    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

              A

                                                   Impacts of Peat Mining
                                     Cumulative
                                              Final Project Report

                                                      Edited by
                                                    Judith A. Gale
                                                   David A. Adams
                                                Department of Forestry
                                             North Carolina State University

                                                    AUGUST 1984

                                                    North Carolina
                                             Coastal Energy Impact Program
                                                Office of Coastal Management
                                          North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
                                                and Community Development

                                                  COASTAL ZONE
                                               INFORMATION CENTER

                                                CEIP REPORT NO. 40

             To order:

             Residents of North Carolina may
             receive a single copy of a
             publication free upon request.
             Non-residents   may   purchase
             publications for the prices
             listed.    Because    of   the
             production costs involved, some
             of the publications carry a
             minimal charge regardless of
             residency. Prices for these are
             indicated in the price list as
             being "for all requests".

             When   ordering   publications
             please provide the publication
             number and title and enclose a
             check made payable to DNRCD. For
             a   complete list of CEIP
             publications - or to place an
             order - contact:

             Coastal Energy Impact Program
             Office of Coastal Management
             N.C. Department of Natural
               Resources and Community
               Development
             Box 27687
             Raleigh, NC 27611

             Series Edited by James F. Smith
             Cover Design by Jill Miller

                          CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF PEAT MINING PROJECT

                                      FINAL PROJECT REPORT

                                                             U    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                                             COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                           Edited by         2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                         Judith A. Gale      CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

                                              and

                                         David A. Adams

                                     Department of Forestry
                               North Carolina State University
                                    Raleigh, NC 27695-8002

                   The preparation of this report was financed through a
                   Coastal Energy Impact Program grant provided by the
                   North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through
                   funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of
                   1972, as amended, which is administered by the office
                   of    Coastal     Management,   National    oceanic     and
                   Atmospheric Administration.     This CEIP grant was part
                   of    NOAA    NA-83-AA-D-CZ028.      This   project     was
                   administered by the Water Resources Research Institute
                   of The University of North Carolina.

                                          August 1984

                                       CEIP Report No. 40

                                           PrOPOrtY Of CSC Library

                                              ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

                         The preparation of this document was a cooperative effort
                    by a research team consisting of the following persons:
                    Richard T. DiGiulio, David W. Evans and Curtis J. Richardson,
                    Duke University; Lee J. Otte, East Carolina University; David
                    A. Adams, Richard G. Broadhead, Leon E. Danielson, Judith A.
                    Gale, Melvin Huish, Margery F. Overton, Joseph A. Phillips and
                    R. Wayne Skaggs, North Carolina State University; William A.
                    Campbell, Edward J. Kuenzler and Hans W. Paerl, the Universi"--y
                    of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and James F. Smith, North
                    Carolina    Department    of   Natural Resources and Community
                    Development (see section 8 for further information).

                        .Special thanks are due David H. Moreau, James M. Stewart,
                    Linda Kiger and the staff of the Water Resources Research
                   .Institute of The University of North Carolina for their
                    assistance in project administration.

                         We are particularly indebted to Roy L. Ingram, Department
                    of Geology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for
                    providing raw data on peat volumes obtained through grants
                    from   the    North Carolina Energy Institute and the U.S.
                    Department of Energy (grants AC01 and FG18-79ET-14693); Leslie
                    Oster   and    Robert Hornstein, Koppers Company, Inc., for
                    reviewing    and commenting on the alternative peat, mining
                    scenarios (section 5); Lucy L. Mauger, Institute for Coastal
                    and Marine Resources, East Carolina University, for preparing
                    the habitat type/land use data (Appendix 10.1) used throughout
                    section 6; Mike Lyle, Department of Geology, East Carolina
                    University,    for collecting the fire data (section 6.6);
                    Kathleen Kenney, Department of Foresty, North Carolina State
                    University,    for    assistance with the wildlife simulation
                    (section 6.1.4) and recreation section (6.1.5), and for typing
                    much   of    this    report;   and    the   many    other industry
                    representatives and state and federal agency personnel who
                    contributed to this effort.

               1. ABSTRACT

               1.1 Description of the Project

                    Three alternative 20-year peat mining development scenarios
               and a no change alternative were constructed for a study area
               consisting of Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington Counties, North
               Carolina. The scenarios included: 1) currently permitted acreage
               mined as proposed (as of summer, 1983) (22,690 acres permitted
               and 17,360 acres mined during a 20-year period); 2) upper
               boundary (84,000 acres permitted and mined); and 3) industry
               failure at year 10 (22,960 acres permitted and 8,520 acres mined
               by year 10).

                    Probable    cumulative environmental and economic impacts
               associated with each scenario were examined. These included
              .impacts   on    agriculture;    forest products; fish; wildlife;
               recreation;    surface water runoff; nutrient, trace element,
               coliform bacteria and pesticide yields; groundwater; land use
               conversion; air quality; solid waste; occurrence of fire; and
               local economics.

                    Critical potential impacts of peat mining and related land
               conversion activities were identified and recommended approaches
               to address these impacts were outlined. In cases where impacts
               from other forms of land conversion, such as agriculture and
               forestry, were believed to be similar to impacts of peat mining,
               the recommended approach was broadened to address impacts of
               land conversion in general.

               1.2 Critical Impacts and Recommended Approaches

               1.2.1 Estuarine Impacts

                    Large-scale    conversion    of   peatlands     to agriculture,
               forestry and peat mining on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula will
               alter primary nursery areas in peripheral estuarine systems.
               Changes    in   salinity regimes; surface water runoff rates;
               nutrient    loading;   suspended    solids;    sedimentation; trace
               element,    pesticide    and    coliform    bacteria    levels;     and
               interactions among these factors are believed to be the most
               significant potential estuarine impacts from land conversion.

                    The recommended approach includes the initiation of an
               integrated, multidisciplinary effort toward: 1) identifying the
               most significant gaps in data relating to the estuarine impacts
               described above and 2) developing a predictive numerical model
               for use by decision makers in assessing the impacts of existing
               and   proposed    coastal    land use on the state's estuarine
               resources. Such a model could also be used to support effluent
               limitations to meet water quality standards for primary nursery
               areas.

                    1.2.2 Wildlife

                         A wildlife habitat simulation was used to analyze the
                    consequences of large-scale peat mining on the Albemarle-Pamlico
                    Peninsula. A significant proportion of the currently existing
                    black bear and bobcat habitat will. be lost if extensive mining
                    takes place.

                         Field    validation    of   habitat suitability indices for
                    important species used in the simulation is needed. In addition,
                    linking of the spatial and temporal aspects of the wildlife
                    habitat simulation model is necessary to enable land managers to
                    evaluate the impacts of alternative land use decisions on
                    wildlife.

                    1.2.3 Upland Water Management

                         Extensive peat mining may increase annual runoff from the
                    mined areas by up to 30% above the pre-mining flow. As the mined
                    areas are reclaimed to agriculture and forestry, annual flows
                    will decrease or increase slightly from the pre-mining flow,
                    depending on the crops planted.

