20080868 Ver 2_Meeting Minutes_20071213

T
O?k "
n 1.,
? sue.. ? ?... ?-
V
?PA wow o,r? ?,,,,? - •• cannuo?
cxov ktit- ''2s t?5 pay
I? - - I
SI ?^s
. ? Sump
a?
us

t D
^ w
+?-QSS
J
or,- " - ra?Ros-
r6 ? fic ? 6 ?-ake C Q&v-
P o
c i TOA ?Qrn \1 5

' cam = ?-1G1''?
c ? c l HY
i ?
PCS Phosphate Mitigation Credit, Monitoring and Success Issues
PCS Positions:
1. The mitigate plan in the FEIS will show mitigation site locations for impacts on
the NCPC and Bonnerton Tracts for Alternative M (ap rox. 15 years of mining).
2. Mitigation acres/linear feet in the ground ill stay ahea of impacts after mining
year 5. ?? ? ha c?k l !,?%veA - iS? ?.cc,ec
3. There will be a minimum of 1:1 acreage restoration for wetlands. Acreage
required by higher ratios may also include enhancement, creation, or preservation
4eew. ?.
4. The wetland ' n ratios in Table 3, page 18 of the DEIS Appendix I a i
acceptabl
5. The same acre within the 50-foot zone adjacent to a blue-line stream restoration
can be counted towards the required stream mitigation buffer, the Tar-Pam buffer, r
and ryvsae wetland credit, where ap ro riate.?:G-ajQ
'f "4s -to A:T-Q; 4e
6. Acres planted in hardwood trees in flats or BL situations would have a success
criterion of a minimum of 2,W lant trees/acre after 5 years.
.SsI V 2, U°
7.? Planted shrub zone success - minimum of 270 shrubs/acre after 5 years, including
native volunteers; or 50% aerial cover of shrub species after 5 years, including'
Op native volunteers (but not both? need discussion on this).
e?` ' J , erg a'
8. Hydrology success - Any normal precipitation year
a. mineral flats: 6% ?
b. organic soil flats: 80 '4200,pt?L
ri?? ' riverine wetlands: - overbank flooding- r[0 i ?, ? R 2
(1014 o
9. Riparian headwater system success - Document flow tz?
-AA& ? 6o4\
10. Tar-Pam buffer credit aloWg/adJjacent to riparian headwater systems if the stream
has flow and scores a 19 on DWQ stream rating form. If there is documented
flow, but doesn't score 19, we will request buffer credi through an EMC variance
(see next item). ? [ < r"Of 4" p
11. We will pursue the EMC Tar-Pam buffer variance for fl xible buffer mitigation,
based on the positive reception it received in early 2006. We will add to the 2006 0?5?
request credit along riparian headwater systems (item 1 and credit for buffer
preservation at a 2:1 ratio above the rule-required ratios
V
PCS Questions
1. More guidance on enhancement of Tar-Pam buffers. ?J W
2
3.
4,
Can we receive stream restoration credit for typical channelized streams in the
Coastal Plain if one or more of the pattern, profile and dimension is not changed?
Your thoughts on methods for enhancement credit on recently timbered wetland
A
areas Jo vJJ??4r?Q wcks

k?4 ?
kk)c?4- -(b4-

? U
b ? 1
.c
o?
J' `

0
ro
+- U
Ez
--,G
o a?
U >
'O

? N c
° O

D)

2
'D L
U ?
C6
._ c
o
c m
O
N
C
0-U
.0 C
N E
M ?
o U)
U
0
CO
as
s
t
N ?
O N
3 0
N
C ?
co
C ?
M a
E
C
(h .O
m

G

oc
M o
61
C -
tm
T
M T T T T T ""'.
d
c
o
o
16 E m
u, io io 0o
d
0
d
d
Q W
a
>'
N

y N G
c
N o w h
E
E O V!
T T
8
c T T T ¢ T
ri c*i ri z ci v
rn
C
.
3
E
x
m
O -
{{I T T T T
-{"' T
? T T CV N (V C'7 CV C7
? c
j c t0 a1
ma,E
0 L
02-
0
y
4)
3
T
y
'ao0E
d O R
C to t O
° ? C
L
L a L Y
O C !0
'C c0
a
03°
m?
ns
CL
E A
w ?
O _
F
d
Q
m
11.

