20080868 Ver 2_Final Draft of Creek Report 2010_20101027

F ANX._ PLAN OF STUDY
TO MONITOR POTENTIAL EFFECTS
OF REDUCTION IN HEADWATER WETLANDS
ON THE DOWNSTREAM AQUATIC FUNCTIONS
AND UTILIZATION OF TRIBUTARIES OF
SOUTH CREEK, PORTER CREEK, AND DURHAM CREEK
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by:
CZR Incorporated, Wilmington, North Carolina
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared for:
NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
i..l C: ? ? aI:?E't 'ir• a w??
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 HISTORY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................... ....1
1.1 History ................................................................................................................................. ....1
1.2 Background information ..................................................................................................... ....1
1.3 Draft Plan of Study ............................................................................................................. ....3
2.0 APPLICABLE 401 CERTIFICATION AND 404 PERMIT CONDITIONS ............................. ....5
3.0 HISTORIC AND CURRENT DRAINAGE BASIN REFINEMENTS ..................................... ....8
3.1 Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) refinements ............................................................. ....8
4.0 LESSONS LEARNED FROM EXISTING FLOW MONITORING PROGRAM, CURRENT
CONSTRAINTS, AND A NEW APPROACH ........................................................................ ....9
5.0 TYPES OF MONITORING .................................................................................................... . 10
5.1 Pre-impact, post-impact, and post-reclamation monitoring thresholds ........................... . 10
5.2 True baseline and original baseline monitoring ................................................................ . 10
53 Modified baseline monitoring ............................................................................................. . 10
5.4 Proposed extension of length of modified baseline monitoring ........................................ .10
5.5 Post-reclamation monitoring .............................................................................................. . 11
6.0 EXISTING AND EXPANDED MONITORING... .................................................................... . 11
6.1 Salinity, dissolved oxygen, and water level monitoring .................................................... .. 11
6.2 Water quality monitoring ............................................................................... .__................ 12
6.3 Sediment monitoring ......................................................................................................... .. 12
6.4 Fish and benthos monitoring ............................................................................................. .. 12
6.5 Biomass size spectra (BSS) ............................................................................................. .. 12
6.6 Wetland vegetation monitoring ......................................................................................... .. 13
6.7 Wetland hydrology monitoring .......................................................................................... .. 14
7.0 REFERENCE OR CONTROL CREEK SYSTEMS ............................................................. ..14
7.1 Existing reference or control creek system ...................................................................... .. 14
7.2 Proposed new reference or control creek systems ......................................................... .. 14
7. 2.1 PA2 ............................................................................................................................ ..14
7. 2.2 UT to Ross Creek ..................................................................................................... .. 14
7. 2.3 Duck Creek ............................................................................................................... .. 15
7. 2.4 Durham Creek tributary ............................................................................................ .. 15
7. 2.5 South 33 Tract reference creeks ............................................................................. .. 15
8.0 TIMELINE OF IMPACTS AND MONITORING .................................................................... .. 15
8.1 Timeline of projected impacts and initiation of monitoring for all parameters ................ .. 15
9.0 COORDINATION WITH SCIENCE PANEL AND ANNUAL REPORTING ........................ .. 15
10.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QA) PROGRAM AND SCIENCE
PANEL REVIEW ................................................................................................................... .. 15
10.1 QA/QC program approach ................................................................................................ .. 16
10.2 Science Panel review ........................................................................................................ .. 16
Ei"Plan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions n
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
October '2010
LIST OF TABLES
Table Paqe
Pre- and post-impact monitoring by parameter and by creek in NCPC creeks according to
the 1998 program ......................................................................................................................2
Temporary drainage basin reductions since 1998 and percent reduction from historic
basin acreages following Modified Alternative L impacts to each potential creek proposed
for monitoring .............................................................................................................................7
Estimated creek monitoring years pre- and post-impact from Modified Altemative L and
post-reclamation completion (using 2 year impact schedule in 404/ROD and PCS
reclamation schedule dated 3.16.09.) ................................................................................... 15
Eju iPlan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions iii
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
octohcr_

