20080868 Ver 2_Public Comments_20080707 (4)

July 7, 2008
NC DWQ
Attn: John Dorney
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
RE: Comments on 401 for PCS Mine Continuation
To Whom It May Concern:
The Pamlico-Tar River Foundation (PTRF) submits the following comments regarding Potash
Corporation Saskatchewan, Phosphate Inc., Aurora facility's (PCS) application to dredge and fill
4,135 acres of wetlands and waters regulated under the Clean Water Act.
PTRF, founded in 1981, is a grassroots environmental organization representing 2500 members.
Our mission is to enhance and protect the Pamlico-Tar River watershed through education,
advocacy, and research. PTRF submits the following comments regarding the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan,
Phosphate, Inc, Aurora Facility (PCS) mine advance.
Along with the comments below, PTRF is enclosing two comment letters provided to the Corps
of Engineers that respond specifically to impacts to wetlands and waters of the State. The first is
a document produced by PTRF, "Impacts to the Aquatic Environment Associated with PCS
Phosphate, Inc. Proposed Mine Expansion." The second is a letter dated March 3, 2008 to the
Corps regarding the Entrix report.
Below are comments on several issues of concern to PTRF related the impacts to wetland and
waters of the state.
Flexible buffer mitigation
PTRF continues to have concerns about the Flexible Buffer Mitigation scheme. The first concern
is related to the "exhaustive search" completed by the company. There is no indication as to what
constitutes and exhaustive search. PTRF questions the indication by PCS that there is not enough
buffer available to restore. What cost limit was placed upon the determination of whether a
buffer restoration was feasible? At a sufficiently high price, much more buffer restoration might
be available. Secondly, the methodology to calculate existing riparian buffer nutrient load
reduction is flawed. The buffer loading estimates for existing buffers only consider surface
runoff. Most of the nitrogen travels through buffers as subsurface flow. In forested
buffers, nitrogen can be removed in the root zones. When only surface flow is considered, this
subsurface loading (and possible reduction) is missed. Thirdly, and more importantly, if PCS
buffer mitigation requirements will consume all available buffer restoration in the area of
consideration, the next buffer restoration needed will also likely need to use a flexible approach
as well so this is setting a precedent. And finally, PTRF is gravely concerned over the ability of
PCS to use multiple appeals when the outcome is not to their liking. Much of the methodology
requires, and rightfully so, sign-off by DWQ staff and director. Point 4 located on FEIS
Appendix I page 9 provides PCS with essentially two appeals when the outcome is contrary to
their needs and/or conclusions. The first appeal is to the Director and the second to the EMC
Water Quality Committee. This is overly gracious and could work to undermine staff
recommendations based on the available information and relevant science.
While PTRF continues to question the validity of a variance request in this matter, if this
approach is ultimately used, then the calculation of credits is essential to this mitigation scheme.
PTRF fears the process will not be transparent and the overall benefits of riparian buffers
(including nutrient removal) will not be realized by alternative mitigation practices. Therefore,
we request that the public have the opportunity to review the credit calculation methodology,
research results and conclusions. There are many within the scientific community who could
provide very useful information to DWQ regarding this issue.
Heavy Metal Contamination
Due to the expansive information regarding heavy metal contamination and availability to
wildlife, elevated levels of metals in groundwater and surface water, as well as future
reconnections of reclaimed drainage areas to natural stream segments, PTRF again urges the
Corps and DWQ to include in any permit extensive groundwater monitoring within the
reclaimed areas and adjacent aquatic habitats, including sediment monitoring of any impacted or
adjacent tributaries to the mine advance. We suggest DWQ follow requirements to those of the
NC Solid Waste Management rules, where monitoring must continue for 30 years after
reclamation activities have been completed. Most importantly, included in this requirement
should be a provision that any contamination issues found must be remediated immediately, and
that the Corps reserves the right to revoke the permit and the company discontinue mining until
the problem has been solved to the agency's satisfaction.
PTRF Recommends the following as it pertains to a groundwater monitoring plan:
- Groundwater monitoring wells should be placed in reclamation areas and peripheral
areas. Number and location of wells shall be determined in consultation with the
Department of Natural Resources (Department).
- Groundwater monitoring should commence with weekly samples for a period of 5
years to generate an acceptable baseline. After 5 years, monthly monitoring is
acceptable.
- Monitoring shall continue for 30 years post-reclamation. The post-reclamation time
period can be lengthened by the Department.
- If elevated levels of heavy metals are detected, monitoring should continue to be
conducted weekly.
- At a minimum, heavy metals, including cadmium, arsenic, and chromium should be
analyzed. Other parameters may be added per the discretion of the Department.
- Surface water and bottom muds of downstream, un-mined creeks should be analyzed
monthly for a period of 3-5 years to develop a baseline prior to reconnection of
upstream reclaimed channels (ex. Whitehurst Creek). Monitoring of bottom muds
should continue 30 years, conducted quarterly after the baseline is established.
- PCS Phosphate shall develop a remediation strategy for heavy metal contamination of
groundwater and tributaries that drain or are adjacent to mined areas.
Due to the potential for wildlife and human contamination from both mining and the chemical
plant activities, PTRF requests the Corps consider the following requirements:
1. PCS must fully fund a complete epidemiologic study of the mine,
general vicinity and downwind sectors with the purpose of determining the
impact on human health as a result of the mine and processing operations.
2. 1 % of gross annual revenue should be set aside in a trust or escrow to be
managed by a group of stakeholders independent of PCS to insure that the
reclamation and future environmental and human damage that may occur can be
mitigated whenever possible and that the required reclamation will occur and meet
acceptable standards. This does not relieve the company of meeting existing
requirements and complying with the reclamation and mitigation requirements
already included or to be included as a part of their permit.
3. PCS must fully fund a complete epidemiologic study of the mine,
general vicinity and downwind sectors with the purpose of determining the
impact on fish and wildlife as a result of mine and processing operations.
4. PCS must fund a study to determine the existing effects from
reclamation areas that have been capped and are not capped. The focus needs
to be on plants and animals since the reclaimed areas are to be utilized as wildlife
habitat.
PTRF supports ongoing water quality monitoring within the project area, especially to look at
ecosystem effects of headwater impacts and drainage basin reductions, as well as possible heavy
metal contamination. Data provided to PTRF from WARO of groundwater monitoring wells
located within the PCS plant site indicate that currently groundwater quality standard violations
occur often for total dissolved solids, sulfate, and fluoride (assuming GSA classification: PTRF
assumes this, since the rights to the pumped groundwater from the mine has a possible future use
as water supply, as well as past local uses of surficial aquifers for drinking supply via wells).
SNHA on Bonnerton Tract
The nonriverine wet hardwood forests on the Bonnerton site have been identified as a site of
national significance, meaning that the site is one of the five best examples of that community
type in the nation.' The Bonnerton site has two features that make it a site of national
significance, its size and quality. As noted above, large tracts of nonriverine wet hardwood
forests are rare. Of the 25 known sites in North Carolina, only seven are greater than 100 acres.2
Covering over 200 acres, the Bonnerton site is the fourth largest known site. In addition to its
size, the Bonnerton site is high in quality, with large trees that are increasingly uncommon. The
N.C. Natural Heritage Program describes the site as "very good" quality. Alternative L includes
The publication noting the site as a site of national significance is in press. (Schafale, pers. comm.)
2 Schafale at 9.
substantial mining in the Bonnerton tract. This mine alternative would destroy the nationally
significant nonriverine wet hardwood forests in the Bonnerton tract. Because these forests are
large, rare, and high-quality, the impacts to them under this alternative cannot be mitigated.
PTRF urges DWQ to protect this natural resource. However, we do not wish to see this area
protected at the expense of other aquatic resources of national importance (areas within the
NCPC tract). Economists from North Carolina universities as well as EPA believe that all
alternatives with the exception of the No Action alternative are practicable. Therefore, the SNHA
areas on the Bonnerton tract can be avoided while maintaining at an absolute minimum SCR
avoidance areas in the NCPC tract.
Mitigation
The proposed impacts via the L mining alternative would directly and indirectly impact estuarine
stream and riparian wetland ecosystem health and function. While some functions, such as
aquatic habitat, may be restored within 10 years, many other functions and natural wetland
characteristics will only be restored with a significant lag period on the order of decades.
Furthermore, the FEIS fails to demonstrate the feasibility of reliably scaling up mitigation efforts
(compared to much smaller past projects) that would yield a high probability of success.
