20081312 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20080819

r
p g 1 3 1 2 CICI 611191(Z°
COMPENSATORY MI 1 ION PLAN FOR THE
P LANDS RESTORATION SIT RICHLAND TOWNSHIP
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared by:
CZR INCORPORATED
4709 College Acres Drive, Suite 2
Wilmington, North Carolina
April 2008
r
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE
P LANDS RESTORATION SITE RICHLAND TOWNSHIP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................................
1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... ..................1
2.0 Location, History, and Pre-Restoration Description ....................................................... ..................1
2.1 Location ............................................................................................................. ..................1
2.2 History ................................................................................................................ ..................1
2.3 Pre-restoration Description ................................................................................ ..................1
2.3.1 Soils ...................................................................................................... ..................1
2.3.2 Pre-restoration Drainage and Section 404 Jurisdictional Status .......... ..................1
2.3.3 Forested Areas ..................................................................................... ..................2
3.0 Site Selection Factors and Justification .......................................................................... ..................2
3.1 Logistics ............................................................................................................. ..................2
3.2 Cost and Technology ......................................................................................... ..................2
3.3 Justification ........................................................................................................ ..................2
4.0 Specific Goals, Target Functions, and Methods ............................................................. ..................2
4.1 Goals ................................................................................................................. ..................2
4.2 Target Functions ................................................................................................ ..................3
4.3 Methods ............................................................................................................. ..................4
5.0 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................ ..................4
5.1 Hydrologic Models ............................................................................................. ..................4
5.2 Water Budget ..................................................................................................... ..................4
5.2.1 Meteorology-Climatic Inputs and Evapotranspiration ........................... ..................4
5.2.2 Water Budget Output ............................................................................ ..................4
6.0 Planting Design .............................................................................................................. ..................5
7.0 Data Collection for Monitoring ........................................................................................ ..................5
7.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots ............................................................................... ..................5
7.2 Hydrology Monitoring Plots ................................................................................ ..................5
7.3 Reference Wetland ............................................................................................ ..................6
8.0 Adaptive Management Strategies .................................................................................. ..................6
8.1 Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... ..................6
8.2 Long-term Management .................................................................................... ..................7
9.0 Final Dispensation of Site ............................................................................................... ..................7
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................................8
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS .....................................................................................................................16
Cover photo: Typical canal bordering road and clear-cut forest in the P-Lands.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan ii FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 3

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
A
P Lands Vicinity Map (USGS topographic map) .......................................................................9
Site Map (1998 color infrared image) ......................................................................................10
Soils Map (NRCS Soil Survey- Beaufort County) ...................................................................11
LIDAR Intensity Map of Plands Mitigation Site ........................................................................12
Map of Ditches and Canals ......................................................................................................13
Biotic Communities ..................................................................................................................14
Mitigation Areas .......................................................................................................................15
Selected Site Photographs ......................................................................................................16
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan iii
Attachment 3
FEIS Appendix I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Lands that total approximately 2,900 acres south of the Pamlico River and southeast of Aurora
are jointly owned by PCS Phosphate and Weyerhaeuser Company, and will provide a broad
expanse of land for non-riparian wetland mitigation. Most all of the site consists of ditched and
drained hydric organic soils. The site is currently set up as a series of stands of pine which are
managed in a rotation of planting, thinning, and clearcutting. The overall plan for the site is to
remove the existing vegetation, eliminate as much of the drainage network as possible to restore
the natural hydrology, and replant with appropriate wetland trees and shrubs, in order to restore
the area back to a non-riverine wet hardwood forest.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The approximate 2,900-acre P Lands restoration site is proposed to be part of the
compensatory mitigation for future unavoidable impacts to wetlands as evaluated in the
Environmental Impact Statement for PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation. This document
describes the P Lands site and proposed restoration activities.