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Paae
1 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................1
2 Modified Alternative L Permitted Boundary with Biotic Community Impacts- NCPC Tract .... 2
3 Modified Alternative L Permitted Boundary with Biotic Community Impacts-Bonnerton Tract3
4 Modified Alternative L Permitted Boundary with Biotic Community Impacts- S33 Tract .... .... 4
5 Modified Alternative L Boundary on 2007 Aerial- NCPC Tract ........................................... ....5
6 Modified Alternative L Boundary on 2007 Aerial- Bonnerton Tract ..................................... ....6
7 Modified Alternative L Boundary on 2007 Aerial- S33 Tract ............................................... ....7
8 Estimated Historic and Current Drainage Basins on LiDAR with Permitted Boundary- NCPC
Tract ....................................................................................................................................... ....8
9 Estimated Historic and Current Drainage Basins on LiDAR with Permitted Boundary-
Bonnerton Tract ..................................................................................................................... ....9
10 Estimated Historic and Current Drainage Basins on LiDAR with Permitted Boundary- S33
Tract ....................................................................................................................................... . 10
11 Original Monitoring Locations in Jacks Creek ...................................................................... . 11
12 Original Monitoring Locations in Tooley Creek .................................................................... .12
13 Original Monitoring Locations in Huddles Cut ...................................................................... . 13
14 Proposed Monitoring Locations for Drinkwater Creek ......................................................... .14
15 Proposed Monitoring Locations for Jacobs Creek ............................................................... . 15
16 Proposed Monitoring Locations for Porter Creek ................................................................. . 16
17 Proposed Monitoring Locations for Tributary to Durham Creek (DCUT 11) ...................... . 17
18 Durham Creek Proposed Monitoring Locations ................................................................... . 18
19 Proposed Monitoring Locations for Broomfield Swamp ...................................................... . 19
20 Proposed Monitoring Locations for Cypress Run ................................................................ . 20
21 South Creek Monitoring Location ......................................................................................... . 21
22 Pamlico River Monitoring Location ...................................................................................... .. 22
23 Muddy Creek Monitoring Location ....................................................................................... .. 23
24 PA2 Proposed Control Creek Monitoring Locations ........................................................... .. 24
25 UT to Ross Creek Proposed Control Creek Monitoring Locations .................................... .. 25
26 Duck Creek Proposed Control Creek Monitoring Locations .............................................. .. 26
27 UT to Durham Creek Proposed Control Creek Monitoring Locations ............................... .. 27
28 Estimated 2-Year Impact Schedule ..................................................................................... .. 28
29 Estimated Reclamation Schedule ....................................................................................... .. 29
EiDalPlan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
October 2010
IV
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A October 1998 NCPC Tract Stream Monitoring Program for PCS Phosphate, Inc.
(Alternative E)_Lnot included in mark-up version but will be in final)
Appendix B Executive Summaries from Annual Reports Submitted under the 1998 NCPC
Monitoring Program-(not included in mark-up version but will be in final)
Appends C Corps of Engineers' Monitoring Plan Memo September 2010Executive
iaa!Plan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
octoher ?010
FINAL PLAN OF STUDY TO MONITOR
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF REDUCTION IN HEADWATER WETLANDS
ON THE DOWNSTREAM AQUATIC FUNCTIONS AND UTILIZATION OF TRIBUTARIES
OF SOUTH CREEK, PORTER CREEK, AND DURHAM CREEK
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1.0 HISTORY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.1 History. In 1997, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued a Section 404
permitto PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. (PCS) for continued phosphate mining underAlternative Eon
PCS property north of Aurora, Beaufort County, North Carolina (refer to Figure 1 for vicinity map).
Because the 1997 permitted mine advance would temporarily reduce the drainage basin area for
several small estuarine thbutariesof South Creek and the Pamlico River, the Corp'sSection 404 permit
(404) and the accompanying North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Section 401 Water
Quality Certification (401) contained conditions that required monitoring to detect any deleterious
effects on these tributaries. Accordingly, PCS, working through its consultants CZR Incorporated
(CZR), Dr. Wayne Skaggs of North Carolina State University, and Dr. Donald W. Stanley of East
Carolina University, developed an agency-approved plan to monitor flow, salinity, wetland hydrology,
water quality, vegetation, fish, and benthic macro invertebrates in Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and
Huddles Cut (CZR and Skaggs 1998). For the 1997 permit, NCDWQ selected the same three NCPC
tributaries to South Creek to be monitored. These three creeks have been monitored and annual
reports have been submitted since 1998 according to the approved monitoring plan.
1.2 Background information. Baseline (pre-Altemative E impact) data collection on
vegetation, fish, benthos, and groundwater began in 1998, while baseline data collection on the
remaining parameters began in 1999. Baseline monitoring continued on Tooley Creek and Huddles
Cut until 13 June 2002. Post-disturbance monitoring on Jacks Creek began when its drainage basin
was reduced in early 2000. In accordance with the monitoring plan, all baseline monitoring except flow
ceased on Tooley Creek and Huddles Cut 13 June 2002. Also at that time, the level of effort for the
post-disturbance monitoring on Jacks Creek was reduced as specked by the monitoring plan. In April
2004, all pre-disturbance flow monitoring ceased at Huddles Cut and Tooley Creek, and in December
2005 all post-disturbance flow monitoring ceased at Jacks Creek (NCDWQ authorized cessation of
post-impact monitoring on Jacks Creek by letter dated 12 January 2006).
Post-disturbance monitoring of Huddles Cut began in January 2007 and continues as of this
writing. Post-disturbance monitoring of Tooley Creek was also scheduled to begin in January 2007 but
only five percent of the drainage basin was estimated to be impacted. PCS Phosphate did not believe
there would be any "significant measurable results" from that level of impact, requested that monitoring
not be conducted "until 10 percent or more of the basin was impacted", and NCDWQ approved the
request in a letter dated 4 December 2006. Table 1 summarizes by parameter and by creek the pre-
and post-impact monitoring conducted on the NCPC creeks according to the approved 1998
monitoring program.
In November 2000, PCS applied for authorization to continue its phosphate mining operations
on the Hickory Point peninsula (NCPC Tract) adjacent to the Pamlico River and South Creek once
phosphate reserves were depleted under the 1997 permitted area for Alternative E. In 2001, an EIS
process was begun for the continuation of mining. The Corps established that it would be appropriate
to consider holistic mine plansthat included mining in more than one tract. PCS proposed alternatives
for mining in two additional tracts (Bonnerton and South of Route 33 [S33]). In January
Final Plan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions 1
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
October 2010
E
m
n
rn
d
L_
_O
OI
C
°O
U
U
l0
Y
N
U
U
CL
U
Z
Y
U
a
lC
m
E
za
n
a
C
O
O
E
N
n
v
a`
O
1
?s
S.
E
x
0
a
s
8
E
k
Et
m
2
CL m
d M
o` `o
o m m
W pm ?_
? N Oa
m
E
E
N 1.9
N W
O N_
W
C.
O
N ? N
O
N
c ?
u m
m c
c ? c
W ?
a ? m
? a
N
m O
F 2
15 1 g
H F F
? ci
4 ?
y°
y?
?y
0 N
O s.
..C d
O
a. O
2009 NCDWQ issued PCS a 401 Water Quality Certification and in June of 2009, the Corps issued
PCS a 404 permit for impacts associated with Modified Alternative L. In their 2009 permit conditions,
the Corps selected the addition of Jacobs and Drinkwater Creeks in the NCPC Tract and Porter Creek
in the Bonnerton Tract and in their certification conditions, NCDWQ selected the addition of
"representative number of streams in each tract" and "tributaries to South Creek, Porter Creek,
Durham Creek and the Pamlico River adjacent to the mine site" for monitoring. Figures 2, 3, and 4
depict the permitted Modified L Alternative on a biotic community map and Figures 5, 6, and 7 depict
the permitted boundary on a 2007 aerial photograph.
1.3 Draft Plan of Study an C,- -. (S i c ; ECZR has worked extensively on the
three PCS tracts beginning in NCPC in 1988, conducting a wide range of environmental studies