The complexities of the systems located within the NCPC tract cannot be replicated through
mitigation without an associated significant lag time. Existing riparian wetlands within the
NCPC tract provide quality protections for the inland PNAs, and resulting mitigation must also
provide this protection. Many individual functions of the wetlands and stream channels located
within the NCPC track are interdependent. Replacing a contiguous wetland/stream system with
smaller, fractured mitigation sites will result in the loss of interdependent functions, the
interaction of upland, flat and riparian wetlands and coastal streams, and the complexity of the
system presently occurring within the NCPC tract.
Due to the complexities and quality of the ecosystem within the project area, the required ratios
of wetland and stream mitigation are extremely important. Federal and State resource agencies
have continually provided information on the importance of estuarine streams, particularly
within the NCPC tract, and how impacts to those streams may affect downstream ecosystem
quality. It is our opinion that a ratio of 1.8:1 for stream mitigation is inadequate in light of the
quality and importance of the streams that could be impacted by mining Alternative L or other
alternatives with jurisdictional stream impacts. Furthermore, due to the fact of the massive size
of the overall impact within the South Creek, Durham Creek and Pamlico River drainage basins,
and the cumulative and indirect effects from such an operation, a 1:1 restoration ratio for any
wetland type, regardless of its deemed quality, is also inadequate.
To determine significant degradation, the Corps must analyze the proposed mitigation and
compare to the overall impacts of mining to the ecosystem. The mitigation plan found in the
FEIS only accounts for the first 15 years of mining and does not provide details into how South
of 33 mining impacts will be offset. Therefore, the Corps does not have the information
necessary to make an adequate analysis significant degradation.
Conclusion
To conclude, PCS Phosphate is unable to counter the incontrovertible body of scientific evidence
showing that mining through headwaters of estuarine streams and their associated riparian
habitats and contiguous wetland systems will have a significant negative impact on the
functioning and structure of streams affected by proposed future mining activities. What we do
have is a large amount of information detailing the importance of headwater streams and
wetlands on downstream water quality. Alternative L, due to its direct, indirect and cumulative
impacts to stream ecosystems as well as the Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Areas
located on the Bonnerton Tract would result in the significant degradation of aquatic resources.
Such impacts cannot be adequately mitigated in a reasonable timeframe to offset the impacts and.
loss of wetland and stream functions.
PTRF does not concur with the Corps practicability analysis nor do we concur that Alternative L
is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments. IF you have any questions or concerns
related to this material, please contact our office.
Sincerely,

Heather Jacobs
Pamlico-Tar Riverkeeper
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
February 8, 2007
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Regulatory Div.
ATTN: File Number 2001-10096
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter and attached document is in response to the request by the PCS Phosphate, Inc.
which applied to the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for a Clean Water Act Section
404 permit to impact and fill wetlands and waters of the state for the purpose of continuing
its mining operations along South Creek and the Pamlico River in eastern Beaufort County
near the town of Aurora. The permit request includes excavation of 2,408 acres of wetlands
and waters, including brackish marsh and public trust areas, and greater than 38,800 linear
feet of stream. Sections of three designated inland Primary Nursery Areas that drain to
South Creek, a Secondary Nursery Area, would be excavated under the Applicant
Preferred mining alternative. This alternative lies within a tract of land known as the
NCPC tract, which is bordered to the north by the Pamlico River and to the east by South
Creek.
Due to the special nature of the upland-, wetland-, and estuarine-creek ecosystem within
the NCPC tract, we, the undersigned believe that the Applicant Preferred alternative would
result in a significant adverse impact to the aquatic ecosystem that cannot be replaced
through mitigation in a reasonable time frame. Furthermore, we contend that any mining
through the headwaters or other downstream portions of the three PNAs and their
associated riparian wetland complex would result in significant degradation. The attached
document, "Impacts to the Aquatic Environment Associated with the PCS Phosphate, Inc.
Proposed Mine Expansion" produced by the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation has been
included to support this claim.
Sincerely,
Heather Jacobs
Pamlico-Tar RIVERKEEPER®
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
John Alderman, President Dorothea Ames
Alderman Environmental Services, Inc. Geologist, PG
David Knowles, Ecologist Michelle Duval, Ph.D.
Greenville, NC Scientist
Environmental Defense
Joe Rudek, Ph.D. Doug Rader, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist Principal Scientist for Oceans
Environmental Defense and Estuaries
Environmental Defense
William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D. JoAnn Burkholder, Ph.D.
James B. Duke Professor, Biogeochemistry Director, Center for Applied
& Dean Aquatic Ecology
The Nicholas School of the North Carolina State University
Environment and Earth Sciences
Duke University
William W. Kirby-Smith, Ph.D. Robert R. Christian, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of the Practice of Marine Ecology Coastal Ecologist
Duke University Marine Laboratory
Norm Christensen, Ph.D. Emily S. Bernhardt, Ph.D.
Professor of Ecology Assistant Professor
Nicholas School of the Environment Department of Biology
Duke University Duke University
2
Impacts to the Aquatic Environment Associated with PCS Phosphate, Inc.
Proposed Mine Expansion
I) INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose: The purpose of this document is to evaluate the impacts to the aquatic
environment located within and adjacent to the proposed mine expansion by PCS Phosphate, Inc.
This tract of land is commonly referred to as the NCPC tract (formerly owned by the North
Carolina Phosphate Company). Information originates from peer reviewed journals, the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and personal communication with researchers and
DENR Agency personnel.
1.2 Significant Degradation: Under 404(b)l guidelines of the Clean Water Act, the US
Army Corps of Engineers (hereafter referred to as the Corps) must deny a permit to fill wetlands
if it will result in significant degradation of the waters of the U.S. The burden of proof lies with
the applicant to prove that wetland and water fill activities will not cause significant degradation.
Two considerations that are balanced in determining whether significant degradation occurs are
a) impact to the environment and b) the mitigation required by the permit. The Corps may be
more likely to find significant degradation if: 1) the impact affects a particularly sensitive or
unique area; 2) the impact affects a large area; or 3) the affected environment has other features
that are not easily replicated by mitigation.
Four broad categories of impacts can result in significant degradation:
Impacts to human health;
2. Impacts to wildlife;
3. Impacts to the aquatic ecosystem; and
4. Impacts to recreational, aesthetic, and economic values.
When evaluating these impacts, the guidelines specify a focus on the "persistence and
permanence" of the impacts. This paper's focus is on proposed mining sequences and their
associated aquatic ecosystem impacts. Certain impacts to aquatic environments that are
scrutinized by the Corps include but are not limited to:
water chemistry
nutrients
shoreline erosion
salinity
eutrophication
aquatic communities
temperature
diversion of flow
aquatic habitat
invasive species
dissolved gas levels
hydrologic changes
spawning areas
nutrient cycling contaminant levels
altering upstream or downstream areas
1.3 Applicant Preferred Alternative: PCS Phosphate, Inc. has applied for a permit to
impact 2,408 acres of jurisdictional waters and wetlands. A breakdown of the impact can be
found in Table 1. The request includes more than 38,800 linear feet (If) of intermittent and
perennial stream impact and a 70% to > 90% reduction of the drainage basins of 6 named
tributary drainage basins (Table 2). Some reductions are considered permanent, others temporary
in the DEIS. The present natural hydrology within and in the periphery of the mine site will be
permanently altered. Three streams located within the NCPC tract proposed to be excavated are
listed as inland Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs) (Street et al. 2005).
Table 1: Breakdown of wetland and water impacts by biotic community type (DEIS)
Biotic Community Type Applicant
Preferred Site
Public Trust Waters acres 5
Public Trust Waters linear feet 14564
Perennial Stream acres 3
Perennial Stream linear feet 7008
Intermittent Stream acres 3
Intermittent Stream linear feet 17267
Wetland Brackish Marsh 38
Wetland Bottomland Hardwood
Forest 102
Wetland Herbaceous Assemblage 235
Wetland Scrub-Shrub 202
Wetland Pine-Plantation 514
Wetland Hardwood Forest 509
Wetland Mixed Pine/Hardwood
Forest 564
Wetland Pine Forest 195
Pond 19
Upland Herbaceous 234
Upland Scrub-Shrub 262
Upland Pine Plantation 55
Upland Hardwood Forest 67
Upland Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 140
Upland Pine Forest 38
Upland Agricultural Land 117
Upland non-vegetated/maintained
areas 92
Total wetlands, waters, upland) 3412
Total linear feet streams 38839
Total Uplands acres 1005
Total Wetlands/water acres 2407
4
Table 2: Drainage basin reductions for tributaries to the Pamlico River and South
Creek under the applicant preferred (AP) alternative (DEIS)

Creek Name Existing Total
Drainage
acres Drainage in
NCPC Tract
acres Drainage in AP
to be Excavated
acres Proposed
Drainage Basin
Reduction
Jacobs 418 407 370 89
Jacks 320 310 280 88
Toole 444 430 375 84
Drinkwater 426 418 373 88
Huddles Cut 756 707 702 93
Hudd Gut 392 285 285 73
1.4 NCPC Characterization:
More than 70% of the NCPC tract proposed for mining consists of delineated, federal and state
jurisdictional wetlands and open waterways. Riparian wetland types located in this tract of land
and within the AP site include estuarine, riverine, headwater, and flat or depressional hardwood
and pine wetlands. Certain wetland types such as brackish marsh, bottomland hardwoods and
scrub-shrub within the NCPC tract are irregularly inundated due to dominance of wind tides,
which can cause dramatic fluctuations in salinity and water levels. The soils are poorly drained
with a high runoff potential. Under natural conditions, the seasonal high water table ranges from
ground surface to 2 feet below ground level. Wetland types are noted in Table 1. Jacobs, Jacks,
and Tooley Creeks are designated inland PNAs and South Creek is a special secondary nursery
area. These nursery areas are important habitats for numerous finfish and shellfish species.
