19981139 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20080819

I g9g1139
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE
683 ACRES OF WOODLAND WETLANDS RESTORATION,
ENHANCEMENT, AND PRESERVATION ON SECTIONS H, I, AND
J OF THE PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. PARKER FARM
POM%co t'eo-L?Xor-- cc)w-[t"
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
A
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE
683 ACRES OF WOODLAND WETLANDS RESTORATION, ENHANCEMENT,
AND PRESERVATION ON SECTIONS H, I, AND J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................ .....................................1
2.0 Location, History, and Pre-Restoration/Preservation Description ..................... .....................................1
2.1 Location .......................................................................................... .....................................1
2.2 History ............................................................................................. .....................................1
2.3 Pre-Restoration/Preservation Description ...................................... .....................................1
2.3.1 Soils ................................................................................... .....................................1
2.3.2 Pre-restoration/preservation Drainage .............................. .....................................1
2.3.3 Woodland Areas ................................................................ .....................................2
3.0 Site Selection Factors and Justification ............................................................. .....................................2
3.1 Logistics .......................................................................................... .....................................2
3.2 Cost and Technology ...................................................................... .....................................2
3.3 Justification and Jurisdictional Status ............................................. .....................................2
4.0 Specific Goals, Target Functions, and Methods ................................................ .....................................3
4.1 Goals .............................................................................................. .....................................3
4.2 Target Functions ............................................................................. .....................................3
4.3 Methods .......................................................................................... .....................................5
4.3.1 Section H ........................................................................... .....................................5
4.3.2 Section 1 ............................................................................. .....................................5
4.3.3 Section J ............................................................................ .....................................5
5.0 Work Plan Methodology ..................................................................................... .....................................6
5.1 Hydrologic Models .......................................................................... .....................................6
5.2 Water Budget .................................................................................. .....................................6
5.2.1 Meteorology-Climatic Inputs and Evapotranspiration ........ .....................................6
5.2.2 Water Budget Outputs ....................................................... .....................................6
6.0 Data Collection for Monitoring ............................................................................ .....................................7
6.1 Hydrology Monitoring ...................................................................... .....................................7
7.0 Restoration/Enhancement Results .................................................................... .....................................7
7.1 Hydrology Results .......................................................................... .....................................8
7.1.1 Section H ............................................................................... .....................................8
7.1.2 Section 1 ................................................................................. .....................................8
7.1.3 Section J ................................................................................ .....................................8
8.0 Adaptive Management Strategies ...................................................................... .....................................9
8.1 Adaptive Management .................................................................... .....................................9
8.2 Long-term management ................................................................. .....................................9
9.0 Final Dispensation of Site .................................................................................. .....................................9
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................10
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS .....................................................................................................................18
Cover photo: Upstream view of Vandemere Creek headwaters in Section J.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan ii FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Sections H, I and J Vicinity Map ..............................................................................................12
Figure 2 Sections H, I and J 1998 Aerial ................................................................................................13
Figure 3 Soils Sections H, 1 and J ..........................................................................................................14
Figure 4 LIDAR Sections H, I and J .......................................................................................................15
Figure 5 Sections H, I and J Biotic Communities ...................................................................................16
Figure 6 Sections H, I, J Mitigation Sites ...............................................................................................17
LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
A Selected Site Photographs ......................................................................................................18
B North Carolina Division of Water Quality Wetland Rating Worksheets ...................................24
C Corps Stream Forms ................................................................................................................27
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Sections H, I, and J encompass 683 acres of the 2,811-acre Parker Farm and are
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 previous restoration activities and possible future credits available for
Sections H, I, and J of the Parker Farm site.
2.0 LOCATION, HISTORY, AND PRE-RESTORATION DESCRIPTION
2.1 Location. The Parker Farm is located approximately four miles southeast of Aurora,
North Carolina, in an area known as the Gum Swamp. The Parker Farm can be accessed from
the southwest by the "County Line Road" (a gated gravel road connecting to Bay City Road that
functions as the Beaufort/Pamlico county border) and from the north by SR 1918 (Peele Road). It
can be found on the USGS South Creek and Vandemere topographic quadrangles (Figure 1).