including wetland delineations, plant community mapping and descriptions, wildlife studies, water
quality sampling, aquatic sampling, and other related activities. PCS requested CZR to use this on-site
experience to to develop a draft plan of s°udy in response to the 2009 401 WQC Condition #13 and the
Corps' 404 permit Conditions S and T related to Modified Alternative L -Cie draft ';an „f Ufua
resident fish and appropriate invertebrate species. The draft plan of study was submitted to the
agencies for review in December 2009 as required by WQC Condition #13.
Per Corps Condition U. subsequent to the submittal of the Draft Plan of Study PCS worked
potential trends, and comment on potential areas of further study or changesto existing protocols. The
panel members will only be asked to provide observations and suggestions as individuals and will not
be asked to provide consensus opinion or make decisions on potential actions. The three members of
the panel currently are as follows:
• Dr. Mark Brinson. Distinguished Research Professor. Dept. of Biology. East
Carolina Unive 6 : http:/Awm.ecu.edu/cs-eastbioloay/bdnson mark.cfm
• Dr.Michael F. Piehler. Assistant Professor. Marine Sciences. UNC-Chapel Hill
Morehead Lab: hftp://marine.unc.edu/people/Facu[b/piehler
• Dr. Terry West. Graduate Studies Director and Professor Dept. of Biology. East
Carolina University: hftp://www.ecu.edu/cs-cas(biologv/west tem.cfm
The panel was invited to review the proposed sampling procedures in the Draft Plan of Study
the plan further and provide their expertise and comment on the proposed physical chemical and
biological monitoring.
follows:
1) Has mining altered the amount or timing of water flows within the
tributaries? Data collection may include:
Final Plan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions 3
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
October 2010
i) Continuous water level recorders to measure/model average and
event driven (pulse) flow within the stream reaches.
ii) Rain gauges to measure local water input.
iii) Groundwater wells to measure input to the tributaries.
2) Has mining altered the geomorphic or vegetative character of the
tributaries? Data collection may include:
i) Periodic (3-5yr) aerial photoaraphvAidar to determine tributary
position, length, width and sinuosity.
ii) Conduct baseline and periodic (3-5vr) cross sectional surveys of
each tributary at established locations within the stream reaches.
Frequency of the surveys may vary based on relative change observed
(>stability = < frequency).
iii) Periodic (3-5yr) sediment characterization including total sediment
o_ganic matter and porosity.
1 Periodic (3-5yr surveys of live vegetation and organic matter
accumulation along tributaries Frequency of the surveys may vary
based on relative change observed.
3) Has mining altered the forage base (fish and invertebrate utilization) or
use by managed fisheries species within tributaries? Data collection may
include:
i) Samplina of benthic invertebrate populations by core or grab
collection. Sampling efforts should be concentrated during winter and
early spring.
ii Periodic sampling for pelagic species such as grass shrimp, blue
crabs and small forage fish. Samplinggears would be chosen to reflect
ontogenetic shifts in creek usage
iii) Biomass size spectra may be used as an approach to addressing
this question.
4) Has mining increased contaminant levels within tributary sediments to
levels that could impact fish or invertebrates? Data collection may
include:
Sediment and water column sampling annually or at prescribed
intervals for metals, including cadmium, mercury, silver, copper, and
arsenic.
ii) If elevated levels are detected, the availability and uptake by
appropriate aquatic species (e.g.. Rangia sp., blue crabs) should be
measured using appropriate bioassaytechniques.
5) Has minina altered overall water ouality within creeks? Water qual
parameters analyzed will include: Salinity, Temperature, Dissolved
Oxygen PH, Secchi depth/light attenuation, Turbidity (TSS, color),
Chlorophyll a, Dissolved orthophosphate phosphorus, Total dissolved
phosphorus, Particulate Phosphorus, Nitrate nitrogen, Ammonia
nitroaen. particulate nitroaen. and Dissolved Kieldahl nitrogen,
DOCfrOC
The Corps will consider requiring PCS to implement any future suggestions to improve and/or
modify data collection to better address these questions. Although the Corps may choose not to
?in.;, Plan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
October 2010
require PCS to implement suggestions to study further hypotheses or other areas, PCS may elect to
implement these voluntarily.
The 401 and 404 conditions itemized in the next section require PCS to continue the existing
agency-approved 1998 NCPC stream monitoring program along with the addition of_arly additional
monitoring car hank;, as ay be suggested by te panel.
Appendix A of this final Plan of Study contains the October 1998 NCPC Tract Stream
Monitoring Program as approved by the agencies and which has been followed since 1998 (CZR and
Skaggs 1998). On-site data, background literature review, and the monitoring methodologies used to
date in the NCPC stream monitoring program are contained in the October 1998 document Appendix
B of this Plan of Study contains the executive summaries of each of the annual NCPC Tract stream
monitoring reports submitted to the agencies every spring during the course of the monitoring program
through 2008 (executive summaries were prepared for this appendix for the 1998, 1999, and 2000
reports which did not contain them in the original reports). Copies of any of the entire annual reports
will be available to the Panel members upon request.
2.0 APPLICABLE 401 CERTIFICATION AND 404 PERMIT CONDITIONS
Condition #13 of the 401 Water Quality Certification No. 3771 issued 15 January 2009 bythe NCDWQ
reads as follows:
13. Stream and watershed monitoring - The existing water
management and stream monitoring plan for water quality, water
quantity and biology (macrobenthos and fish) shall be continued for
the life of the Permit by the applicant. Additional monitoring shall be
proposed by the applicant and approved by DWQ for tributaries in
the Bonnerton and South of 33 Tracts before land clearing or
impacts occur to those locations. This additional monitoring plan
shall collect data from a representative number of streams in each
tract and be designed to assure the protection of downstream water
quality standards including Primary and Secondary Nursery Area
functions in tributaries to South Creek, Porter Creek, Durham Creek
and the Pamlico River adjacent to the mine site. Monitoring
locations shall include the upper end of Porter Creek in the "58A"
area of the Bonnerton Road Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest in
order to ensure that hydrology of this wet hardwood forest is
maintained.
The plan shall identify any deleterious effects to riparian wetland
functions including by [sic] not limited to water storage, pollutant
removal, streambank stabilization, as well as resident wetland-
dependent aquatic life and resident wetland-dependent wildlife and
aquatic life in wetlands and streams tributary to the Pamlico River in
the NCPC, Bonnerton and South of 33 Tracts. If necessary,
management activities to protect or restore these uses will be
required for all the tributaries of these three tracts.
PCS shall notify DWQ in writing at least one month in advance of
any biological sampling so DWQ biologists can accompany PCS
biologists as needed. Also a certified lab is required for the
identification of freshwater benthic macro inve rte brate samples. For
Final Plan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions 5
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
October 2010
estuarine samples, a knowledgeable lab shall be used until such
time as DWQ certifies laboratories for estuarine analysis and after
that time, only suitably certified labs shall be used. Finally a fish
monitoring plan shall be included in the final monitoring plan
submitted to DWQ for written approval.
This stream and watershed monitoring plan shall be submitted to
DWQ for written approval within sbc months of the issuance of the
404 Permit. Seven copies (two hard copies and five CD's [sic] of the
draft plan and annual reports shall be submitted to DWQ for
circulation and review by the public and other federal and state
agencies.
In addition, Conditions S, T, U, V, W, and X of the Corps' 404 Permit No. 200110096 issued 10 June
2009 state the following:
S. In concert with the monitoring requirements contained in the
Water Quality Certification, the Permittee shall develop a Plan of
Study to address the effects of reduction in headwater wetlands on
the utilization of Porters [sic] Creek, Tooley Creek, Jacobs Creek,
Drinkwater Creek, and Jacks Creek as nursery areas by resident fish
and appropriate invertebrate species. This plan shall be submitted
to the Corps and NCDWQ for approval within 1 year of the issuance
of this permit. At a minimum, the plan shall address the following
issues:
1) Has mining altered the amount or timing of water flows
within the creeks? Data collection may include:
i) Continuous water level recorders to
measure flow
ii) Rain gauges to measure local water input
iii) Groundwater wells to measure input to the
creeks
iv) Semi-continuous salinity monitoring
v) Periodic DO monitoring (continuously
monitored for several days at strategic
times of year)
2) Has mining altered the geomorphic or vegetative character
of the creeks? Data collection may include:
i) Annual aerial photography to determine