Complete descriptions of the significant tributaries to South Creek within the NCPC track can be
found in the Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society (1985 v.101). In general, tributaries
to South Creek within the NCPC tract have complex marsh biotic communities that are
influenced by complex, interacting environmental factors rather than one environmental gradient.
They occur along steep physical gradients where laterally uplands and forested wetlands
dominate and upstream areas gradually give way to swamp forests. Most of the tributaries are
relatively shallow, narrow systems where runoff is greatest during the winter season when
evapotranspiration is low. Downstream reaches of the tributaries are bordered by brackish marsh
dominanted by Juncus romerianus (needlerush), but also include a mosaic of other marsh
species. Creek sediments are high in organic content. South Creek is dominated by wind tides.
Annual precipitation is around 50 inches/year.
The following sections provide information on the potential for water quality and
other aquatic environmental impacts associated with the proposed mining
alternative.
The first discussion below in section H is related to downstream and peripheral
impacts to areas not directly impacted via the proposed mine expansion within the
NCPC tract.

II) Impacts to Downstream/Peripheral Wetlands of the Proposed Mine Site
Wetlands perform many functions critical to the health of aquatic environments (USEPA, 2001).
North Carolina has lost approximately 50% of its original 11.1 million acres of wetlands (Dorney
et al. 2004). Today, approximately 95% of the remaining wetland acres in the state are found
within the coastal plain (Bales and Newcomb 1999). The Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary is a
nationally significant estuarine resource. This estuarine system provides essential nursery habitat
for most of the commercial and recreational fish and shellfish species caught on the US east
coast. Over 90% of North Carolina's commercial fish landings and over 60% of recreational
harvest by weight are comprised of estuarine-dependent fish species (Street et al. 2005).
Wetland and stream functions (2408 acres) within the mine excavation site will be permanently
lost, as noted in the DEIS. The uses of the land to be mined will also be permanently altered.
Section III of this document describes functions that will be lost within the mine site (AP), and
assesses whether or not these functions can be recovered through mitigation/reclamation within a
reasonable time frame (10 years). Table 3 includes functions that will be lost or reduced in
wetland and stream systems along the periphery of the mine site within the NCPC tract. Impacts
to downstream areas are not required to be mitigated; therefore, any impact or loss of function in
these areas will not be replaced.
Table 3: List of functions provided by downstream and peripheral wetlands of the
proposed AP mine alternative and associated impacts.
Functions Provided Impacted by AP Alternative Explanation
Flood control Impacted Section 2.4
Nutrient cycling Impacted Section 2.4a
Carbon sink or source Impacted Section 2.5
Loss of upstream functions as

Sink for pollutants
Impacted sink and placement of dike
constructed with contaminated
sand tailings. Section 2.6.
Sediment accumulation Not-Impacted
Soil Organic Matter Not-Impacted
accumulation
Increasing load from upstream
Primary Productivity Impacted nutrients and groundwater input.
Sections 2.4a and 2.5
Dampen wave energy Not-Impacted
(erosion control)
Habitat (terrestrial & aquatic) Impacted Section 2.3
Nursery Impacted Section 2.4
Detritus export Impacted Section 2.5
2.1. Elemental Contamination
A study conducted prior to the implementation of the wastewater recycling system at the plant
site revealed that sediments in the vicinity of discharge sites on the Pamlico River and South
Creek contained elevated levels of cadmium, molybdenum, arsenic, Manganese, vanadium and
titanium as well as fluorine (Riggs et al 1989). All of these elements are found within the
phosphate grains. The toxicity of heavy metals to the aquatic environment has been well studied.
Specifically in the Pamlico Estuary several studies have associated metal contamination with
crab shell disease (Engel and Noga 1989; Brouwer et al. 1992; Gemperline et al. 1992;
Weinstein et al. 1992). Since the recycling system has been in place in the mid-1990s for PCS
Phosphate, crab shell disease has declined (personal communication, Sean McKenna, DMF
2006). The reclamation process uses a blend of gypsum and clay, which results in elevated levels
of metals, specifically cadmium within the mine site. Studies conducted by North Carolina State
University and outlined in the DEIS also found that cadmium had bio-accumulated in several
plant species located on existing reclamation areas. Further studies revealed elevated levels of
cadmium in benthic organisms, blue crabs and clams adjacent to PCS outfalls and ponds on
company property.
Of particular concern is the potential impact of metals leaching into downstream muds from
reclamation areas. The company proposes, at some point in the future, to reconnect natural
downstream areas with reclaimed streambeds within the mine site. It is clear in the DEIS that
current levels of cadmium and other metals around the mine site are elevated, including areas in
the NCPC tract which could cause adverse biological effects. The future long-term impacts from
mining and reclamation activities on cadmium and other heavy metal accumulation within the
aquatic environment are unknown. The potential suspension and transport of contaminated muds
during hurricane events or other strong storm events should also be evaluated. The DEIS fails to
consider these long-term impacts to the downstream aquatic environment.
2.2 Flow Dynamic Impacts on Salinity Gradient
The tributaries of South Creek have varying salinities (0-17 ppt). During low precipitation years,
it is evident that salinities are mainly driven by South Creek and ultimately by the Pamlico River
Estuary (Davis et al. 1985). Watershed input of precipitation and potentially surficial
groundwater flow are sources of freshwater to the headwater portions of these streams, and also
play an important role in producing a downstream salinity gradient. The greatest runoff occurs
during winter when evapotranspiration is low (Bradshaw et al. 1985). Both vertical and
downstream stratification occurs after periods of runoff. Groundwater salinities for the Jacks
Creek watershed ranges from fresh (4) to 13 ppt (Brinson et al 1985). Sun et al. (2002) suggest
that topography affects stream flow patterns and storm flow peaks and volumes, and is the key to
wetland development in the southern US. The unique features and diversity of the contiguous
forested wetlands, uplands, and riparian wetlands (marsh, bottomland hardwood) within the
proposed mine block underscore the potential difficulty of providing mitigation that replicates
the complexity of this system.
The 2006 DEIS uses a similar argument to the previous permit EIS against any significant
salinity change due to large drainage basin reductions and excavation of ephemeral, intermittent,
and perennial stream segments. The basis for such an argument appears to come from two
studies: West's (1990) benthic study comparing Project Area II to 4 natural stream channels, and
the NCPC monitoring program in Jack's Creek (CZR Incorporated et al. 2005). West's (1990)
study sample size for water quality parameters is 4 replicates throughout one year, of which the
report states, "It should be noted... that these data address only gross trends in temporal variation
in water quality because the time scale of sampling (trimonthly) far exceeded the time scale of
significant change in water quality parameters (<1 day)." Furthermore, the sample sites were
located in the lower stream segments (lower half to third approximately) of each tributary (Jacks,
Jacobs, Drinkwater and Tooleys) where influence from South Creek likely is the dominant
factor. The 2-4 ppt salinity change in this study does not capture the salinity regime of the
upstream portions. The second study on Jacks Creek is seriously limited because 1) Only one
year of baseline sampling took place, and 2) The impact described for Jacks Creek (37%
drainage basin reduction) cannot be reliably scaled up to assess potential aquatic system impacts
from 73-93% drainage basin reductions as proposed in the DEIS.