                         Impacts of drainage systems and seasonal pumping on the
                    location of the fresh/saltwater interface in estuarine areas are
                    not known.

                         The cumulative impacts of groundwater withdrawals for peat
                    processing   and    drainage    from mining sites are not well
                    understood.    However,    the   potential    exists for saltwater
                    intrusion into areas where peat is mined close to and below sea
                    level.

                         Further    research    is   needed in the following areas:
                    hydrology of undisturbed peatlands; nutrient transformation in
                    canal. and river networks; field measurement techniques and
                    modeling of surface runoff from actively mined sites; long-terra
                    effectiveness of wetland buffers for filtration of nutrients,
                    trace elements and sediments and for control of freshwater flow
                    rates; effectiveness of storage lakes in reducing negative
                    estuarine impacts of land drainage; and effects of peat mining
                    on   groundwater supplies,       including    the location of the
                    fresh/saltwater interface.

                         The data from the research listed above will provide input:
                    to an existing hydrological model estimating the effects of
                    alternative   upland    water management strategies on surface
                    runoff. The output from this model could provide input to an
                    estuarine model.

                                                     iv

               1.2.4 Hurricane Flooding

                    Approximately one-half to two-thirds of the Albemarle-
               Pamlico Peninsula is subject to flood inundation caused by wind
               tides having a 1% chance of being equalled or exceeded in any
               one year.

                    Hurricane tides may push saline water from the sounds up
               rivers and canals into low lying areas created by peat mining,
               damaging   areas    reclaimed to agriculture and forestry. In
               addition, the effects of hurricane flooding on shallow aquifers
               under such conditions is not known.

                    Rain  associated with hurricanes may accumulate in low lying
               areas faster than the capacity of pumps to remove it. Thus the
               potential also exists for freshwater damage to crop and forest
               land, depending on the duration of the flooding.

                    The recommended approach is to develop a new series-of,maps
               delineating flood susceptibility based on land elevations that
               would exist if substantial peat deposits were removed from the
               region.    Sediments   underlying the peat deposits should be
               examined   to    determine   their susceptibility to floodwater
               infiltration.

               1.2.5 Unique Natural Areas

                    Large-scale    peat   mining    on   the    peninsula will be
               accompanied by a loss of part of the state's largest and least
               disturbed wetland complex, and a large proportion of the area
               underlain by peat of depths greater than four feet. Some of
               these   areas    contain   prime Atlantic white cedar habitat.
               Extensive mining will remove a significant proportion of these
               unique areas and the biota they support.

                    An attempt should be made to determine if the peninsula
               contains   other    areas   that    are   unique    in    biological,
               hydrological, geological, pedological, chemical     or other natural
               aspects    and   worthy   of consideration for      preservation or
               protection.

               1.2.6 Air Quality

                    The cumulative effects of multiple source air pollutants
               (from peat harvesting and multiple stacks) from large-scale peat
               mining and processing on the peninsula are not known and should
               be monitored and modeled to assess potentially negative impacts.

                    In addition, refinement of emissions estimates is needed to
               determine whether fugitive dust emissions during peat mining and
               transport and storage of peat will have significant negative
               impacts if extensive mining occurs.

                                                V

                    1.2.7 Solid Waste

                          The capacity of potential disposal sites on the Albemarle-
                    Pamlico Peninsula to handle the volume of non-hazardous waste
                    that would be created by extensive processing of peat on the
                    peninsula is uncertain. Additional research on site selection
                    and evaluation for solid waste disposal is needed.

                          Impacts of onsite use of some of this waste, for example,
                    on roadbeds or for agricultural land treatment, are not well
                    documented.    Further    characterization of the properties of
                    leachates of peat combustion ashes is needed to adequately
                    evaluate the impacts of such practices.

                    1.2.8 Local Economics

                          Fiscal problems may arise when new residents (migrating to
                    the area to work in peat mining operations) locate outside the
                    political boundaries of local governments having the power to
                    tax   peat    mining facilites. Distributional aspects of tax
                    revenues and public services required may create deficits in
                    some cities and counties and surpluses in others. Short-term
                    fiscal problems may also arise where generated revenues lag
                    costs.

                          The development of two simulation models is recommended:
                    1) a model to address the impact of potential peat mining
                    facilities on tax rates and revenues and 2) a model to examine
                    the overall fiscal impacts Of Peat mining on state and local
                    government.

                          In addition, the economic consequences of large-scale peat
                    mining and other land conversion activities in coastal areas oil
                    the recreation, tourism and commercial and sport fishery sectors
                    should be examined.

                                                      Vi

                                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

                  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS    .........................................

              1. ABSTRACT     .................................................

                  1.1  Description of the Project      ...........................
                  1.2  Critical Impacts and Recommended Approaches           ..........  iii
                       1.2.1  Estuarine Impacts      ..............................      iii
                       1.2.2  Wildlife    .......................................        iv
                       1.2.3  Upland Water Management       ........................     iv
                       1.2.4  Hurricane Flooding     .............   9...............     v
                       1.2.5  Unique Natural Areas     ...........................        v
                       1.2.6  Air Quality   ....................................          v
                       1.2.7  Solid Waste   ....................................         vi
                       1.2.8  Local Economics     ................................       vi

                  TABLE OF CONTENTS      ........................................        vii

                  LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES      ..............     ................    xi

              2.  INTRODUCTION    .............................................           1

                  2.1  Origin and Background of the Study         ...................     1
                  2.2  Funding and Organization of the Study         ................     2
                  2.3  Tasks  ................................................            2
                  2.4  Study Area    ...........................................          3
                  2.5  Scope and Limitations of the Study         ...................     3
                  2.6  Abbreviations     ........................................         4
                  2.7  Use of the Term "Wetlands     .. ......................            4

              3. SUMMARY   .........  o ........................................          6

                  3.1  Affected Environment     ............  o  ....................     6
                       3.1.1 Biophysical En   v ironment   ....................    o ...  6
                       3.1.2 Socioeconomic Environment        ......................      6
                       3.1.3 Legal-institutional Environment         ................     7
                  3.2  Alternatives   .......................................         o.  8
                       3.2.1 No Change    .... o........................     o ........   8
                       3.2.2 Scenario #1: Currently Permitted Acreage           .......   8
                       3.2.3 Scenario #2: Upper Boundary         .....o ..............    8
                       3.2.4 Scenario #3: Industry Failure         ..................     9
                  3.3  Primary Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives            ....  9
                       3.3.1  Amount of Runoff     ................   o ..............    9
                       3.3.2  Wastewater Discharges .     .........................      10
                       3.3.3  Groundwater   ....................................         10
                       3.3.4  Hurricane Flooding      .............................      10
                       3.3.5  Air Quality   ....................................         11
                       3.3.6  Solid Waste   .........  o.........  o ................    11