creek position, length, width, sinuosity
ii) Annual cross sectional surveys of each
creek at established locations
iii) Annual sediment characterization
iv) Annual vegetation surveys along creeks
v) Spring and fall sediment surface
chlorophylls or organic content in
vegetation zone.
vi) Spring and fall location of flocculation
zones with each creek.
3) Has mining altered the forage base of the creeks? Data
collection may include:
i) Spring and fall benthic cores to sample
} l ,al Plan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions 6
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
October 2010
macroinfauna.
ii) Spring and fall benthic grabs focused on
bivalves, such as Rangia sp.
iii) Periodic sampling for pelagic speciessuch
as grass shrimp, blue crabs, and small
forage fish. Sampling gears would be
chosen to reflect ontogenetic shifts in
creek usage.
4) Has mining altered the use of the creeks by managed fish?
Data collection may include periodic sampling for species
managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation Management Act. Sampling would occur
during appropriate times of the year and gears would be
chosen to reflect ontogenetic shifts in creek usage.
5) Has mining increased contaminate [sic] levels within creek
sedimentsto levelsthat could impact fish or invertebrates?
Data collection may include annual sediment and water
column sampling for metals, including cadmium, mercury,
silver, copper, and arsenic. If elevated levels are detected,
the availability and uptake by appropriate aquatic species
(e.g. Rangia sp., blue crabs) should [sic] measured using
appropriate bioassay techniques.
6) Has mining altered overall water quality within creeks?
Water quality parameters analyzed will include: Salinity,
Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Secchi depth,
Turbidity, Chlorophyll a, Dissolved orthophosphate
phosphorus, Total dissolved phosphorus, Particulate
phosphorus, Nitrate nitrogen, Ammonia nitrogen, particulate
nitrogen, and Dissolved tgeldahl nitrogen.
T. Monitoring under the Plan of Study referenced in condition "S"
above shall commence immediately upon the Plan'sapproval bythe
CorpsandNCDWQ. Monitoring shall continue for 10yearsfollowing
the completion of all reclamation work within the headwaters of the
subject creeks unless the Corps, in consultation with the appropriate
resource agencies agrees that monitoring can be discontinued.
U. The Permittee shall within 6 months of the issuance date of this
permit, work with the Corps and NCDWQ to establish an
independent multidisciplinary panel of researchers qualified in the
subject matter to be examined (Science Panel). In identifying
potential participants for this Panel, the Permittee shall seek input
from all interested and appropriate resource agencies including but
not limited to EPA, NMFS, USFWS, NCWRC, NCDMF, and the
appropriate permitting agencies including NCDCM, [sic] NCDLR.
The panel shall be comprised of between 2 and 5 members. The
members of this panel shall be given opportunity to provide input
and recommendations on the monitoring required by conditions"K"
[pertains to monitoring of reclamation water quality and is not
addressed in this Plan of Study] and "S" above including research
design, reference site selection, sampling stations, schedules, and
methods; laboratory methods; data management and analysis; and
quality control and quality assurance. Any input supplied by
members of this panel will be presented to the Corps and NCDWQ
Final Plan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions 7
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
October 2010
rya o?v
and will be incorporated as appropriate into the preparation of the
Plan of Study referenced in condition "S". Members of this panel will
also be given the opportunity to oversee all research conducted
toward fulfillment of conditions "IC" and "S".
V. The Permittee shall be responsible for fully implementing the
approved Plan of Study referenced in conditions "S", "T", and "U"
above. Annual summaries of all data collected in compliance with
conditions "K" and "S" shall be presented to the Corps, NCDWQ and
all members of the Science Panel on or before May 1 of the year
following collection. The Permttee and/or the Corps will make these
reports available in whole or in summary to any interested party.
W. The Permittee shall coordinate and facilitate an annual meeting
of the Science Panel, the Corps, NCDWQ, and all other interested
state and federal agencies including but not limited to EPA, NMFS,
USFWS, NCWRC, NCDMF, NCDCM, [sic] NCDLR. This meeting
shall occur no later than July 30 of each year. The purpose of this
meeting will be to allow the members of the Science Panel to
provide input to the agencies on any observed trends in parameters
measured and general discussions on whether direct and indirect
impacts from mining and benefits from the compensatory mitigation
appear to be in accordance with expectations at the time of
permitting. Members of the Science Panel shall also be given the
opportunity to provide any recommendations for management or
further study. The proceedings of this meeting including data
summaries, reports, presentations and any conclusionsof the group
will be made available in whole or in summary to any interested
party. The Corps will fully consider all information presented by the
Science Panel as well as comments from state and federal agencies
and all other parties supplying input to determine if corrective actions
or permit modifications are needed. If substantive changes to the
mine plan, compensatory mitigation plan or monitoring plan are
made, the Corps will announce such change by Public Notice and
allow for public comment.
X. At appropriate intervals to be decided by the Corps after input
from the Science Panel (eg. [sic] 3 to 5 years) beginning from the
date of permit issuance, members of the panel shall be given the
opportunity to review monitoring methods, sampling locations,
parameters analyzed, and other elements of monitoring protocol to
determine if modifications to the plan are appropriate. All data
reviewed by the panel shall be made available to the public.
3.0 HISTORIC AND CURRENT DRAINAGE BASIN REFINEMENTS
3.1 Light detection and ranging f UDAR] refinements. In an attemptto produce a
more accurate quantification of anthropomorphic changes to the drainage basins of these creek
systems through mining, silvicultural, and agricultural practices, historic and current drainage basin
calculations were revised in late 2009 using LiDAR (Figures 8, 9, and 10). The basins were also
expanded to include the entire Hickory Point peninsula in the NCPC Tract, not just the area of the
basins contained within the PCS boundaries. As would be expected, thisrevision produced some basin
I_ri!_Plan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions 8
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
October2010
totals different than those used in the 1996 and 2008 FEIS' and in the Corps' calculations of drainage
basin percent reductions for each creek in the Records of Decision. These graphics are likely to be
further refined. Table 2 shows the drainage basin acres for each creek from LiDAR-estimated historic
conditions up through Modified Alternative L and the overall percent reduction from historic areas. The
reductions include all past human activities, not just mine-related reductions.
Table 2. Temporary drainage basin reductions since 1998 and estimated percent reduction from
hictnrir: hacin arrpanpS followino Modified Alternative L impacts.
Creek Historic
basin
ac Current
basin (ac) Modified
Alternative L
reduction ac Acres
remaining Reduction from
historic (%)
NCPC Tract
Huddles Cut 1,014 593 446 147 86
Hudd Gut 482 409 142 267 45
Tooley Creek 563 613 180 433 23
Drinkwater Creek 605 402 254 148 75
Jacobs Creek 751 527 221 306 59
Jacks Creek 645 316 183 133 79
Bonnerton Tract
Porter Creek 3,719 2,492 1,694 798 79
Durham Creek 37,550 36,415 2,445 33,970 10
Bailey Creek 4,069 3,217 1,254 1,963 52
South 33 Tract
Broomfield Swam 2,843 3,129 1,966 1,163 59
Cypress Run 3,000 3,453 2,347 1,106 63
Note: Bailey Creek basin lies in both Bonnerton and South 33 Tracts and agricultural ditches have
enlarged some drainage basins in South 33 Tract beyond historic dimensions.
4.0 LESSONS LEARNED FROM EXISTING FLOW MONITORING PROGRAM, CURRENT
CONSTRAINTS, AND A NEW APPROACH
During the development of the 1998 NCPC stream monitoring plan, it was impossible to know
for certain where, or if, PCS would receive a future permit to continue mining beyond what was
authorized in 1997. Asa result, the location of all flow monitoring equipment was determined based on
current conditions in the late 1990s and was placed where it would best function for the collection of
the required data (in areas of intermittent flow). Figures 11, 12, and 13 depict existing monitoring
locations from the 1998 plan for Jacks Creek, Tooley Creek, and Huddles Cut. Mining allowed in the
2009 permit will remove or has removed some of those flow stations as well as some of the hydrology
monitoring locations in place since 1998. The red circles on these three graphics indicate original
monitoring locations affected by the new permit. With the 2009 permit boundary now known, the
opportunity to deploy new monitoring equipment such that the locations will remain the same for the
pre-impact and post-impact/reclamation monitoring is important to consider.
In some cases, the locations of the weirs used to monitor flow in the NCPC creeks since 1998