These cited studies do not provide sufficient evidence to support the premise that drainage basin
reductions will not result in salinity changes to downstream segments. By mining through upland
and adjacent wetlands areas, as well as headwaters and perennial stream segments, the drainage
basins will be severely reduced. As a result, there could be potentially significant increases
salinity for at least 15 years until reclamation can, at best, re-establish a drainage basin. At this
time it is unclear how the drainage basins will be permanently altered by reclamation activities,
but it is clear that the alterations will be significant and long-term. Due to the significant increase
in elevation of the reclamation area and altered soil horizons that will not resemble natural
conditions, drainage basins could potentially be permanently and significantly altered. The
affects of salinity changes on stream systems are further described in the following sections.
2.2.a Groundwater Alterations:
There is little information in the DEIS regarding the nature of groundwater--or surface water
flow in reclaimed areas as compared to flow under natural conditions. Castle Hayne Aquifer
impacts have been studied fairly extensively, but there is a lack of information on how surficial
aquifer or subsurface (rain-driven subsurface flow) may be altered in either adjacent natural
areas or in reclaimed tracts. The potential loss of groundwater input as well as surface drainage
loss to South Creek tributaries could further impact the naturally occurring vertical and
downstream salinity gradients.
2.3. Salinity Change Impacts to Other Factors
Eliminating the freshwater /saltwater interface will most likely significantly alter natural function
of the creeks, including nutrient cycling (discussed in section 2.4.a below). Salinity changes will
also result in the loss of freshwater habitat for beneficial finfish species such as pumpkinseed,
largemouth bass, and bluegill. WRC shock studies from November 2006 (Data provide by Maria
Tripp, NC WRC) as well as Rulifson (1990) confirm freshwater species present; including those
listed above, in South Creek tributaries within the NCPC tract.
There also exists the potential for accelerated sea level rise that would result in salt-induced
stress to forested and bottomland-hardwood freshwater wetland areas and more rapid succession
to brackish marsh. Such salinity stress could affect the carbon and nutrient dynamics of these
wetlands, resulting in nutrient and energy loss (Lugo et al. 1988). This could. in turn, result in the
loss of bottomland hardwood- and freshwater marsh functions at a much faster rate than what
would occur naturally.
2.4 Hydrologic Changes and Consequences
EPA estimates than one acre of wetland can hold up to one and a half million gallons of
floodwater (US EPA, 2001). Verry (1997) suggests that wetlands can reduce flood peaks even
when wetlands are at water storage capacity, behaving similarly as reservoirs or lakes. Such
flood storage loss will alter the local hydrology within the NCPC tract. Dike construction may
induce more lateral flow and floodwater movement to areas previously inundated on less
frequent levels. Altered hydroperiods would result in an increase in frequency and magnitude of
anaerobic conditions within the riparian wetland areas. Increased anaerobic conditions can
promote release of nutrients (especially phosphorus and iron) from sediments into the water
column. Increased nutrients could result in increased algal blooms, further exacerbating
anaerobic bottom waters and mortality of fish and benthic fauna. Elevated levels of phosphorus
can also stimulate blooms of potentially toxic cyanobacteria (Burkholder 2002).
2.4.a Nutrient Cycling
Changes in hydrology resulting in prolonged anoxic conditions could significantly alter the
nutrient dynamics of the system. Mitsch and Gosselink (1993) stated, "Anoxic conditions during
flooding have several other effects on nutrient availability. Flooding causes soils to be in a highly
reduced oxidation state and often causes a shift in pH, thereby increasing mobilization of certain
minerals such a P, N, Mg, S, Fe, Mn, B, Cu, and Zn. This can lead to both greater availability of
certain nutrients and also to an accumulation of potentially toxic compounds in the soil."
Phosphorus sorption potential in forested wetlands is partly a function of flooding and saturated
soil conditions that cause the accumulation of organic matter and aluminum (Axt and Walbridge
1999). Natural wetlands appear to have superior P sorption capacity in surface soils and,
conversely, upland P sorption occurs in the subsurface soil. Thus, wetlands appear to perform P
sorption via surface runoff and upland areas are more suited for improving groundwater quality.
(i.e. differences in soil chemistry as a function of landscape position). Again, it is important to
point out the diversity of upland, riparian wetland, and forested wetland systems in the NCPC
tract.
It is unclear from the DEIS whether groundwater input is significant in the wetland and estuarine
creek systems of the NCPC tract. If groundwater input does play an important role, then there is
likely to be a high input of nutrients entering the system from the subsurface flow through
organic soils. Therefore, the primary productivity in upper areas of the creek systems may
depend on this high nutrient groundwater input.
An active point in the nutrient cycle is the naturally occurring die-offs of freshwater algae. The
potential loss of freshwater input and subsequent loss of freshwater algae could eliminate this
part of the nutrient cycle (personal communication, Robert Christian, ECU 2006).
Finally, marshes act as sinks for nutrients, sequestering them in plant tissue and sediments thus
removing them from the water column. The major tributaries to the Pamlico Sound, the Neuse
and Tar Rivers, have been designated by the NC Environmental Management Commission as
"Nutrient Sensitive Waters" due to consistently elevated levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and other
pollutants and basin-wide nutrient reduction strategies have been implemented. This nutrient
enrichment has promoted algal productivity, hypoxia, anoxia, and fish kills in the lower estuaries
9
(Burkholder et al. 2006). Removal of wetlands in the Pamlico Sound system would exacerbate
the impacts of this loading by removing the nutrient uptake capability of the marshes.
2.5 Carbon Cycle (Export and Sequester)
The interaction of marshes and adjacent, aquatic systems can be very important to the supply or
sequestering of organic carbon to those aquatic ecosystems. Some studies suggest that marshes
can either export or retain carbon, depending on the relationship between aerobic microbes and
their consumers (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Marshes are detrital-based systems and conversely
many studies have found the export of detrital (particulate organic) and/or dissolved organic
carbon to be an important input to aquatic systems. Bottomland Hardwoods (BLH) perform
functions such as nutrient uptake and transformations, sediment retention, floodwater storage,
and organic C export to downstream ecosystems (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Other studies
have found that much carbon is exported from marsh systems in the guts of migratory feeding
fish and birds or cycled through the marsh to the upper ends of tidal creeks and back to the
marsh. (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Mining in the areas close to the estuary as proposed in all
alternatives (except in the area south of highway NC 33) will remove mature watersheds that are
potentially significant sources of organic carbon to the estuary.
Unless the impact is mitigated with creation or effective, carefully evaluated restoration of
systems that can provide a similar magnitude and quality of organic carbon to the estuary, the
estuary will suffer a net loss of habitat quality.
2.6 Headwater Stream Function
The proposed mine site includes mining through more than 38,000 linear feet of stream,
including 100 acres of BLH wetlands and other areas of riparian wetlands. Of particular concern
is any mining alternative that would eliminate the headwater stream channel as well as its
associated BLH and freshwater riparian wetlands. A memo from John Dorney (NC DWQ), April
2006 states, "Headwater streams are very common and provide significant benefits to
downstream water quality and aquatic life. Intermittent streams have significant aquatic life even
though their flow is not constant throughout the year. Headwater wetlands are often associated
with these streams and provide important water quality filtration to protect downstream water
quality as well as significant aquatic life habitat. Therefore based on this on-going research, the
Division of Water Quality believes that protection of these headwater streams and wetlands is
essential to protect downstream water quality."
Headwater stream areas are typically influenced by adjacent riparian zones and should be
considered jointly with their associated riparian wetland areas. Physical hydrology/topography
(geomorphology) defines ecosystem function of headwater wetlands (Havens et al. 2004).
Coastal plain headwater wetlands typically have higher frequencies of overbank flows, flatter
hydrograph and longer inundation periods than piedmont or mountainous headwater regions
(Hupp 2000).
2.6 Other Mining Impacts
Construction of the dike system that will transect South Creek tributaries may also directly
impact surface water quality via sedimentation and increased turbidity. Another main concern is
10
the direct erosion of contaminated sand tailings, which are the base used in dike construction.
The DEIS notes that a 1980 study found cadmium present in all three ore-processing by-products
(sand tailings, clay, and phosphogypsum) in levels that exceed natural background
concentrations at the ground surface (Wakefield 1980). Therefore, dike construction may cause
direct contamination of surface water and/or muds of the tributaries within the NCPC tract
2.7 Section II Summary
Existing in-stream data for South Creek tributaries within the NCPC tract suggest that drainage
basin input of freshwater is important to the overall function of those stream systems. The direct
mining of headwater, intermittent, and perennial stream channels as well as their associated
riparian wetlands would impact the hydrology, salinity gradient, nutrient cycling, and carbon
availability of the downstream portions of the south Creek tributaries, listed in Table 2. The
DEIS fails to demonstrate that mining portions of the estuarine creeks and riparian wetlands
would not result in a significant impact to downstream and peripheral areas.