SR 1918 serves as the western boundaries of Sections H, I, and J. Section H is the northernmost
tract of the three sections and is a triangular, 153-acre parcel connected to Section I by other
parcels of the Parker Farm (F and G). Section 1 (328 acres) is south of Section G and connects
to Section J (202 acres) is adjacent to the southeastern end of Section I. All of Section H and
approximately 15 percent of Section I are located within the Pamlico Hydrologic Unit 03020104 of
the Tar-Pamlico river basin within the Tar-Pamlico River (South Creek) subbasin 03-03-07. The
other 85 percent of Section I and Section J are located within the Pamlico Hydrologic Unit
03020105 of the Pamlico Sound basin within the Neuse River subbasin 03-04-13.
2.2 History. PCS Phosphate, Inc. purchased the 2,811 acre Parker Farm tract in 1994.
Prior to PCS ownership, this historically large interstream divide wetland known as the Gum
Swamp was under the ownership of several landowners in the last three decades. Portions of the
Parker Farm adjacent to Sections H, I, and J were cleared, ditched, and put into agricultural
production during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Sections H and I were ditched during this time
period also, but were never cleared or used for agricultural production (Curtis H. Brown, Land
Supervisor, PCS Phosphate, Inc., personal communication, June 1995). The canopy trees on
Section I were harvested in a selective timber operation. Previous use within Section J is
unknown, but site conditions suggest that portions may have been used for silviculture.
2.3 Pre-Restoration Description. Sections H, I, and J contain ditches and canals.
Sections H and I were both hardwood forest drained by a series of interior ditches and bordering
canals. Section J contains the upper headwaters of Vandemere Creek, which drains southeast
under NC Highway 304 and into Bay River, a tributary of the Pamlico Sound (Figure 2).
2.3.1 Soils. The 683-acre site comprised of Sections H, I, and J is entirely
underlain by hydric soils that are nearly level and very poorly drained. According to the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey for Beaufort and Pamlico Counties, the
major soil series mapped on the site and their approximate acreages are: Belhaven muck
(244acres), Ponzer muck (118 acres), Arapahoe loamy fine sand (133 acres), Dare muck (101
acres), Wasda muck (44 acres), Yonges loamy fine sand (27 acres), Ballahack fine sandy loam
(14 acres), and Lafitte muck (2 acres) (Figure 3).
2.3.2 Pre-restoration Drainage. Networks of interior ditches carried water from
Section H into exterior canals that drained west to SR 1918 and then north towards South Creek,
a tributary of the Pamlico River. The water from Section I was transported by interior ditches to
bordering canals that drained southeast and into Vandemere Creek. Most of Section J drains
directly into Vandemere Creek with some water draining into bordering canals or ditches. Section
J contains the riparian headwater system of Vandemere Creek (Figure 4).
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 1 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 5
2.3.3 Woodland Areas. Since clearcutting or planting did not occur in Sections
H, I, and J, current conditions reflect pre-restoration/preservation community composition in the
canopy and sub-canopy as well as current successional stages in the herb and sub canopy
layers. Current biotic community maps show Section H as approximately 77 percent wetland
hardwood and 23 percent upland hardwood and Section I as approximately 95 percent wetland
hardwood and 5 percent upland hardwood (Figure 5). The majority of Section J is mapped as
wet pine/hardwood -107 acres and wet hardwood -44 acres. Other communities in Section J
include bottomland hardwood -19 acres, brackish marsh -2 acres and herbaceous assemblage
(including some stands of common reed-Phragmites australis, -5 acres (Figure 5).
The canopy of Section H is dominated by tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), red maple (Acer rubrum), and red/swamp bay (Persea palustris).