                                                    Vii

                        3.4 Cumulative Environmental and Economic Impacts of the
                            Alternatives   .........................................    11
                            3.4.1  Agriculture  ....................................    11
                            3.4.2  Forest Products  ................................    11
                            3.4.3  Fish  ...........................................    12
                            3.4.4  Wildlife   .......................................   12
                            3.4.5  Recreation  .....................................    13
                            3.4.6  Amount of Surface water Runoff    .................  13
                            3.4.7  Nutrient Yields and Surface Water, Eutrophica-
                                   tion  ...........................................    14
                            3.4.8  Trace Element, Pesticide and Coliform
                                   Bacteria Yields  ................................    15
                            3.4.9  Groundwater  ....................................    15
                            3.4.10 Land Use Conversions     ..........................  15
                            3.4.11 Air Quality    ...................................   16
                            3.4.12 Solid Waste    ...................................   16
                            3.4.13  Fire  ..........................................    16
                            3.4.14  Local Economics and Employment     ................ 16
                        3.5 Summary of Critical Environmental and Economic
                            Impacts and Recommended Approaches     .................... 18
                            3.5.1  Estuarine Impacts  ..............................    18
                            3.5.2  Wildlife   .......................................   18
                            3.5.3  Upland Water Management    ........................  19
                            3.5.4  Hurricane Flooding   .............................   19
                            3.5.5  Unique Natural Areas    ...........................  20
                            3.5.6  Air Quality  ....................................    20
                            3.5.7  Solid Waste  ....................................    20
                            3.5.8  Local Economics  ................................    21
                        3.6 Non-significant Impacts   ..............................    21

                    4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT    .....................................    22

                        4.1 Biophysical Environment   ..............................    22
                            4.1.1  General Setting  ................................    22
                            4.1.2  Hydrology   ......................................   22
                            4.1.3  Fishery Resources  ..............................    29
                            4.1.4  Soils and Farmland   .............................   31
                            4.1.5  Forests  .........................................   31
                            4.1.6  Mineral and Energy Resources    ...................  32
                            4.1.7  Wildlife   .......................................   33
                            4.1.8'Parks, Refuges and Natural Areas      ............... 33
                        4.2 Socioeconomic Environment    ............................   36
                            4.2.1 Population   .....................................    36
                            4.2.2 Employment   .....................................    36
                            4.2.3  Income  .........................................    36
                            4.2.4  Economic Sectors   ...............................   36
                            4.2.5  Transportation Infrastructure    ..................  40
                        4.3 Legal-institutional Environment     ......................  41
                            4.3.1 Local and County Government     ....................  41
                            4.3.2 major Regulatory Controls     ......................  41
                               4.3.2.1 State Regulatory Controls     .................  41
                               4.3.2.2 Federal Regulatory Controls      ............... 43
                            4.3.3 Coun'Ly Responses   ...............................   45

                                                      Viii

              5. ALTERNATIVE PEAT MINING DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS            ............   47

                  5.1  Introductory Section     .................................        47
                  5.2  Alternatives    .........................................         48
                       5.2.1 No Change     ......................................        48
                       5.2.2 Scenario #1: Currently Permitted Acreage           .......  49
                       5.2.3 Scenario #2: Upper Boundary        ....................     78
                       5.2.4 Scenario #3: Industry Failure         ..................   102

              6. ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE SCENARIOS              ... 120

                6.1  Resource Production/Consumption        .......................     120
                     6.1.1  Agriculture     .....................................       120
                     6.1.2  Forest Products     .................................       1145
                     6.1.3  Fish   .....................    o ......................    147
                     6.1.4  Wildlife    ...........................      o............  151
                     6.1.5  Recreation          ....  o........ o ....o......   o....... 169
                6.2  Water    o ..................    o........ o ....... oo  ...... o... 171
                     6.2.1  Surface water    ............  o........  oo .............  171
                         6.2.1.1 Amount of Surface Water Runoff          .....  o....... 171
                         6.2.1.2 Nutrient Yields and Surface Water
                                   Eutrophication     ........-    ..... o...........  o185
                         6o2.lo3   Trace Element, Pesticide and Coliform
                                   Bacteria Yields ...     ........ o.........  o ... -.196
                     6.2.2 Groundwater .     ....................    oo ......  o....... 201
                     6.2.3 Hurricane flooding         .......o.............   oo ....... 205
                  6.3 Land Use Conversions      ..........  o .....                     206
                  6.4 Air Quality    ...... o  ........... o...
                  6.5 Solid Waste .    .....................................         o... 223
                  6.6 Fire ..  ...... o ..............   o .......... o.......  o ...... 227
                  6.7 Local Economics and Employment        ......  o.... o...... o  .... 231

              7.  EVALUATION PROCESS      ..........  o..o ............  **ee*ee,o**oo243

                  7.1  Estuarine Impacts     ........  o ........... o... o.o.o ....... 243
                  7.2  Wildlife    ...............................     o .... o ........ 260
                  7.3  Upland Water Management        ..............................    267
                       7.3.1  Hydrology of Existing Natural Conditions .......267
                       7.3.2  Nutrient Transformation in Canal and River
                              Networks    .........   --oo-e-e-            .....  ese-268
                       7o3.3  Improved Field Data and Modeling for Actively
                              Mined Areas     ..................................       o.269
                       7.3.4  Wet Reclamation and Perpetual Pumping          .......... 270
                       7.3.5  Wetland Filter Areas for Overland Treatment
                              of Runoff    ........   oo ... o................... o.oo.271
                       7.3.6  Effects of Peat Mining on Groundwater and
                              Saltwater Intrusion      ................   o...........  272
                  7.4  Hurricane Flooding             .......................   o.oo.o.274
                  7.5  Natural Area Inventory      .............   o..............   o..278
                  7.6  Air Quality    ......................................         o... 281
                  7.7  Solid Wastes     ...........   o...- .......................     285
                  7.8  Local Economics .    ..................................       o..288

              8. LIST OF PREPARERS      ....................    oo ...... oo-o-e-291

                                                      ix

                            9. REFERENCES          ...............................................                        29-3

                            10. APPENDICES          ..............................................                        308

                               10.1    Habitat Type/Land Use Data                 ...........................             30EI
                               10.2    Appendix for        Section 6.1.1: Agriculture                 ..............      31CI
                               10.3    Appendix for        Section 6.1.3: Fish             .....................          31EI
                               10.4    Appendix for        Section 6.1.4: Wildlife               .................        331
                               10.5    Appendix for        Section 6.2.1.1: Amount of Surface
                                       Water Runoff        .........................................                      374
                               10.6    Appendix for        Section 6.2.1.2: Nutrient Yields and
                                       Surface Water Eutrophication                  .........................            381-
                               10.7    Appendix for Section 6.2.1.3: Trace Element,
                                       Pesticide and Coliform Bacteria Yields                       ...............       385
                               10.8    Appendix for Section 6.4: Air Quality                       ................       388
                               10.9    Appendix for Section 6.7: Local Economics and
                                       Employment        ...........................................                      4041
                               10.10 Abbreviations Used in the Report                       ....................          416)