The following section discusses direct impacts via the mine expansion, including a
discussion of existing wetland functions and the possibility that these functions can
be replaced through reclamation and mitigation.
III) MITIGATION
The DEIS notes that the existing functions of the 2,408 acres of wetlands within the mine
expansion boundary would be lost. The question then remains is whether resulting
compensatory mitigation and the reclamation process can replace the functions lost through
mining- and fill activities (Table 4). PCS Phosphates' conceptual mitigation plan could result in
approximately 4,000 acres of restored, enhanced or preserved land. Mitigation ratios in this plan
depend upon the wetland type. At this time, it is unclear where mitigation will take place,
although it is understood that one planned site is located on a tributary to Pungo Creek, which
drains to the Pungo River. It has not been demonstrated or suggested by the company that all of
the mitigation would take place within the South Creek watershed, where the impacts would
occur. Furthermore, the buffer mitigation requirements are so large that the company has
requested a flexible plan that will replace required buffer restoration with other BMPs aimed at
reducing nitrogen and phosphorus runoff. This telling fact should be clearly conveyed in the
DEIS.
The more than 2000 acres of wetlands and waters, along with the 1000 upland acres proposed to
be impacted within the South Creek watershed, comprise a contiguous and interdependent
system, which currently includes three inland primary nursery areas (PNAs). Will the resulting
mitigation of unknown acreage per mitigation site result in complete replacement of the
functions lost from the proposed wetland- and waters, within an appropriate timeline (10 years)?
Will the resulting mitigation offer the full suite of functions and protection to PNA that the
existing wetlands and upstream channels of the NCPC tract provide?
As compensatory wetland mitigation becomes increasingly important in the health of our aquatic
ecosystems, the research related to assessing the functional equivalency of restored or created
sites to natural conditions has also increased. The section below summarizes research conducted
on-site or in similar wetland systems found within the NCPC tract, including the success of
restoring wetland function.
Table 4. Wetland functions (combined for all wetland types) and whether such loss of functions
from mining activities can be replaced within a 10-year timeframe.
Lost / Recoverable with
Mitigation within 10-
Functions Provided ears Explanation
Loss of floodplain due to reclamation and resulting
Flood control Lost higher elevations; potential for net loss of 100-year
floodplain. Mitigation may enhance flood control
functions, but flood plain acres will be lost
Nutrient cycling Lost Aspects of complex biogeochemical cycling will not
recover within 10 years. See Section 3.1 and 3.3.
Carbon sink or source Lost Not recoverable within 10 years. See Section 3.3.
Sink for pollutants Recoverable with However, it is unlikely that mitigation will occur
mitigation upstream or adjacent to an inland PNA.
Sediment accumulation Not wholly recoverable See Section 3.3.
SOM accumulation Lost SOM content will be lower and will not recover in 10
years. See Section 3.2.
Primary Productivity Recoverable with PP is a function of stream depth. See Section 3.4.
mitigation
Dampen wave energy Recoverable with Highly dependent on location of mitigation site. A Parker
(erosion control) mitigation Farm-like mitigation effort will not replace functions lost
in riparian wetland systems adjacent to estuarine streams
Habitat Recoverable with See Section 3
5

(terrestrial & aquatic)
mitigation .
.
Nursery Recoverable with However, successful mitigation projects a function of
mitigation location. See Section 3.5.
Detritus export Lost Not recoverable within 10 years.
3.1 Denitrification:
A study comparing restored to natural BLH wetlands found that restored wetlands have lower
denitrification potentials, even though the correct hydrology and vegetation was present (Hunter
and Faulkner 2001). This study suggests that restoration of water quality functions of BLHs are
dependent on more than hydrology alone.
3.2 Soil Organic Matter (SOM):
Soil properties of created and restored wetlands systems differ from those of natural wetlands
(Verhoeven et al. 2001). In restored and created wetlands in the NC coastal plain, mean SOM
content for all created and restored wetlands analyzed was significantly lower than the mean
SOM content in adjacent natural wetlands for four HGM settings (headwater riverine, mainstem
riverine, non-riverine mineral soil flat, and nonriverine organic soil flat; Bruland and Richardson
12
2006). Bailey Creek and Parker Farm are compensatory mitigation sites for PCS located within
the South Creek watershed. The Parker Farm restored areas have only 24.2% SOM content,
whereas SOM content of the adjacent natural wetland is 77.4% (Bruland and Richardson 2006).
There was no significant difference in SOM content between the created site and natural site on
the Bailey Creek area. However, it is important to note that the natural area of Bailey Creek had
the second lowest SOM content (8.9%) out of 11 natural wetlands analyzed. Low SOM content
may hinder development of microbial communities, which are critical to wetland function
(Duncan and Groffman 1994, Bruland 2004). Bacterial communities that rely upon this organic
matter for energy provide via mineralization, inorganic nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon to the
wetland system.
3.3 In-stream and Riparian Wetland Soil Structure:
West's (2000) analysis of Project Area 2 (created estuarine creek/marsh) as compared to Jacobs,
Drinkwater, Jacks, and Tooley Creeks revealed that PA2 sediments lacked woody-detrital
covering, significant peat component, and predominance of silt and clay found in natural creek
sediments. West also pointed out that evidence is lacking for detectable accretion of these
components over a 10-year period in PA2.
Based upon a 15-year study of vegetation and soil development in the created PA2 brackish
marsh system, wetland soil formation is slower to develop than the plant community (Craft et al.
2002). Biomass of the regularly inundated Spartina alterniora reached natural levels within
three years. Juncus roemerianus and S. cynosuroides, two species inundated less frequently,
required nine years to match natural marsh conditions, and the upland S. patens had not achieved
natural marsh equivalence after 15 years. Soil characteristics, including porosity, organic C and
total N reservoirs, along the streamside and interior areas were estimated to require 70-90 years
to reach natural marsh conditions. Wetland soil conditions of the upland border, dominated by S.
patens were estimated to require more than 200 years to recover.
3.4 Sediment Interaction
Bradshaw et al. (1985) suggested the physical attributes of South Creek tributaries strongly
influence sediment chemistry: "The large amount of metabolism per unit surface area in such
shallow waters also means that primary productivity is highly concentrated per unit area, an
important characteristic for a viable nursery. Because these creeks are so shallow, activity of the
sediments is necessarily a large proportion of ecosystem function." This is an important aspect to
consider if estuarine stream channels are to be impacted. The resulting mitigation must match not
only the hydrology, soil, and vegetation of the natural area, but stream depth as well to replace
the high productivity found in the existing NCPC South Creek tributaries.
3.5 Habitat Replacement
An assessment of nursery function of the created brackish-marsh / estuarine-stream complex
PA2 over a 10-year period found that nursery functions. as related to ichthyofauna and benthic
infauna (Rulifson 1991), were supported in the created area (West et al. 2000). West et al. (2000)
linked the success of the created area to four aspects related to its location. First, the created
habitat is surrounded by the same habitat it was intended to replace or mimic. Second, the
surrounding area is a large undeveloped habitat that eliminates anthropogenic sources of
pollution and other aspects that can negatively impact restoration or creation projects. Third, due
13
to its non-tidal nature, erosive forces are minimal. Lastly, the created area, similar to its adjacent
natural habitats, is limited in the amount of fauna it can sustain under highly variable abiotic
factors. As West et al. (2000) points out, the majority of the taxa found in the area are part of a
small subset of resilient, tolerant estuarine species. Due to the proximity of PA2 to two relatively
undisturbed natural creek systems, invertebrate recruitment pools are large and ultimately may
play an important role to the success of the PA2 mitigation site. Considering that the proposed
mining alternatives would require a much larger scaled salt marsh mitigation site, it is
questionable whether recruitment pools will be sufficient to garner similar results. The DEIS
needs to provide evidence that scaling up a project such as PA2 is feasible with a high
probability of success.
As noted above, the sediments are dissimilar between the natural creeks in the NCPC tract and
the created PA2 area, and there was no evidence of accretion of peat, woody detritus and silt and
clay over a ten-year period. Perhaps this is a function of a lack of upstream watershed, including
riparian and forested wetland habitat. However, this difference seems to play an insignificant
role in the ability of mobile benthic and fish fauna to inhabit the area; there appeared to be
enough high quality food to account for the equality of abundances of invertebrates in created vs.
the natural system. Other potential functions of woody detrital material, such as nutrient cycling
functions, were not tested. The soil and vegetation study described in Section 3.3 estimated that
wetland soil characteristics in created brackish-marsh systems require 70-200 years to re-
establish natural conditions (Craft et al. 2002). While the West et al. (2000) and Rulifson (1991)
studies demonstrate that created marsh creek system can support fauna, these studies did not
address whether created wetlands can establish the biogeochemical, microbial and other
functions of natural wetlands.
