are near other wetlands and contain
vegetation that is important for both wildlife food and cover receive the highest rating for this
function. The availability of many wetland communities ranging from marshes to bottomland
hardwood forests makes the existing wetland complex attractive to wildlife. Many of these
parcels serve as an important refuge and migratory pathway for wildlife in a landscape that is
dominated by agriculture and silviculture. The large amount of acreage and plant species that
support aquatic and terrestrial wildlife within riparian buffer zones and riparian corridors allow the
preservation parcels to score high for wildlife habitat value.
The values of wetlands in the preservation parcels to aquatic life are based on the ability
of the system to support fish, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates that are dependent on water
during some phase of its life. Water regime, type of vegetation, interspersion of vegetation/water,
and surrounding land use are all important factors affecting wetland value to aquatic life. As
expected, wetland communities closest to South Creek received the highest scores for this value.
The shallow, more protected areas of the South Creek estuarine/riparian system (i.e. brackish
marsh) are important for cover and food for young juvenile fish using these nursery areas. A
mixture of migratory marine, estuarine indigenous and freshwater fish species uses the South
Creek system.
The value of wetlands in the preservation parcels to recreational and educational
purposes is related to consumptive (i.e. hunting and fishing) and non-consumptive forms. The
value is based on the quality of the wetland as well as public access to the wetland. Brackish
marsh received the highest score, although many of the interior wetlands are currently heavily
used by hunters. There are future implications for educational and recreational value of the SCC
not reflected in the current condition evaluation. The SCC could be used as an area for
ecosystem and wildlife research. Potential research ideas could include wildlife population,
carrying capacity, water quality, and wetland studies. The SCC could also provide additional
recreational resources at local and state levels. One area of the SCC was a North Carolina State
University research site where wetland hydrology and vegetation were restored and
microtopography was examined.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 11 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
7.0 WILDLIFE AND CORRIDOR BENEFITS
Although current sampling for wildlife has not been conducted in the SCC, some
inferences about wildlife usage of this area can be made based on sampling in similar habitats
during the 1989 field surveys for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Texasgulf Inc.
Mine Continuation (CZR Incorporated 1992) and the subsequent Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Texasgulf Inc. Mine Continuation, Aurora, North Carolina (US Army Corps of
Engineers 1994), from work done on nearby mitigation sites, and from wildlife observations by
CZR biologists when working in or near the SCC. Wildlife species associated with the plant
communities found in the SCC are found in the "Report on Mammal, Bird, and Reptile/Amphibian
Surveys in Support of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Texasgulf Inc. Mine
Continuation" (CZR Incorporated 1991). Wildlife observation and sampling activities were
conducted by CZR from 1992 to 1995 as an initial part of the Gum Run restoration projects. Data
collected from this period is a valuable tool to assess local wildlife species and potential habitat
usage.
In general, usage of the corridor by wildlife for breeding and wintering habitat is expected
to be high because of the high quality of habitat within riparian buffer zones and riparian corridors.
The value of the corridor as breeding and wintering habitat will increase over time due to the
maturation of the forests. Maturation of the forests probably will not occur if these lands are not
preserved. In addition, this land will serve as a crucial travel corridor for wildlife between the
restored wetlands on the nearby 2,800-acre Parker Farm and other existing and proposed
restoration projects in the Holistic South Creek Corridor Complex.
Plant species providing food sources important to waterfowl within the SCC are Carex
spp., E/eocharis spp., Juncus spp., Polygonum spp., Scirpus spp., and Peltandra virginica.
Examples of wetland tree and shrub species important for wildlife within the SCC are tag alder
(Alnus serrulata), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis
thyoides), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American holly
(Ilex opaca), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), pond pine (Pinus serotina), oak species (Quercus
spp.), and black willow (Salix nigra).