2.0 LOCATION, HISTORY, AND PRE-RESTORATION DESCRIPTION
2.1 Location. The P Lands site is located on Bay City Road (SR 1002), approximately
4.5 miles southeast of Aurora, Richland Township, North Carolina. Bay City Road runs through
the site, which is bounded on the east by SR 1918 and on the south by "County Line Road" (a
gated gravel road that functions as the Beaufort/Pamlico county border). This site may be
accessed via multiple, gated roads with entrances to Bay City Road and SR 1918. Portions of
the site can be found on the USGS Aurora, Bayboro, South Creek, and Vandemere quadrangles
(Figure 1 and Figure 2). The site is located within the Pamlico Hydrologic Unit 03020104 of the
Tar-Pamlico river basin within the South Creek subbasin. The site connects three other PCS
mitigation sites: Bay City Farm, Gum Run, and the Parker Farm.
2.2 History. PCS Phosphate, Inc. owns the mineral rights to this site, and surface rights
are owned by Weyerhaeuser Company. PCS and Weyerhaeuser have a contractual agreement
which allows PCS to purchase the surface of the P Lands at a price determined by a pre-set
formula. The P designation has no special meaning other than that was the historical label given
to properties between PCS and Weyerhaeuser with similar ownership agreements. The majority
of this site has been managed for timber production for decades.
2.3 Pre-Restoration Description. The P Lands are set up as a series of stands of loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda) which are managed in a rotation of planting, thinning, and clearcutting. Gated
gravel roads cross the P Lands, generally with an east-west orientation. Large canals, adjacent
to public roads and access roads within this site, drain ditches that are placed with a north-south
orientation approximately 660 feet apart (10 chains in forestry terms, Supporting Document A).
2.3.1 Soils. Most of the site is underlain by hydric, organic soils. The major
soils at this site include Dare muck (13%), Ponzer muck (65%), Portsmouth loam (4%), and
Wasda muck (18%). Only one soil series found within the site, Tarboro Sand, is non-hydric and it
made up less than 1 % of the site (Figure 3).
2.3.2 Pre-restoration Drainage and Section 404 Jurisdictional Status. North-
south ditches exist at 660 foot intervals within each stand of timber throughout the P Lands.
These ditches empty into large canals which are often adjacent to public roads and access roads
within and adjacent to this site. There are three primary drainage subbasins within the P Lands.
The lands west of State Road 1002 drain to the west and north to South Creek. The properties
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 1 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 3
east of State Road 1002 drain to the north, with the southern two thirds of the site being drained
by the road ditch on the east side of State Road 1002 then north to Gum Swamp Run. The
northern one third of the site drains east to Peele Road and then north to South Creek. Water
from South Creek empties into the Pamlico River. All of this site, except for approximately 4
acres, is underlain by hydric soils. However, preliminary evaluations predict that the site does not
meet the 404 jurisdictional hydrology criteria because of the extensive drainage network (Figure 4
and Figure 5). Hydrological monitoring of similar soil types and site conditions at PCS mitigation
sites nearby were consulted to evaluate site potential. LIDAR (light detection and ranging) has
been utilized to identify a potential remnant headwater valley system of Gum Swamp Run within
the P Lands. On-site evaluations of the area identified had not occurred at the time of this report.
2.3.3 Forested Areas. The canopy is dominated by various ages of loblolly pine,
with sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera) also present. Common shrubs, herbs and vines include wax myrtle (Morelia cerifera),
inkberry (Ilex glabra), gallberry (Ilex coriaceae), swamp red bay (Persea palustris), greenbriar
(Smilax spp.), yellow jasmine (Gelsemium sempervirens), blackberry (Rhubus spp.), and chain
fern species (Woodwardia spp). Clearcuts are inhabited by various, early-successional
herbaceous and woody species such as dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), broomsedge
(Andropogon spp.), blackberry, red maple, and sweetgum (Figure 5).