will not be disturbed by the newly permitted mine advance but there will be no or very little upstream
drainage basin flow contribution to monitor after mining, e.g., Tooley Creek flow stations and Huddles
Cut flow stations at Ogletree Road and the upper main prong. In some cases the newly permitted
mine advance will actually eliminate the weir location, e.g., in the western prong of Huddles Cut.
Therefore, the four stations at the Huddles Cut weirs used to monitor flow in since 1998 have either
been removed in 2009 or will be removed in 2010. The Tooley Creek stationswill be removed in 2010.
None of the Huddles Cut or Tooley Creek weirs can be moved further downstream than their previous
locations because once the weir location is in perennial waters, it is difficult to separate those flow
events coming from the upstream basin from wind tide events, adding an unacceptable degree of error
Fin,)! Plan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions 9
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
October 2010
to the calculations made from the weir equations.
5.0 TYPES OF MONITORING
5.1 Pre-impact post-impact and post-reclamation monitoring thresholds. As
with the previous monitoring plan, impacts are presumed to begin from the point in time thatthe mine's
perimeter depressurization canal is dug across a portion of a drainage basin; an activity that interrupts
the normal infiltration and sheet flow processes. Post-impact monitoring will begin when 10 percent or
more of a drainage basin has been impacted. Reclamation is considered complete when a capped
area is planted which will initiate the 10 years of post-reclamation monitoring.
5.2 True baseline and original baseline monitoring True baseline data foranyof
the NCPC Tract creeks have not and cannot be obtained because of past disturbances, although their
historic drainage basins have been estimated as described earlier in this document. Forthe 1998 plan,
the pre-impact data, or the "original baseline" before Alternative E activities, were collected for Jacks
Creek for one year, and for three years each in Huddles Cut and Tooley Creek. Forthe Bonnerton and
South 33 Tracts, the subject creeks have been affected by ditching and other human activities, buttheir
historic drainage basins have not been reduced by mining; therefore, baseline data collected in these
areas will be "true baseline".
5.3 Modified baseline monitorin>f. For the purposes of this Plan of Study, it is
presumed that a new "modified baseline" begins with monitoring activities described herein to track
impacts in NCPC creeks before Modred Alternative L but after Alternative E (new pre-impact).
Additional monitoring will track impacts after Modified Alternative L and Alternative E combined (new
post-impact). Since the expanded monitoring required under the new permit and described in Section
6.0 also includes parameters not collected or analyzed as part of the 1998 plan, it is necessary to
collect new "modified baseline" data in as many of the creeks as possible to compare with the new
post-impact data.
5.4 Proposed extension of length of modified baseline monitoring. Five years
of true or modified baseline monitoring should provide a data set which hasstatistical significancewhen
compared to any post-impact monitoring. Unfortunately, the timing of the permit, continuation of and/or
initiation of mine impacts, and timing of the approval of the Plan of Study which will initiate monitoring,
will likely preclude the ability to collect five years of modified baseline or pre-impact data for some of
the NCPC creeks. In fact, in Huddles Cut, Modified Alternative L impacts immediately followed
Alternative E impacts, with no opportunity for collection of modified baseline data prior to new impacts;
and, depending on when the perimeter canal is dug, possibly only one additional year of modified
baseline data will be collected in Tooley Creek 20101 and only two years in Drinkwater Creek (2O ; Q
Plan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions 10
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
October 2010
As a replacement for weirs, the use of other flow monitoring equipment utilizing Doppler
technology designed to measure bi-directional flow in estuarine environments was explored in 2009 by
CZR, PCS, and Skaggs. This equipment proved problematic as it does not function well in the shallow
waters found in the upper portions of these South Creek tributaries, nor does it function well in waters
containing aquatic vegetation, which all of these creeks contain in their upstream and downstream
segments. While Doppler technology does allow accurate measurement of bidirectional flow, itwould
be extremely difficult to confidently separate and quantify that portion of flow that is contributed only
an dix)mores cf 201 1 ). Five years of modified baseline or pre-impact data are expected to be collected
for Jacobs Creek in NCPC and true baseline data collected for the tributary creeks in Bonnerton
(including Porter Creek) and for the monitored creek in South 33 Tract.
5.5 Post-reclamation monitoring. The expanded monitoring described in Section 6.0
also contains new parameters not collected to date and will occur for as many as 10 years after the
completion of reclamation (post-reclamation).
6.0 EXISTING AND EXPANDED MONITORING
Many of the draft figures depicting the proposed monitoring locations do not yet depict the locations of
all equipment shown in the figure legends. PCS recognizes that locations of all monitoring activities or
equipment will be determined as the Plan of Study is revised and finalized and through more thorough
field reconnaissance of each specific creek or habitat of interest.
6.1 Salinity and water level monitoring. _Die Science Panel agreed that salinity in South C SE 1??: C{l?
e? rut-?? I'
Creek_stributarysysternsisdorr ina ed by rainfall/discharge in the Pamlico River andwindtides. not by t-,v C,
9 G- M t A-WI L ML-rut . CUJ?
Jo c,1&4f jnY fISL. Cs??Jy?31 LCL?
In addition to the ongoing salinity and water level monitoring in Huddles Cut, Tooley Creek, and
Jacks Creek conducted since 1998, beginning in fall of 2010 (pending submittal and approval of CAMA
in Situ , ,a+rois) . will be installed in Drinkwater Creek and Jacobs Creek for mortified baseline
data collection (approximately two years in Drinkwater and five years in Jacobs) (Figures 14 and 15).
Five years before impacts are expected to occur to Porter Creek (- ?Q i.; ; or Durham Creek (2013)
similar monitors will also be installed at similar landscape positions in the Porter Creek system (Figure
16) and a tributary to Durham Creek (DCUT 11) (Figure 17), and Durham Creek (Figure 18). The
impacted tributary to Durham Creek, DCUT 11, was selected because of the two largest Durham
Creek tributaries in the Bonnerton Tract to be impacted it is the only one with a feature remaining to
monitor post-impact.
Near the end of the life of mining in the Bonnerton Tract, PCS will determine if it is practicable
for the mine to expand into the S33 Tract. If the decision is made to open a mine pit in S33 (projected
for 2026), then PCS will initiate the collection of five years of baseline salinity and water level
monitoring in either Broomfield Swamp Creek or Cypress Run, whichever is deemed most
"representative" at the time, based on knowledge gained from the previous years of monitoring the
other tributary creeks and other applicable and current research (Figures 19 and 20).
Like the existing salinity and water level monitors, all the new equipment for these parameters
will be located near the mouths of the creeks and near the upper portion of perennial waters in the
smaller systems. Salinity data will be interpreted in light of the rainfall, and water level data to allow
evaluation of the effects of drainage basin input and wind tides on salinity. When the Porter Creek
monitoring begins, a new salinity station will be added at the mouth of Durham Creek for the same
purpose. Salinity -id water level will be monitored in PAII beginning in 2010 since this system, with
almost no contributing drainage basin, may also provide valuable comparative data. Oncethe effects
of local drainage basin input on salinity have been fully evaluated, predictions of the likely effects of
i'in_I_Plan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions 11
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
October 2010
monitors within the stream channel (not creek channel) set to record data more frequently than a 90
minute interval was suggested.
drainage basin reduction can be made. Salinity and water level monitoring will continue during the
years of drainage basin reduction to allow confirmation of the predictions.
Salinity i n-d- water level will continue to be monitored at control stations in South Creek and the
Pamlico River so that system-wide wind We effects on salinity and water levels can be identified
(Figures 21 and 22). Where possible, these same types of monitoring stations will also be installed in
Muddy Creek (existing control) and the newly proposed controls presented in Section 7.0 below.
6.2 Water quality monitoring. Water quality data will continue to be collected every
tso v&_Pks per the 1998 approved monitoring plan for Huddles Cut, Jacks Creek, and Tooley Creek
(Figures 11-13). Additional water quality sampling locations have been identified for Drinkwater,
Jacobs, and Porter Creek, the tributary to Durham Creek (DCUT 11), Durham Creek, Broomfield
Swamp, and Cypress Run (Figures 14-20). Water qua Ifty stations are located near the mouths of all