One primary wildlife habitat function of hardwood forests is the provision of cover and
hard mast for game species such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), black bear (Ursus
americanus), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). Deer and bear are common in the area, and
are highly sought after game animals. Sightings of wild turkeys in the area are becoming more
common and are likely the result of recent restocking programs in Beaufort County. With an
expanding range and increasing numbers, wild turkeys will likely serve as an important game
species dependent upon high quality habitat. Hardwood forests are also important breeding and
wintering habitat for a wide variety of resident and migrant nongame birds, reptiles, and
amphibians. Common species include common box turtle (Terrapene carolina), ground skink
(Scincella lateralis), and slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus).
The mature pine forests and pine plantations in the corridor provide breeding and
wintering habitat for many resident and migrant nongame birds, and they provide cover and some
browse for game species. As these forests age, the pines will gradually die out and be replaced
by shade tolerant hardwoods. While this process is occurring, snags will be abundant and these
forests will be important habitat for cavity nesting wildlife. As the pine forests become hardwood
forests, they will become increasingly important as sources of hard mast and den trees.
The young forests in the corridor, both hardwood and pine, function primarily as escape
cover and a source of soft mast for game species, and as breeding and wintering habitat for
songbirds that prefer thick habitats, such as rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythropthalmus), prairie
warbler (Dendroica discolor), and white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis). As the young
hardwood forests mature, they will become important for production of hard mast and provision of
den trees.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 12 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
The bottomland hardwood forest and wetland shrub/scrub communities provide habitat
for a variety of semi-aquatic woodland wildlife, such as beaver (Castor canadensis), mink
(Mustela vison), wood duck (Aix sponsa), southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), eastern
narrow-mouthed toad (Gastrophryne carolinensis), and common mud turtle (Kinosternon
subrubrum). These areas also provide habitat for many nongame birds, and the abundance of
snags in these communities is an important resource for cavity nesting wildlife. A number of bird
species that occur in the bottomland hardwood forest are area sensitive and require larger tracts
of habitat. The presence of Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), hooded warbler (Wiisonia
citrina), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), and
barred owl (Strix varia) within the SCC indicate that the habitat is characteristic of older, large
forested tracts. Future wildlife habitat functions in this community will depend on the frequency of
disturbance by windthrow and brackish water intrusions.
The brackish marsh complex provides habitat for aquatic species such as rails (Rallus
spp.), green-backed heron (Butorides striatus), and marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris). Lone
trees on local high spots in this community commonly harbor osprey (Pandion haliaetus) nests.
When the marsh is flooded during tides from high winds, it provides habitat for juvenile fish.
Wildlife habitat associated with the brackish marsh may also grade into adjacent shrub/scrub
areas. Flooding of brackish water prevents succession of the brackish marsh to shrub or forest
habitats. Shrub/scrub areas serve as an ecotone between brackish marsh and bottomland
hardwood forest and harbor some species, such as the cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus),
that frequent both of these habitats.
The SCC was designed to enhance the natural physical, chemical, and biological
processes associated with stream corridors within the South Creek drainage network. There are
six critical ecological functions in self-sustaining systems: habitat, conduit, filter, barrier, source,
and sink. Habitats provide populations with environments acceptable for living, nesting,
reproduction, and movement. Black bears are known to require large, contiguous areas within
their home range. Habitat diversity increases in corridors where edge and interior habitat is
available. Riparian forests also exhibit vertical habitat diversity. Vegetation along streams
intercepts nutrients, sediment, and water and provides filtration. A stream corridor is a source of
material and energy to the surrounding landscape [FISRWG (10/1998)]. Stream corridors can be
sinks for flood water storage, nutrients, and sediments [Latham and Grado 1999, FISRWG
(10/1998)]. Source and sink functions fluctuate and both functions can exist at one time or
individually [FISRWG (10/1998)].