                                     LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

             FIGURES                                                                   PAGE

             Figure 2A:   Location map showing the Albemarle-Pamlico
                          Peninsula and the project study area: Hyde,
                          Tyrrell and Washington Counties        ..................      5

             Figure 4A:   Drainage divides and probable paths of overland
                          runoff prior to artificial drainage systems           ......  24

             Figure 4B:   Isopach map of peat deposits on the Albemarle-
                          Pamlico Peninsula      ................................       34

             Figure 4C:   State and federal lands on the Albemarle-Pamlico
                          Peninsula    ........................................         35

             Figure 4D:   Total population, 1980, and percentage change in
                          total population, 1970-80        ........................     37

             Figure 5A:   Scenario #1-- Acreage disturbed        ..................     50

             Figure 5B:   Scenario #I-- Currently Permitted Acreage           ........  51

             Figure 5C:   Generalized topographic map of the Albemarle-
                             Pamlico Peninsula     ..............................       54

             Figure 5D:   Area subject to flood inundation caused by wind
                             tides having a 1% chance of being equalled or
                             exceeded in any one year       .......................     68

             Figure 5E:   Schematic of typical wildlife buffer plan           ........  74

             Figure   5F: Scenario #2-- Acreage disturbed        ..................     79

             Figure   5G: Scenario #2-- Upper Boundary        .....................     80

             Figure   5H: Scenario #3-- Acreage disturbed        ..................    103

             Figure   6.2.1.1A: Scenario #1, Area 1-- Total annual flow           .... 175

             Figure   6.2.1.1B:   Scenario  #1,  Area   2-- Total annual flow     .... 176

             Figure   6.2.1.1C:   Scenario  #2,  Area   1-- Total  annual   flow  .... 177

             Figure   6.2.1.1D:   Scenario  #2,  Area   2-- Total  annual   flow  .... 178

             Figure   6.2.1.1E:   Scenario  #2,  Area   3-- Total  annual   flow  ....179

             Figure   6.2.1.1F:   Scenario  #2,  Area   4-- Total  annual   flow  .... 180

             Figure   6.2.1.1G:   Comparison of peak flows from a 320-acre
                                  block under three different land uses         ...... 181

                                                   xi

                      Figure 6.2.2A: Generalized hydro     geologic units in Scenario
                                       #1, Area 1    ..................................     @202

                      Figure 7.4A:   Area subject to flood inundation caused by wind
                                     tides having A, 50% chance of being equalled or
                                     exceeded in any one year; B, 1% chance of being
                                     equalled or exceeded in any one year        ........... 27@

                      Figure 7.6A:   Isopleths of annual average particulate concen-
                                     trations predicted to be added by peat-to-
                                     methanol conversion at a plant of the size of
                                     that postulated in Scenario #1       ................. 283

                      Figure 7.6B:   Isopleths of annual average particulate concen-
                                     trations predicted to be added by peat-to-
                                     methanol facilities the size of Scenario #2        .... 284:

                      Figure 10.6A: Box plots of phosphorus export coefficients
                                      from various land uses      ........................  383

                      Figure 10.6B: Box plots of nitrogen export coefficients from
                                      various land uses     .............................   384:

                      TABLES

                      Table 4A: Employment summary by industry groups by county,
                                 1960, 1970    ........................................      36:

                      Table 4B:  median family income by county, 1960, 1970         ........ 39

                      Table 4C:  Per capita personal income by county, 1970, 1975,
                                 1977   ..............................................       39

                      Table 4D:  Commercial fishing vessel licenses, pounds landed
                                 and dockside value by county, 1975-1980         ........... 40

                      Table 6.1.IA:   Value of mined areas reclaimed to row crops
                                      with pumped drainage at years 10 and 20
                                      (Run #1)   ......................................     122'.

                      Table 6.1.1B:   Value of mined areas reclaimed      to row crops
                                      with pumped drainage at years 10 and 20
                                      (Run #2)   ......................................     125

                      Table 6.1.1C:   Summary-- Value of mined areas reclaimed to
                                      agriculture with pumped drainage at years 10
                                      and 20 (Run #1)     ...............................   128

                      Table 6.1.1D:   Summary-- Value of mined areas reclaimed to
                                      agriculture with pumped drainage at years 10
                                      and 20 (Run #2)     ...............................   128

                                                          Xii

              Table 6.1.1E: Cumulative value of total acreage in row crops
                               with the mining projects (Run #1)         .............  129

              Table 6.1.1F:    Cumulative value of total acreage in row crops
                               without the mining projects (Run #1)          .......... 132

              Table 6.1.1G:    Cumulative value of total acreage in row crops
                               with the mining projects (Run #2)         .............  135

              Table 6.1.1H:    Cumulative value of total acreage in row crops
                               without the mining projects (Run #2)          .......... 138

              Table 6.1.11:    Summary-- Cumulative value of total acreage in
                               row crops with the mining projects (Run #1) ...141

              Table 6.1.11:    Summary-- Cumulative value of total acreage
                               in row crops without the mining projects
                               (Run #1)    ......................................       141

              Table 6.1.1K:    Summary-- Cumulative impact on row crop
                               agriculture with and without the projects
                               (Run #1) - Net income minus drainage costs           .... 142

              Table 6.1.IL:    Summary-- Cumulative value of total acreage in
                               row crops with the mining projects (Run #2) ...142

              Table 6.1.1M:    Summary-- Cumulative value of total acreage
                               in row crops without the mining projects
                               (Run #2)    ......................................       143

              Table 6.1.1N:    Summary-- Cumulative impact on row crop
                               agriculture with and without the projects
                               (Run #2) - Net income minus drainage costs           .... 143

              Table 6.1.2A:    Scenario #2 (Areas 1 and 3)-- Value of timber
                               harvested prior to peat mining         ................  146

              Table 6.1.2B:    Scenario #2-- Value of plantation pine if
                               harvested at year 20       ..........................    146

              Table 6.1.4A:    Scenario #1-- Total accrued annualized habitat
                               units at the end of the project period, with
                               and without the project       .......................    153

              Table 6.1.4B:    Scenario #1, Area 1-- Accrued annualized habi-
                               tat units at the end of the project period,
                               with and without the project, by species           ...... 154

              Table 6.1.4C:    Scenario #1, Area 2-- Accrued annualized habi-
                               tat units at the end of the project period,
                               with and without the project, by species           ...... 154

                                                   xiii

                     Table 6.1.4D:   Scenario        Average Habitat Suitability Index,
                                     by species, for the beginning and end of the
                                     project period, with and without the project ..155

