20080868 Ver 2_Mitigation Plan Review_20080707

NC Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
July 17, 2008
Memorandum
To: John Dorney
From: Tammy Hill and Eric Kulz
Subject: Comments on PCS Mitigation Plan, FEIS Appendix I
GENERAL COMMENTS ON MITIGATION
The mitigation plans provided show limited details. We would prefer to at least see all of the sites
and collect more data prior to issuing the permit.
There are a lot of "ifs" in their mitigation plans. Meeting their stream and wetland mitigation
requirements are dependant on the ratios that are agreed to; the ratios presented in the plan are
NOT the ratios we discussed in the meeting on 12/13/07 (see wetland and stream sections
below).
Buffer mitigation shows a significant shortfall if the buffer rules and current policies on buffer
mitigation are adhered to. See comments on flexible mitigation mellow.
However, we strongly feel that we should not issue a permit for any impacts that they cannot
demonstrate adequate mitigation for. The issues associated with the ratios, and the items
allowed under their "flexible mitigation" variance request, need to be discussed.
WETLAND MITIGATION ISSUES
Overall, there is a lack of detail in the mitigation plans, most notably success criteria
Mitigation adequacy depends upon the multipliers and ratios that are applied.
¦ Wetland restoration acreage meets or exceeds impact acreage in all cases, so the State's
requirement for 1:1 restoration or creation acreage is satisfied for the entire proposed
mining operation. (See Table 1.)
¦ Mitigation ratios in the Mitigation Plan, Table 3, have not been updated to reflect the values
required by DWO at the 12/13/07 meeting in Raleigh. These values were generally 2:1 for
restoration, 4:1 for enhancement, and 10:1 for preservation (with some slight variations).
The applicant did move closer to these values by applying the following ratios within the
Mitigation Plan, Table 4, calculations of credit from each mitigation project: 2:1 restoration,
3:1 enhancement, and 8:1 preservation.
¦ Per my calculations, adequacy of the proposed mitigation plan depends upon the
multipliers and ratios that are applied. If a 1:1 multiplier is applied prior to applying the
required mitigation ratios noted above, then proposed mitigation credits are adequate to
meet projected impacts. If a 2:1 multiplier is first applied; then the proposed mitigation plan
addresses 52% of the required mitigation for the entire project, or 59% of the required
mitigation for the projected NCPC and Bonnerton Tract impacts. (See Tables 2 and 3.)
PCS Mitigation Plan Comments, July 17, 2008
2 of 6
¦ DWQ may be willing to consider a more generous ratio than 10:1 for preserved wetlands of
exceptional value. The applicant should present arguments for reduced ratios on a case-
by-case basis, and concurrence should be reached among the agencies regarding the
validity of reduced ratios based on the observed quality of the preservation areas.
The credits that will be generated by the proposed mitigation projects are uncertain. Plans for
individual mitigation projects are not complete enough to be approved at this time. A number of
issues, which could reduce or increase the mitigation credit potential of various projects, need to
be addressed by the agencies during review and approval of the mitigation plans. Permit
reviewers should consider the proposed mitigation values tentative until the mitigation plans are
more fully developed and approved by agency personnel.
¦ Success criteria should be developed to quantitatively indicate that targeted functions have
been successfully replaced.
¦ P Lands and Hell Swamp vegetative restoration strategies are currently under
development.
¦ Parker Farm sections J and most of I are located in CU 03020105, adjacent to the CU of
impact (03020104). Some adjustment in mitigation ratio may be applied to credits from the
Parker Farm site. Further, proposed preservation credits in section J may be reduced to
account for degradation of wetland function due to drainage by to the eastern perimeter
canal.
¦ Hydrology monitoring currently underway at the Gum Run Sites may generate additional
credits if it shows larger areas of functional wet hardwood and pine flats than previously
calculated.
Ecosystem types need to be verified throughout the Mitigation Plan.
• The Sage Gut Mitigation Plan should be revised to show the boundaries between riparian
and non-riparian wetlands based on the topographic and hydrologic conditions of the site.
As currently presented, it is unclear what types of systems will be restored on the site. The
mitigation credit values will be revised to reflect the updated mitigation plan.
¦ At the Bay City Farm mitigation project, LIDAR data shows that the wetland adjacent to
Gum Swamp Run may be riparian rather than non-riparian forest. Similar situations occur
adjacent to South Creek on the north end of the U-Lands site, and along creeks on the
Upper Back Creek site. This issue should be addressed, and mitigation values adjusted
accordingly.
¦ Sandy Landing Road impacts show a discrepancy between community types identified in
FEIS Appendix I, Table 1 and Figure 4. This should be corrected and the table and/or
figure updated accordingly. It appears that the correction will change neither the total
acreage impacted nor the amount of mitigation required under the proposed mitigation
ratios.
Certain ecosystems should be avoided completely.
¦ DWQ has reviewed both the Affidavit of Curtis Brown (July 7, 2008) regarding the history of
logging on the Bonnerton Tract parcels, and the associated Assessment of Issues (Mike
Schafale, NHP, July 15, 2008). We maintain that the Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests
identified as Significant Natural Heritage Areas are indeed significant and should not be
mined. A narrow strip of pine plantation separates the NHP areas, and would allow mining
to the northwest of the northernmost NHP area. However, these lands are also wetland
forests and pine plantations, and PCS could reduce its wetland impacts substantially by
avoiding this area altogether. We believe that mining around the NHP areas, thereby
leaving islands of wet hardwood forests, would lead to degradation of these valuable, rare
resources. DWQ will consider a reduced preservation ratio for the NHP and surrounding
wetlands, as they are most certainly under threat of destruction.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality; 401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wetlands.htm]
PCS Mitigation Plan Comments, July 17, 2008
3of6
Regarding the Bonnerton issue, the Mitigation Plan for Hell Swamp discusses the use of
the 40-acre "old growth" area to be preserved to mitigate for Bonnerton. The plan cites
Mike Schafale as identifying this site as "an excellent representative of non-riverine
wetland hardwood forest.... determined to be of state or regional significance". It is a
shame that PCS does not attribute such reverence to Schafale and others' opinions on the
Bonnerton Tract itself (sorry..... editorial comment EK/TLH)
There are small pockets (22 acres total) of Wetland Sand Ridge which exist in association
with pocosin-bay and other wetland and upland forests along the scarp in the southern part
of the Bonnerton Tract and are slated for impact. Coastal Fringe Sandhill is described in
the Third Approximation as a very rare and threatened community type. This is more of a
habitat issue than water quality, but the areas may warrant further analysis or special
consideration.
It appears that mining will occur in the direction with the most potential for water quality
degradation. Reversing the order (i.e. beginning work in the S33 parcel and moving
toward the Pamlico River) would maximize the time between the beginning of mining and
the mining in closest proximity to waters of the estuary. Of course, there may be logistical
issues with this approach.
Table 1. Impacted and restored acreage proposed
Impacts ac Restoration ac *
Riparian
LH forest 73 15