3.0 SITE SELECTION FACTORS AND JUSTIFICATION
3.1 Logistics. Site selection is of primary importance in any wetland restoration project
since that which was previously a wetland will have a higher likelihood of feasibility, sustainability,
and success if restored. Also important in site selection is adjacency to existing wetlands in a
similar landscape position whose presence indicates appropriate hydrological conditions for
hydric soil and consequent vegetation communities. Adjacent wetlands are also able to serve as
seed banks, refugia for mobile animals while the restoration site matures, and reference sites that
may be used to assess restoration success. This large project serves as a key link to the 2,800
acres restored, enhanced, and preserved from 1994-1998 at the Parker Farm mitigation site, the
709- acre Bay City Farm mitigation site, and the approximately 1,500 acres of preservation in the
South Creek Corridor mitigation site.
3.2 Cost and Technology. Restoration of the site will require no special technology or
complex engineering since only ordinary surficial land-moving equipment is necessary to prepare
the site. All surface work will be based on LIDAR (light detection and ranging) and/or normal
topographical survey data and informed by preparation of a water budget and model predictions
of soil behavior (based on permeability, texture, and stratigraphy) from a certified soil scientist.
There is no identified source of pollutants other than what might be present from adjacent
agricultural lands, so pollutant remediation is not required to restore the site.
3.3 Justification. Based on preliminary estimates the majority of the site does not have
the required hydrology to meet all three wetland parameters and is therefore suitable for
mitigation by restoration.
4.0 SPECIFIC GOALS, TARGET FUNCTIONS, AND METHODS
4.1 Goals. The purpose of restoration activities of the P Lands site is to successfully
restore up to 2,841 acres of non-riverine wet hardwood forest (Figure 6). The goals will be
achieved on a multi-spatial scale with these specific objectives:
¦ To capture and store rainfall which for the past three to four decades has been
carried off the site by a system of ditches and canals (site)
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 2 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 3
¦ To establish a diverse community of vegetation which reflect differences in soil
character, topography, and hydroperiods (site)
¦ To serve as a corridor within the Holistic South Creek Corridor Complex
¦ To improve water quality and prove watershed protection (site, watershed, and
region)
¦ To provide wildlife habitat (site, watershed, and region)
4.2 Target Functions. Functions of wetlands and waters are the physical, chemical, and
biological processes and attributes of a wetland that in conjunction operate as guarantors of
water quality and are important components of food webs and habitat. The 1990 Memorandum
of Agreement between the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the
Determination of Mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, and RGL
02-2, require the replacement of aquatic functions which are unavoidably lost or adversely
affected by an authorized permitted activity. Many wetlands have multiple functions, and while
accurate assessment of wetland functions is a dynamic field, scientists do agree that all wetlands
either increase or decrease a specific component of the hydrologic cycle.
Successful replacement and/or uplift of any of the wetland functions is driven by proper
mitigation site selection and a design that maximizes what the natural conditions of the site will
support. The specific functions which are targeted for the P-Lands site are:
NUTRIENT REMOVAL/TRANSFORMATION- Generally, wetlands are thought of as
nutrient sinks for nitrogen, phosphorus, suspended solids, sulfur, and carbon and are
efficient at transformation and removal of some of these elements, depending on loading
rates and retention times. This function is enhanced with low gradient and abundant
vegetation, although, depending on site conditions, phosphorus adsorption to wetland
soils can be greater than its accumulation in plant biomass. Experience at the 2,800-acre
PCS Parker Farm hardwood wetlands mitigation site in Beaufort County indicates that
volunteer herbaceous wetland vegetation can cover new mitigation sites within one year.
The planted trees, volunteer herbs and forbs, and the slope of the site which averages
less than 0.2 percent will enable this function.