                     Table 6.1.4E:   Scenario #2-- Total accrued annualized habitat
                                     units at the end of the project period, with
                                     and without the project     .......................   156

                     Table 6.1.4F:   Scenario #2, Area 1-- Accrued annualized habi-
                                     tat units at the end of the project period,
                                     with and without the project, by species       ...... 156

                     Table 6.1.4G:   Scenario #2, Area 2-- @%ccrued annualized habi-
                                     tat units at the end of the project period,
                                     with and without the project, by species       ...... 157

                     Table 6.1.4H:   Scenario #2, Area 3-- Accrued annualized habi-
                                     tat units at the end of the project period,
                                     with and without the project, by species       ...... 157

                     Table 6.1.41:   Scenario #2, Area 4-- @%ccrued annualized habi-
                                     tat units at the end of the project period,
                                     with and without the project, by species       ...... 158

                     Table 6.1.4J:   Scenario #2-- Average Habitat Suitability Index,
                                     by species, for the beginning and end of the
                                     project period, with and without the project ..159

                     Table 6.1.4K:   Scenario #3-- Total accrued annualized habitat
                                     units at the end of the project period, with
                                     and without the project     .......................   161

                     Table 6.1.4L:   Scenario #3, Area 1-- Accrued annualized habi-
                                     tat units at the end of the project period,
                                     with and without the project, by species       ...... 161

                     Table 6.1.4M:   Scenario #3, Area 2-- Accrued annualized habi-
                                     tat units at the end of the project period,
                                     with and without the project, by species       ...... 162

                     Table 6.1.4N:   Scenario #3-- Average Habitat Suitability Index,
                                     by species, for the beginning and end of the
                                     project period, with and without the project ..163

                     Table 6.1.5A:   Estimated changes in recreational value
                                     primarily hunting) based on a value of $36 per
                                     acre over 20 years     ............................   170

                     Table 6.2.1.lA: Annual flow totals generated from 20 years
                                       of simulation    ...............................    174

                     Table 6.2.1.2A: Concentrations (mg/1) of nutrients in runoff
                                       water from various land uses      ................  186

                                                         Xiv

             Table 6.2.1.2B: Areal yields (lb/acre.yr) of nutrients from
                               watersheds with various land uses      ........... 187

             Table 6.2.1.2C:   Total annual yields of nutrients from peat-
                               lands under the alternative scenarios       ....... 188

             Table 6.2.1.2D:   Nutrient loadings to lakes and lagoons       ...... 189

             Table 6.2.1.2E:   Nutrient loadings to estuaries      .............. 190

             Table 6.2.1.3A:   Total annual yields of three trace elements
                               in drainage waters from peatlands under
                               alternative scenarios     ........................ 197

             Table 6.2.1.3B:   Total annual yields of selected trace ele-
                               ments from wastewater effluent discharged by
                               methanol plants in the scenarios (lb/yr)      .... 198

             Table 6.2.1.3C:   Average fecal and total coliform bacteria
                               concentrations measured in drainage waters
                               from organic soil sites (no./lOOml)      ......... 198

             Table 6.3A:  Scenario #1, Areas 1 and 2-- Land use/land cover,
                          pre- and post-mining (% of total acreage)        ....... 208

             Table 6.3B:  Scenario #2, Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4-- Land use/land
                          cover, pre- and post-mining (% total acreage) ...208

             Table 6.4A:  Scenario #1, Area 1-- Fugitive dust emissions
                          from peat mining, transport and field pile
                          storage of peat for methanol production       ......... 215

             Table 6.4B:  Scenario #1, Area 1-- Criteria pollutant
                          emissions from a methanol plant processing
                          about 1,600 (dry) tons of peat per year       ......... 215

             Table 6.4C:  Scenario #1, Area I- Non-criteria pollutant
                          emissions from a methanol plant processing
                          about 1,600 (dry) tons of peat     per year   ......... 216

             Table 6.4D:  Scenario #1, Area 1-- Fugitive     particulate
                          analysis, maximum off-property     concentrations
                          from peat for methanol project     ..................  216

             Table 6.4E:  Scenario #1, Area 1-- Fugitive     particulate
                          analysis, maximum off-property     concentrations
                          from peat for methanol project     ..................  217

             Table 6.4F:  Scenario #1, Area 1-- Modeling     results: Maximum
                          off-property predicted concentrations from peat
                          for methanol project     ............................  218

             Table 6.5A:  Non-hazardous wastes from peat-to-methanol
                          conver3ion    ......................................   224

                                                xv

                      Table 6.5B: Hazardous wastes from peat-to-methanol
                                    conversion    ......................................      224

                      Table 6.6A:   Cause of fire (Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington
                                    Counties)   .......................................       227

                      Table 6.6B:   Size of fire (Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington
                                    Counties)   .......................................       228

                      Table 6.7A:   Scenario #1, Area 1-- Long-run impacts of
                                    525,000 (dry) ton methanol plant        ................  232

                      Table 6.7B:   Scenario #1, Area 1-- Long-run direct plus
                                    indirect impacts of 525,1300 (dry) ton methanol
                                    plant   ...........................................       232

                      Table 6.7C:   Scenario #1, Area 1-- Short-run impacts of
                                    525,000 (dry) ton methanol plant        ................  233

                      Table 6.7D:   Scenario #2, Area 1 & 3-.- Long-run direct plus
                                    indirect impacts of methanol plants processing
                                    4.1 million (dry) tons of peat        ..................  233

                      Table 6.7E:   Scenarios #1 and #2, Areas 1,2 and 4-- Estimated
                                    employment for horticultural peat and peat for
                                    fuel   ............................................       234

                      Table 10.1A:   Scenarios #1 and #3-- Approximate acreages of
                                     peatland by habitat type/land use category at
                                     year 0   ................    .........................   308

                      Table 10.IB:   Scenario #2-- Approximate acreages of peatland
                                     by habitat type/land use category at year 0          ....

                      Table 10.5A:   Scenario #1, Area 1: Acreage by land use
                                     categories for the 20 year study period          ......... 375

                      Table 10.5B:   Scenario #1, Area 2: Acreage by land use
                                     category   for the 20 year study period      ..........  376

                      Table 10.5C:   Scenario   #2, Area 1: Acreage by land use
                                     category   for the 20 year study period      ..........  377

                      Table 10.5D:   Scenario   #2, Area 2: Acreage by land use
                                     category   for the 20 year study period      ..........  378

                      Table 10.5E:   Scenario   #2, Area 3: Acreage by land use
                                     category   for the 20 year study period      ..........  379

                      Table 10.5F:   Scenario   #2, Area 4: Acreage by land use
                                     category   for the 20 year study period      ..........  380

                                                          xvi

               Table 10.6A: Land use acreages used in calculations for
                             sections 6.2.1.2 and 6.2.1.3    ................... 381

               Table 10.6B:  General ranges of primary productivity of
                             phytoplankton of lakes of different trophic
                             categories   ..................................... 382

               Table 10.8A:  National Ambient Air Quality Standards     ......... 392

               Table 10.8B:  Maximum allowable increases under Prevention of
                             Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations     .... 393

               Table 10.10A: Abbreviations used in the report     .............. 416

                                                 xvii

            2. INTRODUCTION

            2.1 origin and Background of the Study

                  The Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula of North Carolina lies in a
            region characterized by low surface elevations, a water table
            that lies close to the surface and extensive wetlands (Heath,
            1975). The peninsula contains about 582 square miles (373,000
            acres) of peat deposits that occur in shallow depressions to a
            depth of 10 feet and in narrow former stream channels to a depth
            of 16 feet (Ingram and Otte, 1982).