There is also an important question related to reference sites for future mitigation. If a mining
alternative were to be permitted that would directly impact the estuarine creek systems and their
associated riparian wetlands in the NCPC tract, what wetland and streams systems would be used
as a reference for evaluating future mitigation success? Due to climate change and off-shore
evidence of shifts in range of species, it will be important to have a contemporary reference point
to evaluate future mitigation efforts. Use of a static reference point, from historical South Creek
tributary data, will not be sufficient to adequately evaluate the success of future mitigation
efforts.
Final aspects to consider are the loss of a native seed bank with the removal of wetlands under
any mining alternative, and the possibility for invasive plant species colonization. Wetland
mitigation also cannot replace seed bank loss. The DEIS fails to consider the potential for spread
of invasive plant species to peripheral and downstream wetland areas not directly impacted by
mining activities. Phragmites sp. and other invasive species are present on the current
reclamation areas.
3.6 Section III Summary
The proposed impacts via the AP mining alternative would directly and indirectly impact
estuarine stream and riparian wetland ecosystem health and function. As evaluated in Section II,
the AP alternative would result in significant degradation of the aquatic environment. Section III
analyzes the potential for functional equivalence between restored or created wetland systems to
14
natural conditions. While some functions, such as aquatic habitat, may be restored within 10
years, many other functions and natural wetland characteristics will only be restored with a
significant lag period on the order of decades. Furthermore, the DEIS fails to demonstrate the
feasibility of reliably scaling up mitigation efforts (compared to much smaller past projects) that
would yield a high probability of success.
The proposed brackish marsh mitigation will be similar to PA1 and 2 located between Jacobs
and Drinkwater Creeks on the west side of South Creek. The loss of the salinity/ freshwater
interface by mining through a major portion of South Creek tributary's drainage basins will not
be recovered through this type of mitigation. The complexities of the systems located within the
NCPC tract cannot be replicated through mitigation without an associated significant lag time as
mentioned. Existing riparian wetlands within the NCPC tract provide quality protections for the
inland PNAs, and resulting mitigation must also provide this protection. Many individual
functions of the wetlands and stream channels located within the NCPC track are interdependent.
Replacing a contiguous wetland/stream system with smaller, fractured mitigation sites will result
in the loss of interdependent functions, the interaction of upland, flat and riparian wetlands and
coastal streams, and the complexity of the system presently occurring within the NCPC tract.
IV) CONCLUSIONS
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that mining activities within the NCPC tract, especially
within riparian wetlands and stream channels, will not cause significant degradation of the
aquatic environment. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that appropriate
mitigation will take place in a timely manner to replace the functions lost through the excavation
of wetlands and waters. Situations identified in this document that would lead to a significant
adverse impact to the aquatic environment include:
- Elemental enrichment of estuarine streams from mining and reclamation activities,
including cadmium and fluorine. as well as phosphate enrichment, that would cause
adverse biological effects.
- Hydrologic alterations due to drainage basin reductions that would result in
downstream salinity changes.
- Hydrologic alterations that would result in increased anaerobic conditions in riparian
wetland areas resulting in changes to the nutrient cycling.
- Loss of freshwater habitat due to drainage basin reductions from mining.
- Changes to the carbon cycle due to the removal of mature watersheds that are
potentially significant sources of organic carbon to the estuary.
- Loss of headwater stream function and their associated wetlands that would result in
the loss of water quality filtration.
- Direct sedimentation and metal contamination impacts from dyke construction across
estuarine streams.
Therefore, it is our determination that mining riparian wetlands and streams, including sections
of three designated inland PNAs within the NCPC tract will result in adverse impacts on the
aquatic ecosystem that cannot be appropriately mitigated and would constitute significant
degradation under 404(b)1 guidelines.
15
V) REFERENCES
Axt, J.R., and M.R.Walbridge. 1999. Phosphate Removal Capacity of Palustrine Forested
Wetlands and Adjacent Uplands in Virginia. Soil Science Society ofAmerica Journal 63:1019-
1031.
Bales, J.D. and D.J. Newcomb. 1999. North Carolina Wetland Resources. Raleigh, NC: US
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2425.
Bradshaw, H.D., M.M. Brinson, E.A. Matson, and G.J. Davis. 1985. Composition and
Metabolism of Sediments in Irregularly Flushed Estuarine Creeks in North Carolina. Journal of
the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 101(2): 52-75.
Brinson, M.M., H.D. Bradshaw, and M.N. Jones. 1985. Transitions in Forested Wetlands along
Gradients of Salinity and Hydroperiod. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 101(2):
76-94.
Brouwer, M., D.E. Engel, J. Bonaventura, and G.A. Johnson. 1992. In Vivo Magnetic Resonance
Imaging of the Blue Crab, Callinectes sapidus: Effect of Cadmium Accumulation in Tissues on
Proton Relaxation Properties. The Journal of Experimental Zoology 263:32-40.
Bruland G.L. 2004. An observational, geostatistical, and experimental assessment of edaphic
properties and process in created, restored, and natural wetlands of the southeastern coastal plain.
Ph.D. dissertation. Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Bruland, G. L. and C.J. Richardson. 2006. Comparison of soil organic matter in created, restored
and paired natural wetlands in North Carolina. Wetlands Ecology and Management 14:245-251.
Burkholder, J.M. 2002. Cyanobacteria, pp. 952-982. Invited, peer-reviewed contribution for the
Encyclopedia of Environmental Microbiology, by G. Bitton (ed.). Wiley Publishers, New York.
Burkholder, J.M., D.A. Dickey, C. Kinder, R.E. Reed, M.A. Mallin, G. Melia, M.R. McIver,
L.B. Cahoon, C. Brownie, N. Deamer, J. Springer, H. Glasgow, D. Toms and J. Smith. 2006.
Comprehensive trend analysis of nutrients and related variables in a large eutrophic estuary: A
decadal study of anthropogenic and climatic influences. Limnology and Oceanography 51:463-
487.
Craft, C., S.Broome, and C. Campbell. 2002. Fifteen years of vegetation and soil development
after brackish-water marsh creation. Restoration Ecology 10(2): 248-258.
CZR Incorporated, R.W. Skaggs, and D.W. Stanley. 2005. NCPC Tract stream monitoring
program for PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Year seven (2004) end-of-year report.
16
Davis, G.J, H.D. Brasdshaw, M.M. Brinson, and G.M. Lekson. 1985. Salinity and Nutrient
Dynamics in Jacks, Jacobs, and South Creeks in North Carolina, October 1981-November 1982.
Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 101(2): 37-51.
Dorney, J. April 5, 2006. Memo: Background information on the water quality and aquatic life
values of headwater streams and headwater wetlands. Wetlands Program Development Unit. NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Dorney, J., D. Hugget, and R. Ferrell. 2004. State Wetland Programs: North Carolina. Windham,
ME: Association of State Wetland Managers. Available at
httn://wvvw.aswm.ora/swa/nortlhcarolina9.htm.
Duncan C.P. and P.M. Groffman. 1994. Comparing microbial parameters in natural and
constructed wetlands. Journal of Environmental Quality 23: 298-305.
Gemperline, P.J., K.H. Miller, T.L.West, J.E. Weinstein, J.C. Hamilton, and J.T. Bray. 1992.
Principal Component Analysis, Trace Elements, and Blue Crab Shell Disease. Analytical
Chemistry 64(9): 523-531.
Havens K.J, D. O'Brien, D. Stanhope, K. Angstadt, D. Schatt, and C. Hershner. 2004. Initiating
development of a forested headwater wetland HGM model for wetlands management in Virginia.
Center for Coastal Resources Management; Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. Final Report
to The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (CD #983596-01).
Hunter R.G., and S.P. Faulkner 2001. Denitrification potential in restored and natural wetlands.
Soil Science Society ofAmerica Journal 65: 1865-1872.
Hupp, C.R. 2000. Hydrology, geomorphology and vegetation of Coastal Plain rivers in the south-
eastern USA. Hydrological Processes 14: 2991-3010.
Lugo A.E, S. Brown and M.M. Brinson. 1988. Forested wetlands in freshwater and salt-water
environments. Limnology and Oceanography 33(4 part 2), 894-909.
Mitsch, W.J and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, 2"d Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New
York.
Riggs, S.R., E.R. Powers, J.T. Bray, P.M. Stout, C. Hamilton, D. Ames, R. Moore, J. Watson, S.
Lucas, and M. Williamson. 1989. Heavy metal pollutants in organic-rich muds of the Pamlico
River Estuarine System: Their concentration, distribution, and effects upon benthic environments
and water quality. Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study. Project No. 89-06.