T T Q T
Z T T
T T Q
.- ?-- N N N Z N c+i
C:) ED co M
ct 0) r M r N O O
V
r l(? O O W O 00)
LON N O U ch T

N N

m 4)
N
O a)
R?
O
.2
a} fa
O
O p
aa) m °3 3
N N
°
° as M m m
V) .0 o = t
° - c E i c
o
O ?
U o
O t n
Q1 aJ

O
°
O
°
a ° E
_ l
4 . 3 Y ?-
O
n 2 ° a) 1
-
N L c4 x .t 12 O 0
0- S cn S l M IL M
,s
?K
ui
nj Z
T
z
T
T
c-
?- z
OD lf)
IZ-
_ W
O ?
? rn
M
N
M to m
r m
m
aroi
L v
a) °
O t3 o
H U) IL
z z
S
Q Q
Z z
T
7: 7
M
N 4 CY)
O
cn ?
d ?
? c
M N N
a
ro a) a)
v"-
G X
6 'a
C

Q CL
?
U
^?
V/
//
W
0
,--11
?Y 1 co
O
O
N

ca
L

L
(L

U
LL

PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation 118
Draft Conceptual Mitigation Plan
Aurora, North Carolina September 2006

PCS Phosphate Mitigation Credit, Monitoring and Success Issues
PCS Positions:
(?c 1. The mitigation plan in the FEIS will show mitigation site locations for impacts on
the NCPC and Bonnerton Tracts for Alternative M (a rox. 15 ears of mining). D? 33?--,,?,?,,?ngc?t??{ S o-? X33 im?c?c c,?i1L occur
M? _apm
t `gate n s n n the ' oun will'stay "a of impact cts afte me1?in c v ?arior
r ddev 94A year 5. Lm La," r ?'`X" `A- 69 ?hc? 1na d?'b lam. pr??(ed g +°+'Y ?
(434a. su cce.'%?vD rn."t 0 KTMV1`e& . u.)r- A- Wk c\ k 0 ; Very
? ac?r' ???r'^R?;?-wor?'r lpe. ?-a-h.'restora i?d
3. Th re veil be a minimum oT l: acreage on for wetlands. Acreage
required by higher ratios may also include enhancement, creation, or preservation.
cs? AAA erv4-4(-,SATCuns.
` T e wetland mitigation ratios in Table 3, page 18 of the DEIS Appendix I are
acceptable. -rid c uc?_4_A:on ? O 0-ru. "? r--E_C R-- 4CLU--
5. The same acre within the 50-foot zone adjacent to a blue-line stream restoration
can be counted towards the required stream mitigation buffer, the Tar-Pam buffer,
?F and-riverina wetland credit, where appropriate. 6. Acres planted in hardwood tre s in flats or BLH situations would have a success
criterion of a minimum of 2 lante trees/acre after 5 years.
2U10 (3W -6rT P buS-f.rs)
Planted shrub zone success - minimum of 270 shrubs/acre after 5 years, including '
v? native volunteers; or 50% aerial cover of shrub species after 5 years, including
nativGvplucnte{er?s (but not both? need discussion ois ( ?l? 'cam, n
? Q_ co aeAf-
8. Hydro ro ?;gY Y p Ripit Y SL 5 "aAn rnormalee e ?ae_ ?
?
?(-2?r . = U -r1 % '? a. mineral flats: 6% o & r-?,?j, MUX,\ '. `2 , ?d? = `,Z, c)
organic soil flats: 8/
c. riverine wetlands: 1 0 tied to overbank flooding.- hl0 ??J = 2,O
-
Gu m Ifs ?1 - - ?e C n
KbLAJ? ??? LOA M Says 20-25
-Riparian headwater system success - Document fl9w V,2i CA O- 0'
kJ*
10. Tar-Pam buffer credit along/adjacent to riparian headwater systems if the stream
has flow and scores a 19 on DWQ stream rating form. If there is documented
flow, but doesn't score 19, we will request buffer credit through an EMC variance
(see next item).
11. We will pursue the EMC Tar-Pam buffer variance for flexible buffer mitigation,
based on the positive reception it received in early 2006. We will add to the 2006
request credit along riparian headwater systems (item 10) and credit for buffer
preservation at a 2:1 ratio above the rule-required ratios.
PCS Questions
1. More guidance on enhancement of Tar-Pam buffers.
CY
"Can we receive stream restoration credit for typical channelized streams in the
Coastal Plain if one or more of the pattern, profile and dimension is not changed?
3. Your thoughts on methods for enhancement credit on recently timbered wetland
areas.
t j WJ- UsJ Ua
- ?1fJ e t? , Lb Tt-?
IN"?- - cc Uv\ cake- j
A- ?r -t cca,- ire Get V Y-Lzy ?-? rcd3uk
s
0
2