                  During the past 10 to 20 years, increasing concerns in the
            United States relating to energy sources and availability have
            led to heightened interest in the potential of peat as a fuel.
            North Carolina peat is characterized by low ash and sulfur
            contents (usually less than 10% and 0.5%, respectively) and a
            high heating value (median heating value: 10,200 Btu/lb) (Ingram
            and Otte, 1981). Its quality is thus high as a fuel for direct
            combustion. The low bulk density of peat, however, renders the
            economic feasibility of transporting it any significant distance
            questionable. Other potential uses of peat include chemical
            feedstock for the production of methanol, benzene, peat coke,
            activated carbon, synthetic gas and gasoline, tars and phenols;
            absorbent; and insulating material (Ingram and Otte, 1981).

                  In response to growing interest in peat mining, the North
            Carolina    Department    of   Natural   Resources    and Community,
            Development (NRCD) organized a task force in December 1980 to
            review the status of peat mining activities in the state,
            evaluate the adequacy of state government's management of this
            activity, and recommend actions to be taken by NRCD.

                  Four peat mining permits had been issued for areas located
            on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula, as of April, 1984. These
            permits cover 22,960 acres in Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington
            Counties. Mining for horticultural peat is already occurring on
            a small scale and a 300-acre experimental mine has been operated
            since 1978 to test mining equipment and methods.

                  After studying the legal and regulatory aspects of peat
            mining, the Peat Mining Task Force (1983) concluded that the
            state has an adequate framework for the management of peat
            mining through provisions of the Mining Act of 1971 and permits
            for water use, wastewater discharge, air quality management and
            coastal development. However, in its analysis, the Task Force
            cited    the urgent need for additional research and policy
            development on the long-term cumulative effects of peat mining
            and related land conversion operations as those activities
            become widespread in the coastal region. The cumulative impacts
            of multiple mining and related developments are believed likely
            to extend beyond the scope of regulatory permits applied to
            individual establishments. In response to the issues raised by
            the task force, the Cumulative Impacts of Peat Mining Project
            was initiated in June, 1984.

                                              1

                         This study is part of an ongoing effort by the North
                   Carolina    Department    of    Natural   Resources    and Community
                   Development, federal agencies concerned with natural resource
                   management, such as EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
                   the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, scientists and industry to
                   identify significant negative impacts of land conversion in
                   coastal areas and to develop means for avoiding or mitigating
                   such    impacts.    For   example, the Governor's Coastal Water,
                   Management Task Force was established in 1981 to assess and seek
                   resolutions to conflicts between the interests of those involved
                   with agriculture and forestry, in clearing and draining coastal.
                   land, and the interests of those concerned with fisheries and
                   wildlife, in maintaining productive saline nursery areas and.
                   wildlife    habitat.    The   task force has made a number of
                   recommendations to the Governor toward this goal (1982, 1984),
                   some of which have already been implemented. The impacts of
                   large-scale coastal land conversion to agriculture have been
                   further explored in a draft environmental impact statement
                   prepared    by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
                   District (1982), in response to an application by Prulean Farms,
                   Inc. for a Section 404 permit to place excavated materials in
                   wetlands as part of a project to clear and drain areas for
                   agricultural operations in Dare County.

                   2.2 Funding and Organization of the Study

                        The Cumulative Impacts of Peat Mining Project was financed
                   through a Coastal Energy Impact Program grant provided by the
                   North    Carolina   Coastal    Management Program, through funds
                   provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended,
                   which is administered by the office of Coastal Management,
                   National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The project was
                   administered by the Water Resources Research Institute of The
                   University of North Carolina. Project Coordinator Dr. David
                   Adams of the Department of Forestry, North            Carolina State
                   University, directed the efforts of a research team consisting
                   of   faculty    and    staff members from North       Carolina State
                   University, the University of North Carolina          at Chapel Hill,
                   East Carolina University and Duke University (see     section 8).

                   2.3 Tasks

                        The one-year project was charged with four tasks:

                     1. Construct alternative 20-year peat mining development
                        scenarios (Alternative Scenarios).

                     2. Identify and assess the probable environmental and economic
                        impacts associated with the alternative peat mining
                        development scenarios (Environmental Assessment).

                                                     2

               3.  Identify critical impacts that should be addressed in an
                   evaluation plan (Scoping Process).

               4.  Design a real time evaluation process to address the
                   critical cumulative impacts identified in the scoping
                   process, reviewing existing monitoring programs and
                   identifying specific needs for further research
                   (Evaluation Process).

              2.4 Study Area

                   The primary study area for Tasks 1 and 2 (see sections 5
              and 6) of the project encompassed Washington, Tyrrell and Hyde
              Counties (Figure 2A); however, when cumulative impacts were
              believed to affect an area larger than these three counties, the
              study area   was enlarged. For Tasks 3 and 4 (see section 7), the
              study area   was expanded to include Dare County and the scope of
              the    study  was    expanded to include other forms of land
              conversion,  when effects of other land conversion activities
              (e.g., large-scale agriculture and silviculture) were believed
              to be similar to impacts of peat mining.

              2.5 Scope and Limitations of the Study

                   In assessing the cumulative impacts of each scenario, the
              project's research team members have made and stated additional
              reasonable assumptions as necessary to conduct their analyses.
              In some cases the assumptions made by team members have not been
              identical. Attempts have been made to ensure that assumptions
              made are not contradictory; however, because of the extremely
              short time frame of the project, it was not possible to revise
              analyses to render all assumptions identical.

                   Analyses   performed    and    conclusions    reached    in the
              environmental assessment (section 6) are admittedly based on
              insufficient data and inadequate models. The team elected to
              proceed   as   far    as   possible within project constraints,
              acknowledging that much of their work would be subject to
              professional   criticism    but believing that state-of-the-art
              analyses with existing data bases, yielding concrete results,
              were preferable to generalizations, rationalizations and delays.
              Thus   the   conclusions discussed here should be viewed as
              preliminary best estimates. Hopefully, the weaknesses in data
              and methodology exposed in this work will lead to improvements
              in   the   environmental assessment process and to a better
              understanding of the biophysical and socioeconomic processes
              operative in the project area.