Scattered bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides)
are also present. The timber from Section I was harvested approximately 20 to 22 years ago
leaving the canopy open. In addition, a wildfire also affected the area prior to PCS control of the
parcel. The few mature trees remaining are dominated by red maple and sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua). There is also a scattering of very large relict bald cypress, tulip poplar,
and swamp tupelo. Much of Section I is dominated by a dense young forest consisting mostly of
red maple, sweet-gum, sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), and devil's walking-stick (Aralia spinosa).
Section J is covered with mature second growth hardwoods, dominated by swamp tupelo, red
maple, sweetgum, and bald cypress, with scattered red bay and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
present in some areas. The dominant vegetation at Section J was recently described on a site
visit by CZR biologists. The herbaceous area near the southeastern tip of the section, alongside
Vandemere Creek, was dominated by common reed and scattered eastern false willow
(Baccharis halimifolia) and swamp tupelo. Dominant vegetation further upstream along the creek
included red maple, red bay, and netted chain fern (Woodwardia aerolata).
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 and provide habitat for animals requiring large home ranges. Wetland vegetation is
already established on these sites and wetland hydrology has been documented in most areas
and no further mitigative activity is planned at this time.
3.2 Cost and Technology. Restoration of Sections H and I required only ordinary
surficial land-moving equipment since the central feature of the plan was to construct plugs using
mineral soil and fill interior ditches with spoil that was generated when the ditches were created
originally. No additional planting was done in either Section H or I. The open strips created by
the filling of the interior ditches were allowed to revegetate naturally. There is no identified source
of pollutants, so pollutant remediation is not required to restore the site. Section J does not
require any activities to be performed because it is designated for preservation.
3.3 Justification and Section 404 Jurisdictional Status. CZR Incorporated (CZR) used
shallow monitoring wells to monitor the hydrology of Sections H and I during the 1995 growing
season (CZR 1995a). The data indicated that the ditches and canals had removed wetland
hydrology in all of Section H and 154 acres of Section I. During a 22 February 1996 field
meeting, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) agreed with CZR's evaluations and
concurred that the drained areas of Sections H and I could be used for hardwood wetland
restoration and the 170 acres of jurisdictional wetland in Section I that remained wet could be
used for hardwood wetland enhancement. A jurisdictional determination for Section J has not
been made by the Corps. However, Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) satellite imagery,
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 2 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 5
topographic position and on-site visits by CZR in 2008 suggest all of Section J is jurisdictional
wetland.
4.0 SPECIFIC GOALS, TARGET FUNCTIONS, AND METHODS
4.1 Goals. The goals of this mitigation project were to restore 316 acres to non-riparian
wet hardwood flats, enhance 170 acres of wet hardwood flats and preserve 200 acres of non-
riparian wet hardwood flats on Sections H, I and J of the Parker Farm. After seven years of
hydrology monitoring the data support restoration of 245 acres of non-riparian wet hardwood flats
in Section H and I, enhancement of 162 acres of non-riparian wetlands in Section I, and
preservation of 196 acres in Section J (including the headwater riparian system of Vandemere
Creek which contains areas of bottomland hardwood, brackish marsh and 3,960 linear feet of
stream). The general goals for all sections are on a multi-spatial scale and have these specific
objectives:
¦ To restore wetland hydrology by capturing and storing rainfall, which for the past
three to four decades has been carried off the site by a system of ditches and
canals (site)
¦ To establish a diverse community of vegetation which reflect differences in soil
character, topography, and hydroperiods (site)
¦ To serve as a corridor component within the Holistic South Creek Corridor
Complex (site, watersheds, and region)
¦ To preserve the riparian headwater system of Vandemere Creek (site,
watershed)
¦ To improve water quality (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 provided by Sections H, I, and J are:
NUTRIENT REMOVAL/TRANSFORMATION - Generally, wetlands are thought
of as nutrient sinks for nitrogen and phosphorus and are efficient at
transformation and removal of these elements, depending on loading rates and
retention times. This function is enhanced with the low gradient and abundant
vegetation, present at the entire 2,800-acre Parker Farm of which Section H, I,
and J are components.