The management and restoration of riparian corridors and vegetated buffer strips
improves water quality and conserves wildlife populations. Riparian buffers of sufficient widths
have been proven to intercept nonpoint source pollutants (NPSP) in surface and shallow
subsurface water flow. Water quality is protected and improved by this function. The actual size
of a riparian zone is small, but contains a greater number of species and ecological functions than
comparable upland habitats. Riparian buffers located in the headwater stream vicinity of a
watershed enhance overall water quality more effectively than buffers located in downstream
reaches.
Riparian vegetation performs important filtration for pollutants from overland and
susbsurface flows and bank stabilization (Latham and Grado 1999, Shelton 1999). Other
important functions provided by riparian vegetation include the stabilization of water temperature
and acting as sources of organic matter and large woody debris that changes channel
morphology and creates aquatic habitat (Shelton 1999).
Fischer and Fischenich 2000 have provided an overview of recommended widths for
corridors and vegetated buffer strips. Studies mentioned in Fischer and Fischenich (2000)
conducted in the eastern United States have shown widths greater than or equal to 165 meters
are necessary to preserve biodiversity among plant species, and reptile, amphibian, mammal,
fish, and invertebrate species between wetland and terrestrial habitats. Corridors and vegetated
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 13 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
buffer strips greater than or equal to 30 meters in California have been shown to sustain
invertebrate and fish species in areas of logging activity. Small mammal populations in Texas
have succeeded in corridors and vegetated buffers strips equal or greater to 50 meters in
streamside management zones. Studies conducted in the U.S. and Canada for minimum widths
of riparian buffer strips and corridors for birds have yielded a range of greater than or equal to 40
meters and greater than or equal 500 meters within their results. The most common
recommendation for minimum width was greater than or equal to 100 meters to sustain bird
community populations (Fischer and Fischenich 2000).
Game and non-game wildlife utilize corridors for a variety of sources including feeding,
nesting, and protective cover. In fragmented habitats, corridors provide environments for species
dispersal and migration. Corridor width and connectivity influences wildlife population dynamics
(Issacson 1999). The habitat within riparian buffers is used by cavity-nesting birds, small
mammals, furbearers, amphibians, and neotropical migrants. Thus, riparian buffer systems
enhance wildlife and recreational opportunities (Latham and Grado 1999).
Corridors between patches in forests dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and
longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) resulted in facilitation of the plant-animal interactions pertaining to
pollination and seed dispersal. The habitat patches examined were created by clearing and
burning to study early-successional populations (Tweksbury et al. 2002). Another study
performed in similar habitat and patches revealed that habitat patches connected by corridors
retain a greater number of native species than isolated patches, and that corridors do not
promote exotic species invasion (Damschen et al. 2006). Conservation efforts should be focused
on remaining wetlands in agricultural dominated regions, and in areas where historical wetlands
and their associated upland zones were present and represented ten percent of any watershed
(Blann 2006).
8.0 SUMMARY
The SCC is an integral part of an overall compensatory mitigation plan presented by PCS
Phosphate (Figure 8). These preservation parcels serve as a building block to connect other
mitigation parcels throughout the South Creek drainage basin within the Holistic South Creek
Corridor Complex. The benefits of the SCC to wildlife and water quality protection are enhanced
when combined with the benefits associated with the existing and proposed wetland restoration
projects in the area. The wetlands in the corridor will protect water quality in the South Creek
basin by reducing the effects of runoff and sedimentation associated with adjacent timber
harvesting operations and agricultural lands. The filling of ditches during restoration of
agricultural sites to functioning wetlands will remove the flashy- runoff that used to come in large
plugs from agricultural sites, and will reintroduce a steadier freshwater component to South
Creek. The preservation of existing vegetation associated with the high quality wetland
communities (i.e. bottomland hardwood forest, shrub/scrub, and brackish marsh) is a priority, and
there is also a potential to enhance other wetland areas. The mitigation projects will contribute to
the maintenance and protection of the water quality of South Creek and provide wildlife habitat.