modified baseline sampling. Sed1i
Figures 11-20 and Figures 23 -27.
6.4 Fish and benthos monitoring. Data on the abundance and species composition
of fish and benthos in the creekswill continue to be collected perthe 1998 approved plan for Huddles
Cut, Jacks Creek, and Tooley Creek, jit G O ?r??'.-t; x__OT the Sc ence C ar?e? v?,, r coP?? , ? _ n
y?ili > ;r Fr c ;i _ ;t ti c.ir r; 11t f ,, e ,rlp_ Ling in all rnon to red creeks when diversity
- - -- -
anciesrd r.CSSar atttr,r??eak;r f cc+' ondi!uon 1!? Drinkwater and Jacobs Creeks in NCPC
will begin to be monitored for these two parameters in 2011. In the Bonnerton Tract, a tributary to
Durham (DCUT11) and Porter Creek will begin pre-impact monitoring of these parameters in
approximately 2011. In response to Corps' Conditions S.3.ii, any grassshrimp, bivalves, orsmall forage
fish captured in either the benthic Ponar grabs or timed sweeps will also be identified and enumerated.
Fish and benthos locations for each impacted creek are shown on Figures 11-20.
The methodology for spring sampling of the juvenile fish presentwill be unchanged from '..he
998plan with the exception that grass shrimp and blue crabs brought up in the trawl will also be
enumerated and identified (per Corps' Condition S.3.ii.). Small forage fish are already enumerated and
identified.
?'im;,Plan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions 12
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
October 2010
ity_p_?ca,iy n._ Ily of gryi n_monito-ring yearl efined Condition S.suciaest _the inclusion of
dissolved and particulate organic carbon (DOC and POC) in the more r, watercolumn analyses.
It is presumed that the shallow well-mixed nature of these systems allows the collection of one 2-liter
sample at each monitoring location, rather than surface, middle, and bottom column samplesat each
location. In response to Corps' Condition S.5, the same 2-liters of water column will also be analyzed
for the metals cadmium, silver, copper, and arsenic.
6.3 Sediment monitoring. Sediment samples will continue to betaken annually and
analyzed for chemical and elemental constituents as described in the 1998 plan for Huddles Cut,
Tooley Creek and Jacks Creek. Drinkwater Creek, Jacobs Creek, Porter Creek, the tributary to
Durham (DCUT11), the to-be-determined S33 creek, and the control creeks will be monitored with
functioning of the monitored estuarine creeks, PCS proposes to expand the existing biotic monitoring to
include the collection of additional fish and zooplanktonicliichthyoplanktonic data such that biomass
size relationships can be analyzed and integrated across trophic levels and compared within creeks,
among creeks, and to the control creeks. According to Jung and Houde (2005), BSS are one way to
simplify explanations of complex trophic interactions and also may have potential applications in
fisheries management. Jennings (2005) describes the size-based approach as a basis for describing
the wider impacts of human activities and one which places populations in an ecosystem context. As a
conserved property in all aquatic systems, the BSS method is broadly applicable as a depiction of
abundance and of distributions of organisms by size classes. When integrated across trophic levels
(fish to zooplankton), BSS can offer a broad evaluation of the state of an estuary from an analysisof its
combined trophic constituents. The integral spectrum (overarching relationship) between size and
abundance is expressed theoretically with a slope of -1 plotted on log2-transformed axes. Shifts,
trends, or anomalies in BSS metrics, whether within a trophic component or across trophic levels,
portray real changes in biological community structure and can be indicative of change in the state of
the estuary (Houde et al 2003). Size spectra at a steady state can be described as a function with a
linear slope, although dome like structures (Jung and Houde 2005, and others) and wave-like
structures oscillating around the steady state which depict predator-prey interaction atthe heart of size-
Biomass size spectra have been used recently as indicators of ecosystem state, change, a
1 the NOAA-supported Atlantic Coast Environmental Indicators Consortium (ACE INC) study
th of the Chesapeake Bay (http://cfrpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/INCDEX.cfm) and mention
in the EPA's Office of Research and Development May 2005 update (EPA 2005). ACE It
demonstrate that BSS indicators are best used to detect multi-year or decadal shifts
waters in January, May, and September using daytime tows with a conical 30-cm diameter, 250-mk
mesh plankton net towed by boat from the headwaters to the mouth of the sampled creeks. Samf
will be preserved in the field with -5percent formalin solution until they are sorted, identified,
enumerated at the laboratory. This methodology will duplicate those described in CZR 1990 with
exception of the locations and numbers of sample events. January, May, and Septemberwere cho
because those were the months with the most ichthyoplankton diversity in the 1990 study and we
also include all the groups of ichthyoplankton in the 1990 study.
To capture larger sized fish for the BSS, in addition to the juveniles caught in the otter trawls,
PCS proposes to also utilize experimental gill nets (netswith sections of various mesh sizes) near the
mouths of the sampled creeks every other week during the weeks of the juvenile fish sampling with the
otter trawl (April, May, and June). Figures 11-20 show proposed monitoring locations for the impacted
creeks.
nsert summary of October panel meeting presentation and decisions?
6.6 Wetland vegetation monitoring. Abundance, health, and species compostion of
the bottomland hardwood vegetation just above perennial waters has been monitored since 1998 in
Huddles Cut, Jacks Creek, and Tooley Creek per the 1998 plan. Drinkwater Creek, Jacobs Creek,
Porter Creek, the tributes to Durham Creek, and the chosen S33 creek will be similarly monitored
beginning at the appropriate time as dictated by mine activities. Panel members suggested that annual
i_}a!..Plan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions 13
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
October 2010
Monitoring of vegetation in Huddles Cut and Tooley Creek occurred in 2010 and will not occur again for
several years. Monitoring of vegetation for Durham and the chosen S33 creek will begin a_t the
appropnat _tre a ct m t t_ s, Vegetation monitoring plot locatons for each impacted
creek are shown on Figures 11-20 (not yet depicted on graphics).
6.7 Wetland hydrology monitorina?. Monitoring of the hydrology of the headwater or
bottomland hardwood wetlands will continue per the 1998 plan for all the monitored creeks to
determine the relative influences of wind tides and drainage basin input. Per Corps' Condition S.1). ii.
rain gauges will be installed in each creek's drainage basin to more accurately correlate wetland
hydrology to local rainfall. Water level data collected at 6,,e mouths and. mid-creek lo-at,ons can be
used to assist in the wetland hydrology analysis. > ,allow hydrology monitoring well and rain gauge
locations for each impacted creek are shown on Figures 11-20 (not yet depicted on all graphics).
Final Plan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions 14
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
October 2010
7.0 REFERENCE OR CONTROL CREEK SYSTEMS
7.1 Existing reference or control creek system. Muddy Creek has been used as
the control creek for fish, benthos, and sediment sampling since 1998 although it is perceived bysome
agency personnel to have limitations as a comparator because of its large drainage basin size (2,200
acres; estimated from USGS topographic quadrangle) compared to the average of all the impacted
creeks (1,263 acres) or the average of all the impacted tributaries of NCPC (875 acres). However, it
does serve as a demonstration of regional external dynamics also experienced by the impacted creeks
(e.g., salinity and fisheries fluctuations, climate, sea level rise, large storms, or droughts), allowing mine
effects to be removed as causes of some potential phenomena captured in the monitoring data.