Rulifson, R.A. 1991. Finfish Utilization of Man-Initiated and Adjacent Natural Creeks of South
Creek Estuary, North Carolina Using Multiple Gear Types. Estuaries 14(4): 447-464.
17
Street, M.W., A.S. Deaton, W.S. Chappell, and P.D. Mooreside. 2005. North Carolina Coastal
Habitat Protection Plan. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Marine Fisheries.
Sun, G., S.G. McNulty, D.M. Amatya, R.W. Skaggs, L.W. Swift Jr., J.P. Shepard, and
H.Riekerk.2002. A comparison of the watershed hydrology of coastal forested wetlands and the
mountainous uplands in the Southern US. Journal of Hydrology 263:92-104.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2006. Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation, Aurora, North Carolina.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2001. Sustainable Communities.
Office of Water document number EPA843-F-01-002k.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2001.Functions and Values of
Wetlands. Office of Water document number EPA843-F-01-002c.
Verhoeven J.T.A., D.F. Whigham, R. van Logtestijn, and J. O'Neil. 2001.A comparative study
of nitrogen and phosphorus cycling in tidal and non-tidal riverine wetlands. Wetlands 21: 210-
222.
Verry, E.S. 1997. Hydrological processes of natural, northen forested wetlands. In: Trettin, C.C.,
Jurgensen, M.F., Grigal, D.F., Gale, M.R. Jeglum, J.F. (Eds.). Northern Forested Wetlands,
Ecology and Mangament. Lewis, New York, pp. 163-188.
Wakefield, Z.T. 1980. Distribution of cadmium and selected metals in phosphate fertilizer
processing. TVA Publication Y-159.
Weinstein, J.E., T.L. West, and J.T. Bray. 1992. Shell Disease and Metal Content of Blue Crabs,
Callinectes sapidus, from the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System, North Carolina. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 23:355-362.
West, T. L. 1990. Benthic Invertebrate Utilization of Man-Made and Natural Wetlands. Report to
Texasgulf Chemicals, Inc. Aurora, North Carolina 27896.
West T.L., L.M. Clough, and W.G. Ambrose Jr. 2000. Assessment of function in an oligohaline
environment: Lessons learned by comparing created and natural habitats. Ecological
Engineering 15: 303-321.
Wharton, C.H., W.M. Kitchens, and T.W.S.E.C. Pendleton. 1982. The ecology of bottomland
hardwood swamps of the southeast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biological Services Program, Washington, D.C.
18
March 3, 2008
Tom Walker
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Regulatory Division
Attn: File Number 2001-10096
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Re: Entrix Report and Significant Degradation
Dear Tom,
PTRF would like to submit these comments regarding the Entrix Report on "Potential
Effects of Watershed Reduction on Tidal Creeks- An Assessment ". PTRF consulted with
several scientists and resource agency personnel while preparing these comments.
While the Entrix report clarifies the currently known characteristics of South Creek
tributaries (variable systems and important primary nursery habitat for numerous aquatic
species) it fails to support the conclusion that current and future proposed drainage basin
reductions (DBR) and mining activities would have no significant effect on downstream
ecosystems. The Entrix report, along with data presented in the Draft Environmental
Impact statement, has been PCS Phosphate's response to the growing concern of
plausible significant degradation of aquatic resources within the South Creek Watershed.
PTRF previously submitted information on the impacts to aquatic habitat from the
proposed mine advance ("Impacts to the Aquatic Environment Associated with PCS
Phosphate, Inc. Proposed Mine Expansion")
What follows are our concerns about the Entrix report. We have determined the Entrix
report selected data that cannot be generalized to support unsubstantiated claims that
mining through headwaters of estuarine creek systems will pose no threat to the streams
functioning and use as primary nursery habitat.
Compilation of Studies
Of primary concern is that the Entrix study attempts to take data collected from studies
that were not designed to look at DBR effects. For example, Rulifson's 19911 paper on
Finfish Utilization was designed to "assess whether man-created marshes and open water
areas can resemble natural areas in the same vicinity." The project goal that was carried
out was described as "to determine if man-initiated wetlands can develop fauna
communities (fish and benthic) that are similar to those of natural wetlands in the same
vicinity."
' Rulifson, R.A., 1991. Finfish utilization of man-initiated and adjacent natural creeks of South Creek
estuary, North Carolina, using multiple gear types. Estuaries 14: 447-464.
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
West (2000)2 study objective was to "determine whether created marshes could be a
viable solution to the alteration of wetland and subtidal habitat by phosphate mining
operations." By comparing PA2 to natural creeks within the same vicinity, West noted
that PA2 did take on the faunal characteristics of the local natural streams with respect to
wetland vascular plant productivity, ichthyofauna (partially based on Rulifson's study)
and benthic infauna. West did note that these findings were in contrast with most of the
other restoration work carried out in estuarine systems. He then related the similarities in
the above-mentioned factors to four aspects related to PA2's location.
1) The created habitat is surrounded by aquatic environs it was intended to
mimic, thereby providing proximity to sources of infaunal recruits.
2) PA2 and the adjacent natural creeks are part of a large expanse of
undeveloped habitat and therefore are remote from municipal anthropogenic
influences known to impede restoration.
3) It is a non-tidal habitat and therefore not as subject to sedimentary erosional
forces as restored inter-tidal projects.
4) The oligohaline ecosystem of which the PA is a part is characterized by
intensely variable abiotic factors. This variability evidently limits faunal
diversity to a small subset of resilient eurytolerant estuarine taxa.
The study's objective was to assess how well PA2 could provide suitable habitat for fish,
benthic and plant species. It was not intended to evaluate the effects of DBR on these
populations. The data was collected from the lower reaches of the stream channel, and
did not fully assess the upper channels biota. Consequently, these results underline the
potential for species repopulation in the lower reaches of NCPC streams. There is no
support for the proposition that DBR will not impact the upper channel's biota.
Section 4.6 of the Entrix report points to West's study in arguing broad scale functional
equivalency of PA2 to local natural creeks. It is important to remember that the
equivalency West's data suggests is limited to the similarities of fauna between the creek
systems. This report does not provide data on functional equivalence of such factors as
stream substrate, biogeochemical processes, wetland plants, etc. In fact there was no
evidence of accretion of natural sediment structure (woody detrital covering, large peat
component, and the predominance of silt and clay) or organic carbon content in the 10
years of study in the created marsh system. Furthermore, West points out limitations to
the study regarding inferences of functional equivalency:
"the limitation imposed by reliance on that single site as the primary basis for our
comparisons of structural and functional attributes of local created and natural
oligohaline creeks."
2 West, T.L., Clough, L.M., Ambrose Jr., W.G. 2000. Assessment of function in an oligohaline
environment: Lessons learned by comparing created and natural habitats. Ecological Engineering 15: 303-
321.
2
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
West also points out this study cannot evaluate the utilization of PA2 by the fish
community, and assessments other than population surveys are needed to accurately
assess function from the perspective of the motile community.
Finally, the Entrix report uses PA2 as an example of a natural creek with limited drainage
basin to examine the effects of DBR. The use of a created creek is not a valid example of
a natural creek system with limited drainage.
Hydrologic Studies
Dr. Skaggs3 (not included in Entrix report) from NC State did design a study to look at
the hydrology of several streams within the South Creek watershed. The objective of the
study was to look at DBR effects on hydrology. The report recognizes that three
important factors influence the wetland hydrology in Huddles Cut, Jacks, and Tooley
creeks. These factors are precipitation and overland flow, upland groundwater flow and
estuarine influences. The report clearly shows that precipitation is a significant factor in
the downstream hydrology and peripheral wetlands. Dr. Skaggs correctly states that
precipitation effects cannot be teased out from the other two influences, however he also
correctly states that precipitation is a major factor and that up to 30% of rainfall results in
flow. Review team meeting minutes from August 26, 2003 also confirm this analysis:
"Mr. Wicker stated that the presentation thus far indicated that catchment basin
is critically important for these streams, because rainfall is the stream's source of
water. Dr. Skaggs replied that Mr. Wicker's summation was correct. "
What Dr. Skaggs' report fails to do is connect the collected data to conclusions made.