Non-riparian
Wet forest 3784 474
ocosin 264 198
Swam forest 112

Coastal
Brackish marsh 0.2 0.
*Assume 90% successful mitigation acreage
North Carolina Division of Water Quality; 401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wetlands.htmi
PCS Mitigation Plan Comments, July 17, 2008
4 of 6
Table 2. Comparison of Impacts & Mitigation for All Proposed Impacts
Mitigatio Required Mitigation Proposed
Im acts ac I:1 Miti cr 2:1 Miti cr Restoration cr * Other Credits* Total Credits
Riparian
LH forest 73 73 146 79 54 133

Non-riparian
Wet forest 3784 3784 7568 2374 218 2592
ocosin 264 264 528 990 99
Swam forest 0 564 56

on-riparian summa : 4048 (1:1) or 8096 (2: 1) miti ation credits required; total miti ation proposed= 4146 credits

Coastal
Brackish marsh 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.3

Totals 4121 4121 82421 1 4007 272 4279
*Ratios applied: 2:1 restoration, 4:1 enhancement, 10:1 preservation; 90% mitigation success assumed
Table 3. Comparison of Impacts & Mitigation for NCPC and Bonnerton Proposed Impacts
Mitigatio Required Mitigation Proposed
Impacts(ac) 1:1 Miti cr 2:1 Miti cr Restoration cr * Other Credits* Total Credits
Riparian
LH forest 72 72 144 79 54 133