ORGANIC MATTER PRODUCTION AND EXPORT - As aquatic plants form the
base of the wetland food chain, wetlands with high plant productivity are able to
produce and collect organic matter. Their ability to transport nutrients and
organic matter downstream requires a hydrologic link to other wetlands areas
and the proper balance between open, non-stagnant water with a neutral pH and
vegetation. The preserved headwaters of Vandemere Creek in Section J and the
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 3 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 5
proximity of Sections H and I to both South Creek and Vandemere Creek,
respectively, provide multiple hydrologic links.
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. Restoration of Sections H and
I of the Parker Farm have decelerated the rapid delivery downstream of
stormwater via agricultural ditches and canals and increased and prolonged
storage capacity. Most of the Parker Farm is above the 100-year floodplain
although the lower portions of Section J closer to Vandemere Creek probably
perform floodflow attenuation functions.
CAPTURE AND RETENTION OF OTHER POLLUTANTS- Sediment is one of
the worst pollutants to aquatic systems and when it contains contaminants such
as pesticides, or other organic or inorganic toxic compounds, it can be
particularly problematic. The removal of sediment is enhanced by persistent
emergent wetland vegetation or gradient differences that interrupt the velocity of
moving water and cause sediment to drop out of the water column. Wetlands
underlain with organic soils with a low gradient that increases water storage time
and frictional resistance and decreases the likelihood of re-suspension are best
at performing this function. Restoration of Sections H and I decreased erosive
velocity within main canals and ditches, increased storage capacity, and delivers
cleaner water downstream. The preservation of Section J will allow natural
riparian buffer zones to continue to filter sediment and contaminants and protect
water quality for the headwaters of Vandemere Creek.
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND DISCHARGE - Wetlands that retain surface
water long enough for percolation into the underlying sediments or aquifers will
recharge the groundwater. Factors which control the amount and rate of
recharge include the surface roughness of the ground: which is the ability of the
ground to hold the precipitation where it falls, the infiltration rates and other
characteristics of the soils above and within the aquifer, the timing (which
includes the seasonal timing of rainfall and the time period between each rainfall
event), the amounts or quantity of each precipitation event and the
evapotranspiration rates. Plugging of the ditches and canals allows precipitation
on Sections H and I to remain long enough to recharge the groundwater and
delays the discharge until soils are saturated.
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 restoration and enhancement of wetlands in Sections H and I, as
well as the preservation of Section J provides habitat for feeding, nesting, and
cover for a variety of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians. The site and
landscape position of this site will support watershed and corridor protection that
can provide important habitat to species that are sensitive to community edges
and those species requiring contiguous areas of unbroken habitat.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 4 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 5
AQUATIC DIVERSITY - The ability for a stream to support a high diversity of fish
and invertebrates is affected by a variety of key factors such as salinity,
temperature, dissolved oxygen, velocity of water movement, substrate type, and
degree and types of vegetation to open water. In addition, specific life-cycle
requirements of individual species of aquatic animals further limits the ability of a
stream to provide the complete suite of necessary conditions at all times.
Preservation of Section J includes a variety of upper headwater stream habitats
that will support a high diversity of organisms. Perpetual conservation
easements for the Parker Farm including Section H, I, and J guarantee long term
protection of the natural conditions of the headwaters of Vandemere Creek and
the segment of the creek contained within the property. Habitats include shallow
areas, deeper pools, topographic differences that alter site velocities and
hydroperiods, and a connection to permanent water. Preservation of the
headwaters of Vandemere Creek could protect and improve water quality in
important downstream habitat and tributaries including Little Vandemere Creek,
Long Creek, and Cedar Creek (NCDMF designated Primary Nursery Areas).