The report concludes that because precipitation events cannot be singled out as the most
significant factor (or out from under the mask of the other two influences) then the
resulting DBR that would reduce magnitude and frequency of overland flow events
would have no noticeable effect on the stream basin's hydrology. The problem is that
there is no evidence to connect the loss of overland flow (magnitude and frequency) to
the conclusion. The hydrology in natural wetland/upland/stream complex ecosystems is
variable in nature (as the data suggests). The data does not support a conclusion that a
loss or reduced magnitude/frequency of pulses of freshwater will not have an impact on
the biology, physical habitat, or biogeochemical processes of these streams and riparian
wetland habitat. Pulses of flow and organic matter export are important for secondary
downstream production (Brinson et al. 1981; USFWS Letter 2006)4. Furthermore,
wetland ecosystems are tightly coupled to upstream and downstream ecosystems
(Brinson et al., 1981).5
s CZR Inc., Skaggs, R.W., and Stanley, D.W. 2003. NCPC tract stream monitoring program for PCS
Phosphate Company, Inc. Year five (2002) end -of-year report.
4 USFWS Letter to the Corps of Engineers. December 20, 2006. Review of Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the proposed PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation.
s Brinson, M.M., Lugo, A.E., and S. Brown. 1981. Primary productivity, decomposition and consumer
activity in freshwater wetlands. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 12:123-161.
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
The limited baseline data does not allow a robust statistically pre and post DBR analysis.
What the data does provide is the insight that there are three important factors controlling
hydrology. Groundwater from uplands and precipitation are two that would be most
affected by mining and reclamation activities. Future mining activities will increase DBR
and potentially eliminate the connection to an upland groundwater source. With the loss
of two important factors that influence NCPC stream and wetland hydrology, then this
report strongly suggests that hydrologic changes will occur.
The Report does not account for the different scale of proposed DBR Impacts
An additional concern we have is the extrapolation of studies that analyze a 50% DBR to
greater than 70% DBR situations. There is no data available from the monitoring
programs that suggest a 70% or greater DBR will result in the same downstream effects
as a more limited reduction. Therefore, doing so is a leap to conclusions that cannot be
supported by the available data. Furthermore, the Entrix report does not account for the
synergistic effects on the watershed of multiple DBR of more than 70% of the streams'
respective watersheds. To the contrary, there is supporting research that suggests DBR's
do have an impact on downstream quality.
The study is limited from the start due to only one year of baseline data prior to increased
reduction of drainage basin for Jacks Creek. It is also critical to point out that the Pre-
DBR data for Jacks Creek includes a 17% reduction in drainage area. Therefore, the so-
called pre-DBR data is in fact already influenced by DBRs. Because of these limitations,
data from Jacks creek cannot be reliably used to assess DBR.
The recent and on-going NCPC studies on DBR do not include any direct mining of
intermittent or perennial stream channels. Therefore, there is a possible future scenario
that includes greater than 51 % DBR as well as excavation of intermittent and/or perennial
stream channels. The Entrix report's conclusions that no effect will occur on downstream
channels based on existing data is not sound. It fails to recognize the crucial variation
between previous and proposed DBR impacts.
Finally, there is significant concern over location of monitoring stations in lower sections
of reaches that may not adequately capture freshwater-saltwater interface of upper
reaches and habitat. Resulting in an overly optimistic assessment of the limited
devastation created by large scale DBR.
Muddy Creek as a Reference Site
Concerns over the use of Muddy Creek are three-fold. One, Muddy Creek has a much
larger drainage basin than the comparison creeks. Second, Muddy Creek is located closer
to the mouth of South Creek, where South Creek and Pamlico River influences may be
greater. Finally and most importantly, Muddy Creek has a recent history of nutrient
pollution and stresses associated with its landuse. Several aquaculture ponds, mainly
Hybrid Striped Bass (HSB), drain to Muddy Creek. These nutrient problems have caused
the Division of Water Quality to require HSB pond operators in the Muddy Creek, Bond
4
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
Creek, Spring Creek watersheds to obtain NPDES permits. Aquatic organisms located in
muddy creek may be impacted by this organic pollution. A comparison of land use would
provide necessary information to the Corps regarding the appropriateness of using
Muddy Creek as a reference site for NCPC creeks. Without this information showing
more substantial similarities between Muddy Creek and the NCPC creeks, it cannot be
accepted as a reference site.
Headwater Flows
A memo from John Dorney (NC DWQ), April 2006 states, "Headwater streams are very
common and provide significant benefits to downstream water quality and aquatic life.
Intermittent streams have significant aquatic life even though their flow is not constant
throughout the year. Headwater wetlands are often associated with these streams and
provide important water quality filtration to protect downstream water quality as well as
significant aquatic life habitat. Therefore, based on this on-going research, the Division
of Water Quality believes that protection of these headwater streams and wetlands is
essential to protect downstream water quality."
Headwater stream areas are typically influenced by adjacent riparian zones and should be
considered jointly with their associated riparian wetland areas. Physical
hydrology/topography (geomorphology) defines ecosystem function of headwater
wetlands (Havens et al. 2004).6 Coastal plain headwater wetlands typically have higher
frequencies of overbank flows, flatter hydrograph and loner inundation periods than
piedmont or mountainous headwater regions (Hupp 2000) . There exists an abundance of
research linking headwater streams to downstream water quality, organic export,
biodiversity and overall ecological integrity (Meyer and Wallace, 2001; Gomi et al.,
2002; Alexander et al., 2007; Meyer et al., 2007; Wipfli et al., 2007).8
b Havens K.J, D. O'Brien, D. Stanhope, K. Angstadt, D. Schaff, and C. Hershner. 2004. Initiating
development of a forested headwater wetland HGM model for wetlands management in Virginia. Center
for Coastal Resources Management; Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. Final Report to The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (CD 4983596-01).
Hupp, C.R. 2000. Hydrology, geomorphology and vegetation of Coastal Plain rivers in the south-eastern
USA. Hydrological Processes 14: 2991-3010.
a Meyer J.L. and J.B. Wallace. 2001. Lost linkages and lotic ecology: Rediscovering small streams. In:
Ecology: Achievement and Challenge, M.C. Press, N.J. Huntly, and S.Levin (Editors). Blackwell Science,
Malden, Massachusetts, pp 295-317.
Gomi, T., Sidle, R.C., and J.S. Richardson. 2002. Understanding processes and downstream linkages of
headwater systems. BioScience 52(10): 905-916.
Alexander, R.B., Boyer, E.W., Smith, R.A., Schwartz, G.E., and R.B. Moore. 2007. The role of headwater
streams in downstream water quality. Jounal of the American Water Resources Association 43(1): 41-59.
Meyer, J.L., Strayer, D.L., Wallace, B., Eggert, S.L., Helfman, G.S., and N.E. Leonard. 2007. The
contribution of headwater streams to biodiversity in river networks. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association 43(1): 86-103.
Wipfli, M.S., Richardson, J.S., and R.J. Naiman. 2007. Ecological linkages between headwaters and
downstream ecosystems: Transport of organic matter, invertebrates, and wood down headwater channels.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43(1): 72-85.
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
The loss of headwater streams has regional implications (Freeman et al., 2007)9. It is
important to consider the cumulative impacts of mining activities since mining began in
1965 (e.g. loss of Lee Creek) on Pamlico estuarine functions and overall health.
Organic Carbon Export and Elemental Contamination
Our final concern is about what is lacking in the Entrix report. As many state and federal
resource agency staff point out, the Entrix report does not have data to provide insight on
the biogeochemical processes of these streams, nor how DBR will affect organic carbon
export. Furthermore, there is existing evidence of accumulated heavy metals in Jacks
Creek and other adjacent waterways to the NCPC tract (DEIS at Section4.1.3.1.). The
Entrix report has not provided any answers to the potential heavy metal contamination of
Pamlico River tributaries from mine activities.
Summary
Entrix bases conclusions on studies whose outcomes and data do not measure
DBR effects.
This report does not reliably demonstrate that increased DBR will result in the
same impact or minimal degradation the Entrix report suggests.
Entrix report does not evaluate the whole picture when it comes to functional
equivalence-organic carbon export, quality of nursery, etc.
There is a lack of pre-DBR data.
- Use of PA2 as an example of natural creek with limited drainage is invalid.
Using Muddy Creek as a reference creek is suspect due to land use influences.
To conclude, PCS Phosphate is unable to overcome the body of scientific evidence
showing that mining through headwaters of estuarine streams and their associated
riparian habitats will have a significant negative impact on the functioning and structure
of streams affected by proposed future mining activities. What we do have is a large
amount of information detailing the importance of headwater streams and wetlands on
downstream water quality.
We appreciate your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions or
concerns related to this letter, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,

Heather Jacobs
Pamlico-Tar RIVERKEEPER®
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
9 Freeman, M.C., Pringle, C.M., and C.R. Jackson. 2007. Hydrologic connectivity and the contribution of
stream headwaters to ecological integrity at regional scales. 43(1): 5-14
6