ORGANIC MATTER PRODUCTION AND EXPORT - Decomposed matter (detritus)
forms the base of the aquatic and terrestrial food chain and wetlands with high plant
productivity are able to produce, collect, and export organic matter, depending upon
landscape position. The ability of a wetland to transport nutrients downstream requires a
hydrologic link to other wetlands areas and the proper balance between vegetation and
open, non-stagnant water with a neutral pH. Many receiving waters in the coastal plain of
North Carolina are naturally more acidic due to lower gradient and higher levels of
tannins in the water column. Located on primarily interstream flats, the export of any
organic matter will be slow and occur most frequently during wetter seasons when
organic matter is prevalent and water levels are higher. Most export will be via drainage
into Gum Swamp Run and South Creek.
FLOODFLOW ATTENUATION AND SURFACE WATER STORAGE-The ability of a
wetland to alter floodflow and store stormwater depends on landscape position in the
watershed, degree and type of vegetation cover, microtopography of the site, and
configuration of outlets of the wetland. The reduction or delay of peak flows from runoff
and precipitation by a wetland can decrease flood damage. Wetland characteristics that
increase storage time and allow outflow intermittently are best at performing this function.
The P Lands occur on interstream flats associated with the headwaters of South Creek.
Restoration of the P Lands will decelerate the current rapid delivery downstream of
rainfall events via ditches and canals and increase and prolong storage capacity on site.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 3 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 3
Aquatic resources downstream of this mitigation site, via Gum Swamp Run, South Creek,
and the Pamlico River/Sound estuary will benefit from restoration of these lands.
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE/DISCHARGE- Wetlands which retain precipitation and/or
surface water long enough for percolation into the underlying sediments or aquifers exert
control on the hydraulic head and either recharge groundwater and/or discharge it when
fully charged. Elevation of the wetland relative to the underlying groundwater, perimeter
to volume ratio, and soil porosity of the wetland sediments determine the
recharge/discharge potential in any given precipitation event or season. Systems of
ditches discharge rainfall at a rate that delivers a slug of water quickly downstream and
off-site preventing local groundwater recharge and a slower discharge. Plugging or filling
such ditch systems for restoration projects will capture local precipitation and recharge
local groundwater tables and restore more normally scaled and timed discharge events.
WILDLIFE HABITAT-Wetlands and their associated uplands form complex and diverse
habitats that are essential and attractive to various types of resident and visitor wildlife
species for food, shelter, and breeding sites for all or part of their life cycle. The wetlands
at the P Lands will expand the Holistic South Creek Corridor Complex and provide more
food and cover for a variety of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. The addition of
the P Lands will link-together a nearly continuous area of restored wildlife habitat
encompassing more than 8,200 acres, which may be particularly valuable for area-
sensitive species such as black bears (Ursus americanus), red wolves (Canis rufus), and
many neotropical migrant birds such as black-throated green warblers (Dendroica virens
waynei).
4.3. Methods. Restoration work will be focused on removal of the existing vegetation and
manmade drainage features and re-creation of surface roughness that will reestablish variable
hydrological conditions of a duration and frequency comparable to adjacent similar wetlands and
an approximation of the historical conditions. The site will then be planted with an appropriate
mix of wetland trees and shrubs commonly found in similar reference sites or known to historically
exist on similar sites.
5.0 HYDROLOGY
5.1 Hydrologic Models. DRAINMOD will be used to predict the long term water table
elevations and the sites ability to meet the hydroperiod criteria. This program was created by Dr.
R. Wayne Skaggs in 1978 at North Carolina State University. DRAINMOD is a computer
simulation model developed for soils with shallow water tables. The model is based on a water
balance in the soil profile and uses approximate methods to quantify the various hydrologic
components such as infiltration, surface roughness, surface runoff, deep and lateral seepage and
evapotranspiration. It has been tested and found to be reliable for a wide range of soil and
climatological conditions. (Skaggs et al 1981; Gayle et al., 1985; Fouss et al. 1987; Rogers,
1985; McMahon et al. 1987; and Susanto et al. 1987).