Habitat loss and habitat fragmentation are topics of increasing ecological concern. In
agricultural landscapes, much of the remaining forests occur as linear tracts of wetlands along
streams. These riparian forest corridors have the potential to serve as some of these most
important conservation areas. Riparian forests serve to provide: 1) tracts of habitat for species
that require large areas of unfragmented habitat, 2) corridors that allow the immigration and
dispersal of wildlife between tracts of high quality habitat, 3) biological diversity in an agricultural
and silvicultural dominated landscape, and 4) buffer areas between agricultural lands and
streams which reduce sediment and nutrients associated with agricultural runoff. The
SCC would preserve and expand the remaining natural connectivity of the unique ecosystem
within the South Creek drainage basin.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 14 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
REFERENCES
Bellis, B., M.P. O'Connor, and S.R. Riggs. 1975. Estuarine shoreline erosion in the Albemarle-
Pamlico
region of North Carolina. University of North Carolina Sea Grant College
Program, Raleigh. 75-29: 1-67.
Bellis, V. and A.C. Gaither. 1984. Salt marsh productivity studies: A project status
report submitted
to North Carolina Phosphate Corporation, Aurora, North Carolina.
Benton S.B. 1979. Holocene evolution of a nontidal brackish marsh-protected bay system,
Roanoke
Island, North Carolina. M.S. Thesis. East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.
Blair, A.E. 1967. Vascular flora of Beaufort County, North Carolina. M.S. Thesis. North Carolina
State
University, Raleigh.
Blann, Kristen. 2006. Habitat in Agricultural Landscapes: How Much is Enough?. Defenders of
Wildlife,
Washington, D.C.
Bond, Monica. 2003. Principles of Wildlife Corridor Design. Center of Biological Diversity.
Copeland, B.J., R.G. Hodson, S.R. Riggs, and E.C. Pendleton. 1984. The ecology of the
Pamlico River,
NC-an estuarine profile. Report No.FWS/OBS-82/06 US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington,
D.C.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Biol. Serv. Program,
Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 p.
CZR Incorporated. 1991. Report on Mammal, Bird, and Reptile/Amphibian Surveys in Support of
the Environmental Impact Statement for the Texasgulf, Inc. Mine Continuation. Prepared
for Texasgulf Inc., Aurora, NC.
------1992. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Texasgulf Inc. Mine Continuation. Prepared
for Texasgulf Inc., Aurora, NC.
------1995. The South Creek Riparian Corridor Preservation Area.
------1996. Annual Report for two Hardwood Wetlands Restoration Sites on prior Converted
Cropland Adjacent to Gum Run, Beaufort County, North Carolina.
Damschen, E.I., N.M. Haddad, J.L. Orrock, J.J. Tewksbury, D.J. Levey. 2006. Corridors
Increase Plant Species Richness at Large Scales. Science. Vol.313. 1284-1286.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. 100
p. plus appendices.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 15 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
Fischer, R. A., J.C. Fischenich. 2000. Design Recommendations for Riparian Corridors and
Vegetated Buffer Strips. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center. ERDC
TN-EMRRP-SR-24.
FISRWG. 10/1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. By the
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG) (15 Federal agencies
of the US gov't). GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653. ISBN-0-
934213-59-3.
Haddad, N.M., D.R. Browne, A. Cunningham, B.J. Danielson, D.J. Levey, S. Sargent, T. Spira.
2003. Ecology, Vol. 84, Issue 3, 609-615.
Issacson, K. 1999. Riparian Corridors and Area-Wide Planning Necessary for Wildlife. Inside
Agroforestry. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Latham, A.E., S.C. Grado. 1999. Wildlife Offers Economic Potential in Agroforestry Systems.
Inside Agroforestry. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. January 1995.
Fourth Version Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. Report No.
95-01. Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section, Raleigh.
Shelton, C. 1999. Agroforestry Can Help Fish Habitat. Inside Agroforestry. Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
Smith, R.L. 1980. Ecology and field biology. 3 d ed. Harper and Row, New York.
Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1984. Beaufort County special Soil
survey Report: Maps and interpretations.
Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1987. Hydric Soils of the United
States.
Texasgulf Inc. and CZR Incorporated. January 1995. Draft Texasgulf Inc. Wetlands Mitigation
Plan.
Tewksbury, J.J., D.J. Levey, N.M. Haddad, S. Sargent, J.L. Orrock, A. Weldon, B.J. Danielson, J.
Brinkerhoff, E.I. Damschen, P. Townsend. 2002. Corridors affect plants, animals, and
their interactions in fragmented Landscapes. PNAS: 99(20): 12923-12926.
US Army Corps of Engineers. January 1994. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Texasgulf, Inc. Mine Continuation. US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
US Army Corps of Engineers. September 2006. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Aurora, NC. US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District.
Wharton, C.J., W.M. Kitchens, E.C. Pendleton, T.W. Sipe. 1982. The ecology of bottomland
swamps of the southeast: A community profile. FWS/OBS-81/37. US Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 16 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
Table 1. Characteristics of soil series occurring within the South Creek Corridor.
Depth Limitations for building
seasonal high water site development
Soil series Hydric soil Permeability Runoff potential table (ft)
Altavista fine sandy loam no moderate moderately high 1.5-2,5 moderate - severe
Arapahoe fine sandy loam yes moderately rapid moderately low (D) 0.0 - 1 0 severe
Augusta fine sandy loam no moderate moderately high 1.0-20 moderate - severe
Conetoe loamy sand no moderately rapid low > 6.0 slight - severe
Currituck muck yes moderate to high +1.0-1.0 severe
moderately rapid
Dare muck yes Slow high 0.0 - 1 0 severe
Dorovan mucky peat yes moderate high +1.0-0,5 severe
Dragston fine sandy loam no moderately rapid moderately high 1.0 - 2 5 moderate - severe
Muckalee loam yes moderate high 0.5-1.5 severe
Ponzer muck yes slow high 0.0-1.0 severe
Portsmouth loam yes moderate to moderate to high 0.0-1.0 severe
rapid
Roanoke fine sandy loam yes moderate high (U) 0.0-1.0 severe
State sandy loam no moderate moderate 4.0-6.0 slight-severe
Tomotley fine sandy loam yes moderate to high (U) moderately low 0.0-1.0 severe
moderately slow (D)
Winton fine sandy loam no moderate moderately high 2.0-4.0 moderate - severe
D - drained soils, U - undrained soils Sources: Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1984. Beaufort County special soil
survey report Maps and interpretations.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 17 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
Table 2. Corps Stream Quality Rating Scores for streams evaluated within the South Creek Corridor. Streams evaluated have not been given a
iurisdictional status by NCDWQ or CorDS.