CO 00 00 00 00
T M M CM Z V)
o?
U >
C
C6 C:
CU
4. -Q
C N
N ?
c?
o „
N C
a? M
O? U
(0 n
U Q
(9 0
mY
++ L
N a)
E
C
O
C
O
N 'wC'•
C
U
? N
c
(co E
m N
CL
a U)
c o
C6 n.
0
T a
N
rte..'
Q
(0
L ?
Ln 0
a) o
3 0
O
Co
C Co
M O
Co
M
E
M
C7 O
N
IO
PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation
Draft Conceptual Mitigation Plan
O
w
C
O
A

C C N N
° 2u)E
i+
0 0 C d
• °0 L
N 7? N N
N
1 5 0 E
d :i O N
V [0 3 N
> O'B y
0
O L ? t0
? C R y
L ? ++ d
a. a0
u3w
10
E2
.`0. m
O L
F-
0
a
O
t
V
C
v
(? Q LO
?- Z
,-- ,-- N N N Z N (h
OO>, r CO
S/- co O
r w O O to O
U') N N V) (n ,-

o

N

C
C
a
T
N
N

E

(n
m

o
O

m
N
N

a)

En
M

p

?
`

O

o

3

'O N

O
-o
00

,

•a

v
N
?5

O
a
E
(°?

LO

E
L

Y
U

y

°

N

r ?

O
?
O
3

c`o
t
?
m

o
_ t f
0
L r^
O
?0w
LEN
A W ?
Ta
N
c
N
0 1t1 ¢ ¢ 4
? N Z Z Z
77
N?
l -Z
N
Q Q
Z Z

z CO LO
e-
1
?, i- N N M
M h M N 'P
00 M 0) O O M 00
tp •- CO O 4
M
O
r
r ?
Y
L
m s a?
m N 3
R L ? ? .O
y m 3 ' c
C t9
d C m C
L .. N r N W
r W O N O a
N
L O O
N C R N N
_L _
r U) a M r
r?
Aurora, North Carolina September 2006
X
c
a)
Q.
CL
U)
w
0
0
0
0
N
m
t
Q
N
0
.C
U
PCS Phosphate Mitigation Credit, Monitoring and Success Issues
PCS Positions:
1. The mitigation plan in the FEIS will show mitigation site locations for impacts on
the NCPC and Bonnerton Tracts for Alternative M (approx. 15 years of mining).
2. Mitigation acres/linear feet in the ground will stay ahead of impacts after mining
year 5.
3. There will be a minimum of 1:1 acreage restoration for wetlands. Acreage
required by higher ratios may also include enhancement, creation, or preservation.
4. The wetland mitigation ratios in Table 3, page 18 of the DEIS Appendix I are
acceptable.
5. The same acre within the 50-foot zone adjacent to a blue-line stream restoration
can be counted towards the required stream mitigation buffer, the Tar-Pam buffer,
and riverine wetland credit, where appropriate.
QQ "7
gs 0 7..
? s?Dh?-
P
Acres planted in hardwood trees in flats or BLH situations would have a success
criterion of a minimum of a' planted trees/acre after 5 years.
260
Planted shrub zone success - minimum of 270 shrubs/acre after 5 years, including
native volunteers; or 50% aerial cover of shrub species after 5 years, including
native volunteers (but not both, need discussion on this).
Hydrology success - Any normal precipitation year
a. mineral flats: 6%
b. organic soil flats: 8%
c. riverine wetlands: 10% - Not tied to overbank flooding
V
?)))1R
03? -) 6S)
9. Riparian headwater system success -Document flow M, V'r(,q Q AO1. n
1 CSC
Tar-Pam buffer credit along/adjacent to riparian headwater systems if the strea
has flow and scores a 19 on DWQ stream rating form. If there is documented
flow, b lit d? sn't score 19, we will request buffer credit through an EMC variance
(see next item).
IV '
11. We will pursue the EMC Tar-Pam buffer variance for flexible buffer mitigation,
based on the positive reception it received in early 2006. We will add to the 2006
request credit along riparian headwater systems (item 10) and credit for buffer
preservation at a 2:1 ratio above the rule-required ratios.
AT