                                                3

                  2.6 Abbreviations

                       Abbreviations used in this report are listed in Appendix
                  10.10.

                  2.7 Use of the Term "Wetlands"

                      .Except where otherwise noted, the term "wetlands" is used
                  in  this report in a general ecological sense, and does not imply
                  any particular regulatory meaning.

                                                 4

                                                                                                          CUrrItUck
                         NORTH CAROLINA

                                                                           ALB EMARLE
                       Z@@@f                                                               SO(JIVO
                           VICINITY MAP

                                                      WASHINGTO
                                                                          TYRREL
                                                               Phelps                         DARE
                                                           u
                                                           unq
                                                            qg

                                                                     Ne

                                               BEAUFORT                               HYDE

                                                                                  wee
                                             Pa                             allamutWe
                                                 ird

                                           IN,

                                                                                                       Hatteras
                                    10 Miles                                                              Inlet

                                                                                          Ocracoke
                                                                                           \ Inlet

                         Figure 2A:     Location map showing the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula and the project s
                                        llyde, Tyrrell and Washington Counties

                  3. SUMMARY

                  3.1 Affected Environment

                  3.1.1 Biophysical Environment

                       The Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula is a low lying, tidewater
                  region bordered by two sounds, Albemarle and Pamlico, and arl
                  estuarine river, the Pamlico (see Figure 2A). The area is
                  characterized by poorly integrated coastal streams, deep organic
                  soils, extensive swamps, marshes and evergreen wetlands, and a.
                  low astronomical tidal range.

                       Drainage projects aimed at lowering the water table and
                  removing surface water in peatlands on the peninsula have been
                  undertaken to enhance agricultural and lumbering operations
                  since the late 1700s. The historical development of drainage
                  systems in the area has been documented by Heath (1975), Lilly
                  (1981), Richardson (1981, 1983) and McMullan (1984). Drainage
                  patterns have thus been altered over the years by a widespread
                  system of canals, ditches and associated roads.

                       Approximately 20% of the land area on the peninsula was
                  cultivated in 1978-79. Forests cover roughly 70% of the area.
                  Most forested areas occur on deep organic soils.

                       The   peninsula contains approximately 582 square miles
                  (373,000 acres) of peat deposits ranging in depth to 16 feet.
                  The volume of these peat resources has been estimated at 278
                  million (dry) tons.

                       The Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula is considered one of the
                  most productive areas in the state in terms of the richness of
                  its wildlife resources. Four National Wildlife Refuges, a state
                  park and a state gameland are located on the peninsula.

                       Pamlico Sound and its tributaries constitute the most
                  productive fisheries resource in North Carolina.

                       The air quality on the peninsula meets or exceeds that
                  required by national air quality standards, and the peninsula
                  has been designated a Prevention of Significant Deterioration
                  (PSD) area.

                  3.1.2 Socioeconomic Environment

                       The Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula is sparsely populated and
                  has few cities and towns. The rE?gional growth rate is 5.1%,
                  one-third of the state growth rate fox: 1970-80.

                                                 6

                   Agriculture,    forestry    and   fishing have traditionally
              dominated economic activity on the peninsula; however, in recent
              years the composition of the labor force has shifted toward
              employment in the industrial and service sectors.
                   Median family income for Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington
              Counties in 1970 ranged from $4,000 to $7,000 per year. In 1970,
              24-38% of the families in the three counties fell below the
              poverty line.

                   Commercial fishing in the three counties produced fish and
              shellfish   worth    $4.5 million in 1980, while agricultural
              products were estimated at $42.3 million. Forestry output in
              1982 was approximately $3.9 million.

                   Highway access in the region is good east-west and limited
              north-south. Water access is good via the sounds and the
              Intracoastal Waterway (IWW), which bisects'the peninsula. Rail
              access is available only at the western end of the region. No
              petroleum product pipelines exist in the area, and Dare and
              Tyrrell Counties have no natural gas service.

              3.1.3 Legal-institutional Environment

                   The   major    state regulatory tool for the control of
              environmental impacts of peat mining is the Mining Act of 1971.
              Other state laws mandating regulation and permitting of certain
              aspects of peat mining include the Water Use Act of 1967
              (groundwater withdrawals in excess of 100,000 gallons per day in
              a designated capacity use area) and the Coastal Area Management
              Act of 1971 (development in designated Areas of Environmental
              Concern).

                   The   scope    of   federal jurisdiction over peat mining
              activities   is    established by the Clean Water Act (NPDES
              permitting of wastewater discharges, which is administered by
              the   state,   and    Section    404 dredge and fill permitting
              administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), the Clean Air
              Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered
              Species Act.

                   Possible county responses to peat mining include local
              environmental impact statements, adoption of land use ordinances
              requiring   county    mining permits, and severance taxes (if
              authorized by state enabling legislation).

                                                7

                   3.2 Alternatives

                   3.2.1 No Change

                         The no change alternative assumes that no peat mining
                   occurs on the permitted area and that the area is not developed
                   further for any other use during the 20-year period of study.

                   3.2.2 Scenario #1: Currently Permitted Acreage

                         Scenario #1 is based as much as possible on the plans of
                   peat mining permit holders or companies that have submitted peat
                   mining applications for land located in the study area. When no
                   specific plans were available for a particular aspect of the
                   scenario, "reasonable" assumptions were made.

                         In this scenario, 22,690 acres are permitted for peat
                   mining and 17,360 acres are actually mined in two areas over a
                   period of 20 years (see Figures 5A and 5B). By year 20, 12,480
                   acres have been reclaimed, primarily to row crop agriculture
                   requiring pumping (to maintain acceptable canal water levels).
                   Ten percent of the reclaimed land has been re-established to
                   native vegetation and 10% has been reclaimed to low intensity
                   managed forests (pine plantations).

                         Minimum elevations of mined areas range from 1 to 12 feet
                   above mean sea level, depending on original surface elevation
                   and depth of the peat deposit.

                         Annual volume of peat mined in Scenario #1 (Areas 1 and 2)
                   averages 665,000 dry tons, or 1.1 million tons at 40% moisture.
                   Seventy-five percent of this peat is converted to methanol, 21%
                   is exported as peat for industrial use (as fuel), and 4% is
                   exported as horticultural peat.

                   3.2.3 Scenario #2: Upper Boundary

                         Scenario #2 assumes that most peat deposits greater than or
                   equal to four feet in depth in the study area are mined during
                   the 20-year period (see Figures 5F and 5G). Exceptions are
                   deposits within one-half mile of open water.
                         Four   mining   areas    are   outlined    based on drainage
                   characteristics and geographical location. Areas 1 and 2 of this
                   scenario are expansions of Areas I and 2 in Scenario #1. Areas 3
                   and 4 of Scenario #2 are areas for which no mining permit
                   applications    have   been    submitted to date, but in which
                   substantial peat deposits are located.

                         Scenario #2 is based entirely on assumption and does not
                   represent the stated plans of any peat mining industry or
                   landowner in the study area.