5.2 Water Budget. The objective of this is to document the soil characteristics relative to
climatic inputs and evapotranspiration at the P Lands in order to understand the expected
hydrology during the growing season post-restoration. The water budget is used to calculate how
the seasonal pattern of water level fluctuations (inflow, outflow, storage) may affect the
hydrograph (hydroperiod) at a given site. Basic components required to evaluate a water budget
for a wetland site are meteorology, soils, vegetation, hydrology, and hydraulic components of the
soils.
5.2.1 Meteorology-Climatic Inputs and Evapotranspiration. Detailed long term
records are required for use in DRAINMOD. Hourly precipitation and evapotranspiration values
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 4 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 3
are needed for use in the model. Weather Data from nearest NOAA weather station located at
the PCS Phosphate facility at Aurora, NC located approximately 10 miles to the North (NOAA
Station Aurora 6N) will be used to calibrate the model and fine tune the soil parameters measured
in the field.
5.2.2 Water Budget Output. Long-term water budgets were calculated using the
yearly summary from DRAINMOD. The water budget shows the total rainfall for a given year
(input) and then shows the quantity infiltrated, the quantity lost to evapotranspiration, the quantity
lost to drainage(subsurface flow), and the quantity lost to runoff (surface flow). The basis
relationships between the categories are as follows:
Input to system=Rainfall (R)
Rainfall volume captured by the surface roughness and local storage = infiltration (F)
Volume in excess of the volume infiltrated = runoff (surface runoff) (RO)
Two losses can occur to the volume infiltrated: they are either lost through subsurface
drainage or evapotranspiration.
The volume infiltrated is the volume used to lengthen the hydroperiod of the site. The
site has been designed to increase the surface roughness that will detain the rainfall long
enough for infiltration to occur. In years with minimal rainfall the volume infiltrated, as a
percentage of rainfall, is high, conversely, in years of significant rainfall, the volume
infiltrated, as a percentage of rainfall is low.
6.0 PLANTING DESIGN
A strategy for vegetative restoration of the P Lands is currently under development, and
final planting plans will be designed to reflect soil characteristics, grading, field observations,
expected hydrology, and seedling availability. To accommodate varying hydrologic regimes
planting zones will be designated based on topography.
A variety of wetland hardwood tree species will be considered for planting. In addition to
trees, some shrubs will be incorporated into the plan to promote and offer a diverse landscape.
Restored areas will be planted with bare-root seedlings and some tublings of native tree and
shrub species that are known to have occurred historically in the area and on similar sites.
7.0 DATA COLLECTION FOR MONITORING
Periodic monitoring is necessary to document the status of restored wetlands and to
document success criteria. These efforts will include installation and data collection of rain
gauges and groundwater wells, periodic photographic documentation, vegetation monitoring, and
headwater stream profile evaluations. Efforts will last a minimum of five years, or until success
criteria have been successfully documented. Photographs will be taken periodically throughout
the monitoring year to visually document hydrologic conditions, stability, vegetation growth, and
the evolution of the restoration site. Permanent photo point locations will be established and
marked to facilitate photographs being taken at the same locations each year monitoring is taking
place.
The performance of the site will be summarized in yearly monitoring reports. Reports will
include the data collected during the monitoring year, comparison to data from past years and
reference locations, and assessments of whether the site is on trajectory for meeting defined
success criteria.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 5 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 3
7.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots. Vegetation monitoring plots will be established over 2
percent of the restoration areas. Individual plots will be 43 feet x 203 feet in size (approx. 0.2
acre). Plots will be located to represent a range of conditions across the restoration site.
Immediately after planting has occurred, planted stems within vegetation plots will be flagged and
counted. Each year after restoration and prior to leaf fall in autumn, vegetation plots will be
sampled. All living stems of woody vegetation within each plot will be identified and counted,
including planted stems and colonized species. General observations will be made during
sampling to describe the survivability of stems outside the vegetation monitoring plots, and other
vegetation planted across the site (live stakes, transplants, permanent seeding, etc.). This will
ensure that an adequate riparian buffer is installed at the site.