PCS Questions
1. More guidance on enhancement of Tar-Pam buffers.
Q7 10 ptV
Tv PAI"N 'e
?c
Z3 wp
Fogg--b ua')'Y"
2. Can we receive stream restoration credit for typical channelized streams in the
Coastal Plain if one or more of the pattern, profile and dimension is not changed?
3. Your thoughts on methods for enhancement credit on recently timbered wetland
areas.
,N1? ? l4 imnO
'N6 (Pqam) MT
p? O&IL
????a??K ?6ab ?2
a)
0
°o
o ?` R
0
r
°
m _ •- •- r
o E io co co co co co cd
(La O U)
Q

O .
W
J

C,

o) U c
E c N (?
c
?'- °?+
4) 0'
E O m E ?-
m a) C0.1 3 C N M C7 CO z CI)
to a
C C y

m r c}
(D :3
°
c..
ix3
a
E U
(P
8 a)
_0
m
E
m
a) o

L c

of
"

O ?
°
L
L
2 y X
L
La
°- o 0

N a) °
° (a w E
0).0 6 C 0
N -
a)
• °O a) -
.
U Q U)
3 y ?
m ° ? 3
m?
++ L
U O
O O
E cv 0
C 0 0 0 E
3
a) v
c j
N oar
C y a) W
C
r Z 'O
0
L C
0 O
V L° C
13
C
U o y
O C C
C w= y
IL Qd L
0 3 °
CO U
C O
a
?
O
a
2 V V
OL Q. m :°,
a) 0.
E
° ?• m
o-
L
0
L 1
E 2
a) a)

3 O
0
W
C Co
N (A
C a)
E
N '-
m
m 3
c
ri .B CO
c
a) •?
M
- C
O
I
r r Q r r
r
?- r r r Q r r
N N N Z N M
N Z
r Q
(L z
z
Q
z z
z?
M ?
CO

M aD 47
m T M - N O N CO
e V O CO n M N (D
N C\I CO ';t 00 LO N
O
O
C
6
M
O
N N U') ? M M CD LO M .
(O •q- Or

N ?

m a) R
?O a) .2 15
m m ' a v = 'n
•fl a v
0 0 a (o

E
E
o E
0 f0 s
a) a) 3 0
0 3 C ? y vi o
W to
'o '
°
is
L
a
o w
m (a c
E m .r m y y c
a L a r y m 3 3 ns
(n a ) c

a °
U y o a N L (D
..
o
ro
m
o
c
(U n 3 Y o N ` o o
0 -0
`)
a r
a)
i
°
°
°
0
= U) z CO i M F
- CO a F
- F
-

CL
0.
w
0
CD
O
0
N
ca
t
CL
U)
O
.C
CO
U
a-
PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation 18 Aurora, North Carolina September 2006
Draft Conceptual Mitigation Plan
Gi?U??asl/v
???IS r( trs wfQ??i?,??? SJ?Or?
RNA ????('Ol- hvu??7)ni?1/J?IISW?S N?W_
?
IIv3w?VNoN? 2/lj