Figure 23 shows the current and proposed locations of monitoring in Muddy Creek.
7.2 Proposed new reference or control creek systems. Google Earth, USGS
topographic quads, and LiDAR were used to measure the width of the mouths of the impacted creeks,
the length of their open waters, and to estimate drainage basin size. These parameters, in addition to
pro>amity, were used to search for new candidate creek systems that may serve as additional control
creeks for the impacted creeks. Preliminary field reconnaissance was then conducted by CZR to
confirm the candidates. Based on inherent characteristics and ownership constraints, proposed
candidate creeks may be monitored for only some parameters. As examples, PA2 has little headwater
wetlands and no bottomiand hardwood community for vegetation plots, or the bottomland hardwood
community of a candidate creek may be in private hands limiting monitoring to aquatic achvitiessuch as
fish and benthos sampling. For any aquatic monitoring equipment that needs to be permanently
mounted to a structure, PCS will seek CAMA permits for the construction of these small docksor piers,
as was done for some of the 1998 monitoring locations.
7.2.1 PA2. As part of the new monitoring program, PCS proposes to add PA2 asa
control site for fish, benthos, sediment, and water quality parameters since thisarea currently functions
as a created estuary with an extremely small drainage basin (22 acres). However, PA2 will not be
monitored for bottomland hardwood vegetation r : is hp ]r ;rraV as it is primarilya brackish marsh
system . Figure 24 shows the proposed monitoring locations in PA2.
72.2 Lona Creek. Suggested by the Science Panel members asa potential control
creek. Long Creek is also a tributary to South Creek located across from the NCPC tract on the , fe
?SZQ fir" ?1` "
peninsula between South Creek and Bond Creek. The peninsula is known as the Charles Tract
(Figure 25). The Charles Tract contains areas in various stages of reclamation following activities of
the former North Carolina Phosphate Company (NCPC) and PCS. Portions of the Charles Tract
1
reclamation areas are considered reclaimed bythe NC Department of Land Resources. The historic DST
drainage basin of Long Creek is estimated from USGS topographic quadrangles to be approximately
630 acres which has been reduced to 223 acres due to construction of the Charles Tract reclamation
cells (estimated from Lidar). A small stream tributary to Long Creek on the peninsula between Long
and Short Creeks has been selected for wetland hydrology monitoring. Although there is an old
unmaintained dirt road at the upper end of the stream features of this tributary, its drainage basin is
intact (19 acres estimated from Lidar) and it appears unaffected by Charles Tract activities.
7.2.3 Duck Creek In addition, PCS also proposesto sample Duck Creek (- 3,118-
acre basin) as the control creek system for Porter Creek (- 3,728-acre basin). Duck Creek is a tributary
to the Pamlico River, located on the north side of the river across from Durham Creek. Much of the
eastern portion of the Duck Creek drainage basin is under the ownership of PCS, which will facilitate
access for any land-based monitoring. The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has
designated Duck Creek and its tributaries as PNAs. Figure 26 shows the proposed monitoring
locations in Duck Creek.
7.2.4 Durham Creek tributary. As a control creek for impacts to the selected
impacted tributary to Durham Creek (DCUT 11 with a -139-acre drainage basin), PCS proposes to
monitor xxxx Creek. Figure 27 shows the proposed monitoring locations in xxxx Creek. (Several
potential creeks have been investigated but rejected as unsuitable; the search for a suitable creek
continues.)
7.2.5 South 33 Tract reference creeks. At the time PCS decides whether or not to
mine in the South 33 Tract, a search will be conducted for suitable reference or control creek for the
"representative" impacted creek selected to be monitored.
8.0 TIMELINE OF IMPACTS AND MONITORING
8.1 Timeline of projected impacts and initiation of monitoring for all
parameters. Using the expected two-year impact schedule and reclamation schedule that PCS
prepared for planning purposes (Figures 28 and 29) each creek is projected to be monitored asshown
in Table 3. Approval of this Plan of Study oi:, ; c<c r too late in the year for some parameters to be
collected. For this reason, the fact that approved stations already exist, and the projected initiation of
impacts in 2011, PCS elected to begin collection of the parameters as desc_n-bd i the 1 er'48 ?_aa) on 1
January 2010 in Tooley Creek, priorto approval of the Plan of Study. Post-Altemative E impact data
are already being collected in approved stations in Huddles Cut, which will also continue on 1 January
2010. Any monitoring parameters that are not begun on 1 January 2010 will begin as soon as
conditions are appropriate or equipment is deployed. For the other creeks in NCPC (Drinkwater,
Jacobs, and Jacks), 2011 is expected to be the first complete monitoring year for all parameters in the
final approved Plan o' Stud
9.0 COORDINATION WITH SCIENCE PANEL AND ANNUAL REPORTING
As required by Corps Condition V, annual summaries of all data collected in compliance with required
conditions and the final approved Plan of Study will be submitted by PCS on or before 1 May of the
following year to the Corps, NCDWQ, and the Science Panel members. These summarieswill also be
made available in whole or part to any interested party.
10.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QA) PROGRAM AND SCIENCE
I_ ;;I Plan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions 15
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
October 2010
PANEL REVIEW
10.1 QA/QC program approach. The Science Panel, the Corps, NCDWQ, and PCS
will develop a QA/QC program approach that features an optimized study design which iscost-effective
and science based, yet acknowledges the uncertainty limits of inferences and conclusions that can be
drawn from environmental parameters (Gibson et al., 2000). R will also allow for adaptive
management if the group agrees through time that adjustments in the overall plan or approach are
necessary while ensuring that no other important items in the plan or QA/QC approach are
compromised. The accuracy and precision, representativeness, completeness, comparability, and
measurability are aspects of the data quality that need to be identified in the sampling details and
recognized when conclusions are drawn. Other items that the QA/QC program could address may
include: training and certifications, documentation and records, statistical power of the sampling
design, sampling details and protocols, sample handling (chains of custody if appropriate), replication
and cross checks of field crews, voucher collections, equipment testing and calibration, and data
management.
10.2 Science Panel review. As required by Corps Condition W, no later than 30 July of
each monitoring year, PCS will coordinate and facilitate an annual meeting of the Science Panel,
NCDWQ, the Corps, and all other interested state and federal agencies. The meeting will provide an
opportunity for the Panel to review any trends shown by the data, make adjustmentsto management or
suggest further study, and for the group to have general discussion. All proceedings of these annual
meetings will be made available to any interested party.
Final Plan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions 16
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
October 2010
O
O
O
r
fh
N
Y
N
7
fU
L
C
O
m
E
m
U
N
cn
U
0
O
v
0
c
ID
v
a?
L
U
N
U
m
a
E
m
N
O
C
N
C
O
p
N
CL
E
O
U
C
O
m
E
m
U
N
0
O
a
a
C
m
J
a?
m
E
fU
Q
fU
00
m
E
0
U
m
CL
E
N
O
CL
c
m
fU
CL
m
rn
C
0
c
O
E
Y
fu
m
U
m
;
W
c?
N
m
F-
N
co
>.
N >, n
E U O
m m
y a
O •T A m
fufu??
carom
N N >+ aY
N C V O N
L 4) m a a U
N
n.E `m o
O j > c
O ` O O O
d - U
I
U
yN
O
O
F
9
m
a+
yd
O
N OtOY
N OfOM
N O f0 N
N O?Or
N O f0 0
N a 0 a
NOB co
N O b A
cm
cm O b b
N O b a
N O b M
N O b N
N O to I
N O b O
N O "f fA
N O V co
N O a A
N O-0 fO
N O -0 to
N O a V
N O It M
N O a N
N O v 9-
C14 O l O
N OMtA
NOM 00
N