7.2 Hydrology Monitoring Plots. More than a year of pre-restoration hydrology data will
be collected for the P Lands, and extensive post-monitoring of hydrology will occur in order to
determine the success of restoration of wetland hydrology.
Data from an automated rain gauge is currently available from the Bay City Farm
mitigation site. If necessary or possible, the automated rain gauge will be moved from the Bay
City Farm once restoration is completed. The gauge is currently installed in an open area, a
minimum of 100 feet from any tall tree or buildings. Rain gauge data will be used in conjunction
with data from nearby automated weather stations to determine rainfall during the monitoring
period.
Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed across the project site to document the
post-restoration water table. Data from these wells will be downloaded monthly during the
growing season and every sixty days during the dormant season. These data will determine if the
water table at . the project site has been elevated sufficiently to restore adjacent wetland
conditions.
7.3 Reference Wetland. Several reference wetlands are available in the immediate area.
They will be used to identify plant species and hydrologic regimes that should be used in
restoration of the site.
8.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
8.1 Adaptive Management. Principles of adaptive management have become
increasingly used as a tool to elevate the likelihood of success of wetland mitigation projects
throughout the United States. Since ecosystem behavior and natural disturbances cannot always
be accurately predicted nor can human mistakes always be identified in advance, adaptive
management provides a somewhat formalized process for the iterative and interactive approach
to assessment and management of wetland mitigation projects. However, adaptive management
does not equate to perpetual maintenance.
Certain expected natural hazards which might affect successful restoration are fire, flood,
erosion, invasive species, and herbivory. Construction mistakes could also affect performance
and function of the restored area. Strategies to minimize effects from natural hazards and human
mistakes include:
Any flooding from beaver activity will be noted during the monitoring period and beavers
will be removed by trapper(s).
Sections affected by wildfire during the monitoring period will be assessed for degree of
damage and replanted at a spacing calculated to restore specified tree density.
Herbivory on seedlings by rabbits, rice and cotton rats, and field mice will be reduced by
the resident foxes, feral dogs and cats, hawks and owls resident in nearby natural areas.
Reductions in rodent herbivory will be achieved by the erection of simple PVC perches at
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 6 FEIS
Attachment 3
interior locations on the site to encourage raptor use. If monitoring indicates deer
numbers are jeopardizing tree survival, decisions will be made in coordination with
appropriate agencies on what, if anything, can be done.
Construction errors will be identified early in the mitigation process with an as-built report
which contains spot elevations (i.e., plugs and inverts of any pertinent culverts). Any
correction effort will be coordinated with permitting agencies such that the intended water
regime is met.
Planting errors in spacing density or diversity will be avoided by diligent monitoring of and
coordination with planting crews to ensure fidelity to the planting plan. An accounting of
tree plot and monitoring well numbers and locations will be included in the as-built.
Design flaws may not be caught as early in the process, but if monitoring or observation
(i.e., excessive standing water) indicates a potential design problem, remediation options
will be explored with permitting agencies.
Parker Farm monitoring wells were subject to frequent disturbance and occasional
destruction by black bears, despite efforts to armor the wells against them. Barbed wire
fences may be constructed around the more expensive continuous monitoring wells.
8.2 Long Term Management. Long term management will be aided by controlled-access
gates on the main entrance roads of the property. It is anticipated that once the area
starts to naturalize, that no long term management will be needed.
9.0 FINAL DISPENSATION OF SITE
With agency concurrence of success of the site, arrangements with a suitable non-
governmental organization or government agency will be made such that a conservation
easement in perpetuity is transferred to such organization or agency. Permitting agencies will be
consulted during the decision and negotiation of final dispensation.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 7 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 3
REFERENCES
Fouss, J. L., R. L. Bengston, and C. E. Carter. 1987. Simulating subsurface drainage in the
lower Mississippi valley with DRAINMOD. Transactions of the ASAE 30:1679-1688.