4.3. Methods. Restoration work for Sections H and I focused on the alteration and
removal of manmade drainage features only and efforts were focused to reestablish variable
hydrological conditions of a duration and frequency comparable to adjacent wetlands and an
approximation of historical conditions. Remedial hydrology restoration work occurred for both
Sections H and I in the fall of 2002 to increase hydroperiods in the few areas which were not
rehydrated by the initial restoration efforts. Section J did not require any work as it is designated
for preservation.
4.3.1 Section H. Restoration activity occurred in the fall of 1998. The interior
ditches on Sections H were filled with spoil generated when the ditches were originally created.
Young trees that had grown on the spoil piles were removed, creating open strips in the forest
with linear brush piles along the side of each strip. These open strips were allowed to revegetate
naturally. For additional protection against seepage along the lines of the filled ditches, plugs
constructed of compacted mineral soil were installed in the filled ditches at approximately 500 to
900-foot intervals. The collector canal along the eastern side was plugged at approximately 900
to 1,000-foot intervals, but not completely filled. In the fall of 2002, PCS implemented remedial
construction in the northern part of Section H due to the lack of wetland hydrology over the
course of three years of hydrology monitoring. Work consisted of berm construction across the
cleared strips to impede sheet flow from the site.
4.3.2 Section 1. Restoration activity was implemented in the summer of 1999.
Restoration activity used the same methods described for Section H, except the collector canals
along the eastern and southern sides were not plugged. In addition, the linear piles of brush
along the open strips were broken up and scattered throughout the open strips, to further impede
sheet flow along the lines of the old ditches. After three years, the wetland hydrology criterion
was not being met on the southern portion of the section so remedial hydrology restoration work
was conducted in the fall of 2002. The eastern boundary canal was plugged at the outlet of the
south end and the southern boundary canal was plugged at both ends. Rock spillways were
constructed across the tops of the plugs at the southeastern comer to allow for the safe release
of overflow.
4.3.3 Section J. No work was or is planned for Section J. On-site visits in 2008
by CZR biologists were conducted to identify current conditions and evaluate wetlands, including
the headwaters and stream channel of Vandemere Creek. Areas of mature or regenerating
wetland forest will be preserved.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 5 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 5
5.0 WORK PLAN METHODOLOGY
5.1 Hydrologic Models. In 1994, Dr. R.W. Skaggs and Dr. G.M. Chescheir used a
computer model, DRAINMOD, to predict the long term water table elevations for Parker Farm
Sections E, F, and G and the ability of the sites to meet hydroperiod criteria. Due to the similar
soils, DRAINMOD was used to assess Sections H and I. 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 a water budget is to document the soil characteristics
relative to climatic inputs and evapotranspiration 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.
Dr. Skaggs collected field measurements required for DRAINMOD in 1994 on Sections E, F, and
G of the Parker Farm (CZR 1995b, Appendix B). Similar soils throughout the Parker Farm
sections allowed the results of the 1994 analysis to be applied to all sections.
5.2.1 Meteorology-Climatic Inputs and Evapotranspiration. Detailed, long-term
records are required for use in DRAINMOD. Hourly precipitation and evapotranspiration values
are needed for use in the model. The nearest NOAA weather station is located at the PCS
Phosphate plant facility at Aurora, NC located approximately 10 miles to the North (NOAA Station
Aurora 6N), and was used to calibrate the model and fine tune the soil parameters measured in
the field.
5.2.2 Water Budget Outputs. Long-term water budgets will be 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
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.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 6 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 5
6.0 DATA COLLECTION FOR MONITORING
Periodic monitoring is necessary to ensure that restored wetlands are operating as
designed and to document success criteria. Baseline hydrology monitoring was conducted in
1995 for both Sections H and I. Post-restoration monitoring began in 1999 for Section H and in
2000 for Section I. Hydrology monitoring ended for both in June 2004. Photographs were taken
periodically throughout the monitoring years to visually document hydrologic conditions, stability,
vegetation growth, and the evolution of the restoration site.