Stream data
point Classification Corps score Approximate length Adjacent communities
S-1 a Intermittent 44 270 Wet hardwood forest, bottomland hardwood forest
S-38 Intermittent 56 660 Wet hardwood forest
S-5a Intermittent 35.5 520 Wet hardwood forest, bottomland hardwood forest
S-6a Intermittent 55 530 Wet hardwood forest
S-7a Intermittent 59.5 200 Upland mixed-pine hardwood forest, bottomland hardwood forest
S-13a Intermittent 51 220 Wetland shrub scrub, wet hardwood forest
S-1 P Perennial 70 2,200 Wet hardwood forest, bottomland hardwood forest
S-2P Perennial 75.5 590 Brackish marsh complex, wet hardwood forest
S-3P Perennial 68.5 1,350 Wet hardwood forest, bottomland hardwood forest
S-4P Perennial 67 1,250 Wet hardwood forest
S-5P Perennial 57 2,000 Wet hardwood forest, bottomland hardwood forest
S-5bP Perennial 47 760 Wetland shrub-scrub
S-8P Perennial 57.5 230 Bottomland hardwood forest
S-9P Perennial 71.5 750 Brackish marsh complex, wet hardwood forest
S-10P Perennial 57.5 520 Bottomland hardwood forest
S-11P Perennial 69.5 1,500 Bottomland hardwood forest, wet mixed-pine hardwood forest
S-12P Perennial 65.5 750 Upland hardwood forest
S-13P Perennial 61.5 1,500 Bottomland hardwood forest, wetland shrub-scrub
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 18 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 7
Table 3. Valuation of existing wetland communities in the South Creek Corridor using the North Carolina Division of Water Quality wetland
rating systems. Average score and percent of maximum possible (in parenthesis) for each value is listed b
I Wetland communities
Evaluated wetland values` Bottomland hardwood
forest Brackish marsh
complex° Pine plantation Hardwood
forest Mixed pine-
hardwood forest
1) Water storage [20] 130(650) 12,0(600) 12.0(60-0) 8.0 (40.0) 10.0 (50.0)
2) Bank/shoreline
stabilization [20] 6.0 (30.0) 13.0 (65.0) 0.0 (0.0) 1 0(5.0) 2.5 (12.5)
3) Pollutant removal [25] 18.0 (72.0) 23.0 (92.0) 50( 20.0) 10.0 (40.0) 11.0(44.0)
4) Wildlife habitat [10] 8.0 (8ao) 8.0 (80.0) 6.0 (60.0) 6.0 (60.0) 6.0 (60.0)
5) Aquatic life value [20] 16.0 (80.0) 20.0 (100.0) 4.0 (20.0) 5.0 (25.0) 7.5 (37.5)
6) Recreation/education [5] 3.0 (60.0) 4.0 (80.0) 3.0 (60.0) 3.0 60.0 3.0 (60.0)
Totals` 64.0 79.0 30.0 34.0 39.0
a Based on the Fourth Version Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources; Division of Water Quality (January 1995).
b Scores for each site were averaged for each community.
Maximum score in brackets.
d The NCDWQ rating system was not intended to be applied to brackish marsh; however, it was used here because of the structural
and functional similarity of this community with freshwater marsh.
e 100 maximum points possible; values represent percentage.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 19 rtia mppenum
Attachment 7

Fes-
g?_A' ..,
? ?'
??\
???
AURORA
a

LEGEND
1
HYDRIC SOILS (1,199 ACRES)
NON-HYDRIC SOILS (317 ACRES)
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
ABA - Altavista - 3
Ap -Arapahoe (mineral) - 17
At - Augusta - 193
CnB - Conetoe - 4
Cu - Currituck (organic) - 94
Do - Dorovan (organic) - 188
DS - Dragston - 102
Me - Muckalee (mineral) - 118
Po - Ponzer (organic) - 117
KWII Pt - Portsmouth (mineral) - 40
® Ro - Roanoke ( mineral) - 82
StA - State - 5
To - Tomotley (mineral) - 544
WD-Wnton-9
w - Water - 27
'ONLY HYDRIC SOILS ARE DESIGNATED MINERAL OR ORGANIC
SOURCE. SOIL DATA PROVIDED BY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, NORTH CAROLINA CENTER FOR
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS, STATEPLANE NO,
NAD 1983, METERS, BFCODSL.SHP. BEAUFORT COUNTY SOILS
AND PACODSL SHP, PAMLICO COUNTY SOILS,
VVEBSITE'. VVVVVV.CGIA.STATE .NC.US
0
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
L 1 I
Scale in Feet
DRAFT

SOILS SOUTH CREEK CORRIDOR
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE. AS SHOV.N APPROVED BY URAVVN BY BFG
DATE 4/25/08 .., N-.'7,?.4.r....u
470 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2 CPk1745 59
LMLMIN -, C 8403
EL 90/392 2
rAx s,w3sz-s13s FIGURE 3
i,?
�.�'..°
�y�p
p�p f$ l
Y'iea:'.�e� �;