Gayle, G., R. W. Skaggs, and C. E. Carter. 1985. Evaluation of a water management model for
a Louisiana sugar cane field. Journal of the American Society of Sugar Caner
Technologists. 4:18-28.
McMahon, P. C., S. Mostaghimi, and F. S. Wright. 1988. Simulation of corn yield by a water
management model for a coastal plains soil. Transactions of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers 31:734-742.
Rogers, J. S. 1985. Water management model evaluation for shallow sandy soils. Transactions
of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 28:785-790.
Skaggs, R. W., N. R. Fausey, and B. H. Nolte. 1981. Water management evaluation for north
central Ohio. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 24:922-928.
Susanto, R. H., J. Feyen, W. Diercloc, and G. Wyseuse. 1987. The use of simulation models to
evaluated the performance of subsurface drainage systems. Proceedings of the Third
International Drainage Workshop, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. Pp.
A67-A76.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 8 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 3

j

NORTH CAROLINA

SITE LOCATIO
P-LANDS

N P -L 0

ANDS VI 51000
SCALE IN FEET
CINITY M 10,000

AP
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG
DATE:5/06/08 FILE: P-LANDS-LOC-FEIS
CP# 1745.59
Z n 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
D R A F T " SUITE 2
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403 FIGURE 1
INCORPORATED ,?
„I -yJ`.*.
ENVpONNENiAL CONSOLEAIS
F!
ACRES
CURRENT PRO GIED
P -LANDS (2,883.32 ACRES) CONDVUOVS CLIMAX COMM"TV
CREfXS'011l �ATIR
PUBLIC 'RUS' AR.S 0.00 000
'a PIR.N. STRIA. 0 DO 0 DO
—MTTENT STRLMM DO
WETLAN 01
2 0 DMCK15H MARSH COMPLEX OG.
3 WEELAND Bo OMI.AND HAR�O FOREST NO 000
I WULAND DRI I ASSEMBLAGE .003 000
WEILAND SHR - SCRUB ASSEM—C 69.39 0 DO
6 WI PINE PLANT TION ON 0 DO
7 WEILAND HMRDnOD WREST 4.73 2771,71
a WET NO MIXED PINE - HANDIVEOD FOREST ON 6932
9 WET D PINE FOREST 0 DO ON
;0 W0 D POCOSIN - BAY FOREST 000 ON
I WLTI.ANU SANO RIDGE FOREST ON DO
POND 0 GO D DO
WE11AND MA TAINED AREA ON . .
14 UPIUMN HERBACEOUS ASSEMBUIGE .. 71 M
U I -AN SHRUB - SCRUB —ENSLACC ,IM D 11
;5
6 UPLAA D PINE PLANTATION 17H 22 0.00
Up a
17 Up�o HARUNNEGO FO EST ..00 DOO
LAN MIXED PINE - WO*OW FOREST 243.77 DO
1.
19 UPLAHD PINE TO EST -5 0 DO
20 UPLAN D U 0 RIDGE FOREST 111 10,
X,
21 UP D AGRICULTURAL LAND 0.0 DOO
22 NON VECFA�D/MAINTAITNED AREA 42.22 42 22
UPLAND -
IT 2.000 4.000
I
2gTE, ARST NUMBER BE ORE REPRESWS CURRENT
HEITIGIS KCONC NUIRER 51— REPRESENTS
PRELCCTED CLI_ C
COOMU-
SCUREFE _'L MMCE IRDVOED DEPA ENT
7"
Of TILMISPORTIT­ gg, COLOR � R_ G_ ""I" NO—
W81, FEET HE STATEPLANE, COLORTUE 113 90 IND —CRTXE I . OIl
.—TC —N—DRI
P -LANDS
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
PC3 PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCAU: AS SHOWN AP ROVED 81: D—N BY� BFG
DATE: 5/02/08 FLE I—EXE-1—FE.
cp # 1745.59
FIGURE 6

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT A
SELECTED SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 16 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 3 Supporting Document A