The performance of the site was summarized in annual monitoring reports which included
the data collected during the monitoring year, comparison to data from past years and reference
locations, and assessments of whether the site was on trajectory to meet defined success criteria.
6.1 Hydrology Monitoring. Monitoring wells were used for one year (1995) of pre-
restoration monitoring and extensive post-restoration monitoring (1999 -2004) of hydrology in
Sections H and I. They were distributed such that the hydrology of all major soil series on the site
could be monitored in order to determine the success of restoration and enhancement of wetland
hydrology (at a density of approximately 1 well/ 6 or 7 acres).
Twenty-two shallow monitoring wells and semi-continuous groundwater recorders were
installed evenly across Section H to a depth of 24 inches and staggered between cuts. Shallow
monitoring wells consist of 18-inch lengths of 1.25-inch diameter PVC well screen (0.01-inch slot)
coupled to solid PVC risers that are 14-inches long and 1.25 inches in diameter. The semi-
continuous recorder used was the WL-40 produced by Remote Data Systems, installed to a
depth of 20 inches. The WL-40 monitors water table fluctuations using a capacitive sensitive
probe. Semi-continuous recorders were installed at three shallow monitoring well locations.
Forty-four shallow monitoring wells were installed evenly across Section I and also
staggered between cuts. Semi-continuous recorders were installed at five of the shallow
monitoring well locations. Wells for both Sections H and I were installed at the same locations for
both pre- and post-restoration monitoring.
Shallow monitoring wells were checked weekly during the early part of the growing
season (March through May) and monthly for the remainder of the year from 1999 through 2003.
The WL-40s were programmed to take water table readings every 1.5 hours and the data were
downloaded at least monthly through December. Shallow monitoring wells and semi-continuous
recorders were checked monthly during the spring 2004 growing season (March through June).
To aid in the analysis of hydrology data, monthly rainfall and temperature were obtained from the
weather station at the PCS Phosphate plant site, and monthly potential evapotranspiration (PET)
was calculated using the Thornthwaite method (Dunne and Leopold 1978). The semi-continuous
WL-40 data were used to aid in the calculation of hydroperiods at the shallow monitoring well
locations. Hydroperiod interpretations were based on the growing seasons given in the Beaufort
County soil survey (Kirby 1995) and the Pamlico County soil survey (Goodwin 1987).
7.0 RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT RESULTS
Ditches and canals for Sections H and I were plugged and filled in the fall of 1998 and
1999, respectively. Post-restoration monitoring began in March 1999 for Section H and March
2000 for Section I. Additional remediation was done to enhance wetland hydrology in targeted
portions of Sections H and I in 2002. Post-restoration work and monitoring for both Section H
and I concluded in June 2004.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 7 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 5
7.1 Hydrology Results. The following hydrology success criterion was used in 2004 on
all PCS Phosphate hardwood wetland restoration/enhancement sites on muck soils:
Wetland restoration areas that are inundated or saturated to the surface for a
consecutive number of days greater than or equal to 12.5 percent of the
growing season are hydrologically successful. Standing water within 12
inches of the surface will be considered a positive indicator of wetland
hydrology (i.e. saturation to the surface) (PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. and
CZR Incorporated 1996).
7.1.1 Section H. Marginal wetland hydroperiods (defined as 5-12.5 percent of
the growing season) were experienced at 5 of the 22 monitoring wells (23 percent) in 1999, them
first year of post-restoration monitoring. During the 2000 growing season, 14 of the 22 welloo
locations (64 percent) had hydroperiods greater than or equal to 12.5 percent of the growin
season. Four additional well locations had hydroperiods between 5 and 12.5 percent of th(
growing season, for a total of 18 well locations (82 percent) that had at least marginal wetland.2
hydrology for the year 2000. In 2001, only 14 of 22 well locations (64 percent) had at least
marginal wetland hydrology. A total of 17 out of 22 well locations (77 percent) experienced at
least marginal wetland hydrology during the 2002 growing season. These hydroperiods occurred
in at least two years with normal or below normal rainfall.