Non-riparian
Wet forest 3273 3273 6546 2374 218 259
ocosin 264 264 528 990 99
Swam forest 0 564 56

on-ri arian summa : 3537 1: I or 7074 (2:1 mitigation credits required; total miti ation proposed = 4146 credits

Coastal
Brackish marsh 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Totals 3609 3609 7218 4007 272 4279
*Ratios applied: 2:1 restoration, 4:1 enhancement, 10:1 preservation; 90% mitigation success assumed
North Carolina Division of Water Quality; 401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
http://h2o.en r. state. nc. us/wetlands.html
PCS Mitigation Plan Comments, July 17, 2008
5 of 6
STREAM MITIGATION COMMENTS
I am concerned about the amount of 0-order stream valley restoration (aka swamp run
restoration) involved with these projects. . Page 9 paragraph 2 of the FEIS notes the creation of
5 miles of streams. As discussed previously, no success criteria has been presented other than
in very general terms.
It will be critical to the success of these projects to document flow. If flow is not documented,
No stream credit will be awarded.
I am unclear on the ratios used for stream mitigation. Table 4 states that restoration and
enhancement ratios are 1.8:1. This ratio was calculated based on the conditions of the stream to
be impacted. However, I don't understand how it can be applied to both restoration and
enhancement. Preservation is 4:1. The guidelines provide a sliding scale from 2.5:1 to 5:1. Did
we (the agencies) approve these ratios?
BUFFER MITIGATION COMMENTS
Flexible Buffer Mitigation Proposal:
1) Use of buffer adjacent to restored headwater systems (streams NOT on the maps): This
is OK, although does not follow policies we are using to oversee other banks, and does
not follow the letter of the law as far as the buffer rules.
2) Use of calculations to determine equivalent amount of buffer achieved through
conversion of existing cropland to forest: I DO NOT agree with this. This is not an
adequate replacement for riparian areas.
3) Stormwater BMPs: OK, as long as the BMPs follow the Stormwater Manual, and include
O&M, etc.
4) Other quantifiable means of nutrient reduction: Meaningless and opening a door to all
sorts of fantasy and nonsense.
5) Credit from support and research into effectiveness of wider buffers: Been there done
that, plenty of research available already... this is total bull-you-know-what.
don't know what was previously discussed as far as a variance from the EMC to allow "Flexible
buffer mitigation", but I recommend that DWQ not support Items 2 and 5 as being acceptable
buffer mitigation, and Item 4 should probably not be supported as well, since it really does not say
anything, and will likely result in continuous arguments about the merits of "other quantifiable
means" that are dreamed up and proposed for consideration for credit.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality; 401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
http://h2o.en r. state. nc. us/wetla nds. html
PCS Mitigation Plan Comments, July 17, 2008
6of6
BUFFER IMPACTS
1 15 Ys S33 TOTAL
ZONE 1 19.24 ac 13.77 ac. 33.01 ac.
ZONE 2 12.74 ac. 9.39 ac. 22.13 ac.
MITIGATION NEEDED w/ Z1 and Z2 multi liers
1 15 Yrs S33 TOTAL
ZONE 1 57.72 ac. 41.31 ac. 99.03 ac.
ZONE 2 19.11 ac. 14.085 ac. 33.195 ac.
TOTAL 76.83 55.395 132.225
MITIGATION AVAILABLE - Total for all 11 sites presented
If credit awarded ONLY for streams on maps 26.6 ac.
If credit awarded for above plus headwater streams 84.5 ac.
Buffer Mitigation Need - 1s' 15 years 76.83 ac
Total Buffer Mitigation Needs in Application 132.225 ac.
As noted above, buffer mitigation for the first 15 years of operation can be satisfied IF credit is
awarded for all streams appearing on USGS and topo maps, and for the five miles of headwater
stream restoration proposed. This assumes all of the headwater stream restoration is successful
(e.g. flow is documented). If a stream is unsuccessful, this would result in not only a loss of
stream credit, but also a loss of riparian buffer credit.
PCS cannot demonstrate enough riparian buffer mitigation, even with the headwater stream
restoration reaches, to compensate for the total impacts included in the 401 application.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality; 401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wetlands.html