W NOM1?
NOMfO
N O M to
Z N O M v
N O M M
Z
Q
N O M N
N O M r
N O M O
N O N a
N O N w
NON P.
NON fO
N O N b
N ONIQ
N O N M
N O N N
N O N r
N O N O
NOrp?
CV O r co
N O r A
N O r b
N O r b

r V
N Cl
N O r M
N O r N
N O r r
N O r 0

a

V

7

U
aNi
-?

7

2

°

N

0

FO--

`

+;

Sc

C

m

O
U

Y

U

y

tf

0

H

Z)

U E
3
U)
'O
a)
-
E

0

7

Y

3

7

m
L

D
O

-

E

m

-E
7

0

?

Q

CL

y

,

.3

to CrD \in of 5A-f 1,
fU
Y

a
E
O
U
.N
N O
fU 'C
j O
C
O
E
? C
T
C m
o E
m
Y
f
D
t
m
1
> ?J
1
O
(`A a

?d
.
3 U
U) Z
'rnc c
m
fu
O)0)
?
o
O N
.C C
O
E
CD
N c
O r
O ? C
O
E E

U
? N
C N D
O
E O Oa
a
O
E CO
m (0NN
TY
m E C)
U m
U r ?
L
am
m N
? O
3
CL o
E a dcy

va
U
7
a N
L Q
ai
w0- :
0) O m :3
ca O

'C Y C
U N ?

E
U L
C 0 U
oar mE O C

u

E w m m E -0 T
t
5,

ip > 0
CL r
m po
C_
E L
m >` O C
U m O/ NN

O
V
0
mE 6?
49 m N C
O O
N
0 -
m 12
m m
p?
a
?E °A
y
U 70
N
V ?
N m ' V
a.g o -C
0.
?'c
A= Cc r 34),
O Ed
L m
>
Y Y a m m
j 4) C-E L
'o

m m
>
0 O
U 0 .m N
fu

NC 2
4) N
> >, m ° fu Y E
N
Mo E v m E
a is
E°mE`m 4) a
°o
_N a T -b
N
? 0
/1j a m
a f
E O O fy0 C 3
fS N
°
?
?. a a o
L c o t -
c
0

N 6-0
C 'O
.
t! 4)
3?cCM

m3
0 L6 50

a°Fm

L
L C t N a
Nm> E p
Ym
0
r?L3
d?N?+ E
6
EN
>? -0 Y
1
0-0
N m4= m ?
ID o E

U N O
E -
v-
o

1=
m
J
ac

mrL
N ? a_m f?
m n v d
cnr

? ) papbcvwl
? ?-? ?? Yl 1 r y
C
0
Id
c
Li
7
Q
E
m
c
3
0
Q
O
C
0
7
.d
a
b
a
m
m
3
v
d
O
W
a
0. ?
E
d o
7 U
o ? c
C 4N
a' to o
0. O
- .
REFERENCES
CZR Incorporated. 1990. Report on the 1988-1989 hydrography, sediment, benthic, fisheries, and
zooplanktonhchthyoplankton surveys in support of the Environmental Impact Statement forthe
Texasgulf Inc. mine continuation. 78 pp.
CZR Incorporated and Wayne Skaggs. NCPC Tract stream monitoring program for PCS Phosphate
Company, Inc. October 1998. 23pp.
Gibson, G.R., M.L. Bowman, J. Gerritsen, and B.D.Snyder. 2000. Estuarine and coastal marine
waters: bioassessment and biocriteria technical guidance. EPA 822-B-00-024. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington DC.
Houde. Edward D. et al.2003. Final report: Trophic indicators of ecosystem health in Chesapeake
Bay. EAGLES-Atlantic Coast Environmental Indicators Consortium. EPA Grant Number:
R8286770002.
ecosystem approach. Oxford University Press, New
Jung, Sukgeun and Edward D. Houde. 2005. Fish biomass size spectra in Chesapeake Bay.
Estuaries. Vol.28, No. 2, p. 226-240. April.
Law, Richard et al. 2009. Size-spectra dynamics from stochastic predation and growth of individuals.
Ecology, 903(3). Pp. 802-811.
Draft Plan of Study for Potential Effects of Headwater Wetland Reduction on Downstream Aquatic Functions 16
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
December 2009