7.1.2 Section 1. Of the 44 well locations in the year 2000, 38 (86 percent) had
hydroperiods of 12.5 percent or greater during the growing season. Four well locations had
hydroperiods between 5.0 and 12.5 percent, giving a total of 42 wells (95 percent) that had at
least marginal wetland hydrology. Once again, in 2001, 38 of 44 well locations experienced
hydroperiods of 12.5 percent or greater. However, only three well locations had hydroperiods
between 5.0 and 12.5 percent, giving a total of 41 wells (93 percent) that had at least marginal
wetland hydrology. The data in 2002 illustrated that 40 of 44 well locations (91 percent) had
hydroperiods of 12.5 percent or greater. Only one well location experienced a hydroperiod
between 5.0 and 12.5 percent, giving a total of 41 wells that had at least marginal wetland
hydrology. Of the 170 acres monitored for enhancement, all 21 wells experienced hydroperiods
greater than or equal to 12.5 percent for at least two years during normal or below normal rainfall.
Of the 154 acres monitored for restoration, 19 wells experienced hydroperiods greater than or
equal to 12.5 percent for at least two years during normal or below normal rainfall.
7.1.3 Section J. Hydrology in portions of Section J was monitored during the
pre-restoration period of 1995 and the data indicate that the eastern perimeter canal had reduced
the hydrology in this area. However, that canal must remain open in order to not affect drainage
of adjacent properties outside of the Parker Farm. CZR revisited Section J in March of 2008 to
evaluate the wetlands and portion of Vandemere Creek. US Army Corps of Engineers stream
quality forms were completed for portions of Vandemere Creek within Section J by CZR.
Wetlands within Section J were evaluated using the Fourth Version Guidance for Rating the
Values of Wetlands in North Carolina as developed by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources; Division of Water Quality (NCDEHNR 1995). The
NCDWQ no longer uses this rating system and is transitioning to the new Draft NC Wetlands
Assessment Methodology (NCWAM); however, NCWAM is not yet officially in place for public
use. These forms are included in Supporting Documents B and C.
Proposed mitigation credits for Parker Farm Sections H, I, and J are shown in Figure 6.

2_ r?

3(oi,J

I
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 8 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 5
8.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
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.
8.1 Adaptive Management. 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 a restored area. Adaptive management
strategies to minimize effects from natural hazards and human mistakes are geared toward the
monitoring period of a mitigation site. Monitoring in Sections H, I, and J ceased in 2004.
8.2 Long Term Management. Long term management will be aided by a controlled-
access gate on the main entrance road 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. The NC Wildlife Resources
Commission already holds the easement for Sections A-G of the Parker Farm and may be the
likely first choice for the addition of Sections H, I, and J. Permitting agencies would be consulted
for decision and negotiation of final dispensation.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 9 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 5
REFERENCES
CZR Incorporated. 1995a. 1995 hydrology monitoring on Section H, Section I, and the Section D
wooded subsections of the PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Parker Farm.
------- 1995b. As-built report for the 554 acres of hardwood wetlands restoration on sections E, F,
and G of the PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Parker Farm.
------- 1999. Annual report for the 162 acres of woodland wetlands restoration on Section H of the
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Parker Farm.
------- 2000. Annual report for the 486 acres of woodland wetlands restoration and enhancement
on Section H and I of the PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Parker Farm.
------- 2001. Annual report for the 486 acres of woodland wetlands restoration and enhancement
on Section H and I of the PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Parker Farm.
------- 2002. Annual report for the 486 acres of woodland wetlands restoration and enhancement
on Section H and I of the PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Parker Farm.
Dunne, T. and L. Leopold. 1978. Water in environmental planning. W.H. Freeman and
Company, New York.
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.
Goodwin, Roy A. 1987. Soil survey of Pamlico County, North Carolina. USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service. 133pp. plus maps.
Kirby, R.M. 1995. Soil survey of Beaufort County, North Carolina. USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service. 132pp. plus maps.
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.
NCDENR (North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources). 1995.
Guidance for rating the values of wetlands in North Carolina, Fourth Edition. Division of
Environmental Management, Water Quality Section.
PCS Phospahte Company, Inc. and CZR Incorporated. 1996. PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
compensatory wetlands mitigation plan for EIS Alternative E.
Rogers, J. S. 1985. Water management model evaluation for shallow sandy soils. Transactions
of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 28:785-790.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 10 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 5
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 11 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 5
\ 1
SECTION H i
10 it l
u
U
I 1;
i Il
� r
;9
.,,►�. y,. f - vpyo
CM
304
xa
y.^ N
6 !
NORTH CAROLINA 0 2,400 4,800
SCALE IN FEET
SITE LOCATION - PARKER F; D
FARM FARM SECTIONS H, I AND J
H,
SECTIONS VICINITY M A P
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN JAPPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
DATE: 504/08 1 FILE: SEC H—I—J— USGS.DWG
DRAFT Z R 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
CP# 1 745.59
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
INCORPORATED TEL [phone] FIGURE 1
ENV-tOMYEMi�L cowsuuum FAX [phone]
=+y .....- - ► SECTION I
xav
_.. ;i1F Jlh #^-ilk-+jR`J ♦ K� \
G
;9
.,,►�. y,. f - vpyo
CM
304
xa
y.^ N
6 !
NORTH CAROLINA 0 2,400 4,800
SCALE IN FEET
SITE LOCATION - PARKER F; D
FARM FARM SECTIONS H, I AND J
H,
SECTIONS VICINITY M A P
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: AS SHOWN JAPPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
DATE: 504/08 1 FILE: SEC H—I—J— USGS.DWG
DRAFT Z R 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
CP# 1 745.59
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
INCORPORATED TEL [phone] FIGURE 1
ENV-tOMYEMi�L cowsuuum FAX [phone]

a .. V 49
5*0
101
.1x"
1a��, �r r Mfg r" 59qAl
rr r
2
ti4•�0
''R�n. ;� .. �[ '�!'.'.�.-f.:ai*erax . _,:..Cra,�.. >Mx,�"^�>k`�. :.*..I`!• �,� � r1 C°'I"`_3 ,c �..
'
9.
3. ✓Aif`. �..s1.k'. �y�,
L#.
SECTIONS H, I AND J SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
DATE: 5/04/08 1 FILE: SEC H—I—J— AER -DWG
DRAFT
Z w
VIDED BY: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT I,� 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE CP#1745.59
COLOR—INFRARED DIGITAL ORTHO MOSAICS, SUITE 2
NE. COLORTILE113.SID AND COLORTILE140.SID, INCD RPO RAT ED WILMINGTON, NOR7H CAROLINA 28403
TEL [phone]FIGURE 2
EUVMONYfXi�l GONSYLTYIIi CAX 910/392-8139139

I m "41F,
I DATE: 5/04/08 1

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT A
SELECTED SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 18 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 5 Supporting Document A
2002.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 19 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 5 Supporting Document A
rnoto z. uacn plug at southeastern corner of Section H, 2 October 2002.
UGIUDer LuuL.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 20 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 5 Supporting Document A
rc,-? compensatory mitigation Plan 21 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 5 Supporting Document A
zuuo.
PCS Compensatory Mitigation Plan 22 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 5 Supporting Document A
rC5 Compensatory Mitigation Plan 23 FEIS Appendix I
Attachment 5 Supporting Document A
rriuw iu. uownsiream view of vanaemere Creek headwaters in Section J, 26 March 2008.