                                                     8

                   By year 20, 84,000 acres have been mined and 68,600 acres
             reclaimed, primarily to row crop agriculture requiring pumping
             and to open water. At least 10% of each area has been reclaimed
             to native vegetation and at least 10% to low intensity managed
             forest (pine   plantations).

                   Minimum elevations of mined areas range from 4 feet above
             to 9 feet      below mean sea level, depending on surface elevation
             and depth of   the peat deposit.
                   Annual   volume of peat mined in all four areas of Scenario
             #2 averages    approximately 2.1 million dry   tons (3.5 million tons
             at 40% moisture) at year 10 and 6.6 million dry tons (11 million
             tons at 40% moisture) at year 20. By year 20, 63% of the peat
             mined is being converted to methanol, 35% is exported as peat
             for    industrial    use    (as   fuel),    and 2% is exported as
             horticultural peat.

             3.2.4 Scenario #3: Industry Failure

                   Scenario #3 is based on Scenario #1, with assumptions for
             years 1 through 10 identical in the two scenarios (see Figures
             5B and 5H). In the third scenario, however, the peat mining
             industry fails at year 10. Acreage mined through year 8 is
             reclaimed according to schedule, but acreage mined in the last 2
             years is abandoned. All pumping ceases at year 10, and by year
             20, all mined and reclaimed acreage has flooded.

                   The course of events outlined in Scenario #3 between years
             11 and 20 is based entirely on assumption.

             3.3 Primary Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives

             3.3.1 Amount of Runoff

                   In all scenarios, runoff from a 2,000-acre mining block
             will increase from 1,046 million gallons per year (mgy) to 1,336
             mgy during mining, and then decrease to 808 mgy on lands
             reclaimed to agriculture.

                   In Scenario #3, between years 11 and 20, drainage ditches
             will become clogged with sediment and debris. All mined acreage
             will gradually become flooded, remaining open water or becoming
             swamp. Total annual runoff for both areas (Scenario #3) by year
             20    will   be    roughly    equivalent    to rainfall minus lake
             evaporation. When the water level of the lakes becomes high
             enough, the runoff will flow overland in a direction determined
             by the slope of the land.

                                                9

                   3.3.2 Wastewater Discharges

                        Wastewater discharges from the methanol. plant (Area 1) in
                   Scenario #1 will average 870,000 gallons per day. Discharges,
                   will be the same in Scenario #3, but will cease at year 10.

                        Average daily wastewater discharges from methanol plants in.
                   Area 1 and 3 (Scenario #2) will reach 3.1 to 4.1 million gallons
                   per day by year 20.

                   3. 3. 3 Groundwater

                        For    all   scenarios, in areas where peat is removed,
                   groundwater levels will decline by the depth of peat mined.
                   Re-establishment of vegetation will cause the groundwater level
                   to   drop    an    additional   foot. 'In Scenario #3, surficial
                   groundwater    levels    will   return   to pre-mining conditions
                   following failure of the industry and cessation of pumping.

                        No perceptible change in recharge to the Castle Hayne
                   Aquifer will occur as a result of peat mining in the permitted
                   areas in any scenario.

                        No significant lateral movement in the fresh/saltwater
                   interface in the aquifers underlying any area of the scenarios
                   will occur as a result of mining or processing operations.

                        In Scenario #2, Area 1, localized upconing of brackish
                   water may occur at production wells if groundwater is withdrawn
                   from the Castle Hayne Aquifer. In Area 3, localized upconing of
                   brackish water may occur at production wells if groundwater is
                   pumped from the Yorktown or Tertiary Sand Aquifer.

                   3.3.4 Hurricane Flooding

                        Area   1    (all scenarios) is not susceptible to flood
                   inundation caused by wind tides having a 1% chance of being
                   equalled   or   exceeded     in any one year (see Figure 5D).
                   Approximately 50% of Area 2 (all scenarios) is susceptible to
                   such flooding in the absence of protective barriers.

                        For Areas 3 and 4 (Scenario #2), approximately 75% and 100%
                   of   the   land area, respectively, is susceptible to flood
                   inundation caused by wind tides having a 1% chance of being
                   equalled or exceeded in any one year (in the absence of
                   protective barriers).

                                                    10

              3.3.5 Air Quality
                   State air quality standards for particulates will not be
              exceeded by the mining or processing operations in any of the
              scenarios if adequate buffer strips and appropriate spacing of
              methanol plants (as determined by computer simulations) are
              instituted and necessary mitigative measures are used.

              3.3.6 Solid Waste
                   In   Scenario    #1   (and Scenario #3 through year 10),
              approximately 851,000 cubic feet per year of non-hazardous waste
              and 1,000 cubic feet per year of hazardous waste will be
              generated in Area 1. Mining operations in Area 2 will not
              generate any significant amount of waste material.
                   In Scenario #2, approximately 7 million cubic feet per year
              of   non-hazardous waste and 8,200 cubic feet per year of
              hazardous waste will be generated by year 20 in Areas 1 and 3.
              Mining operations in Areas 2 and 4 will not generate significant
              amounts of waste material.

              3.4 Cumulative Environmental and Economic Impacts of the
                   Alternatives

              3.4.1 Agriculture
                   Net annual    income (minus drainage cost and based on the
              prices stated in   the assumptions in section 6.1.1.1.1) resulting
              from reclamation of mined lands to agriculture in both areas of
              Scenario #1 is     estimated at $232,000 - $677,000 at year 20. in
              all four areas     of Scenario #2, net annual income from row crop
              reclamation of mined lands is estimated at $1.1 - $3.3 million
              at   year   20.    For   both areas in Scenario #3, increased
              agricultural production due to reclamation will produce a net
              annual income of $36,000 - $107,000 at year 10, after which
              pumping ceases and all mined lands gradually become flooded.
                   Cumulative impacts of the mining projects under Scenarios
              #1 and #2 will be a net gain of between $2.9 and $6.9 million or
              $9.1 and $22 million, respectively, to the local agricultural
              economy over the 20-year period. Under Scenario #3, the local
              agricultural economy will lose between $114,000 and $278,000.

              3.4.2 Forest Products
                   The peat mining and reclamation activities outlined in the
              scenarios will have no significant negative economic impact on
              the forestry production value of the study area. However,
              removal of large areas of deep peats will result in the loss of

                                                11

                   a significant proportion of the state's prime Atlantic white
                   cedar habitat.

                   3.4.3 Fish

                        Impacts on the fisheries of Area I (all scenarios), will be
                   related to    reduction of stream flows during much of the year in
                   the canals    and low order streams that provide fish habitat in
                   this area.    Accelerated removal of waters in late winter and
                   spring may    limit migration and spawning of some species, but no
                   significant   effects on anadromous species in this area or on the
                   fisheries of Lake Phelps or Pungo Lake are anticipated unless
                   greater seepage from the lakes oc-curs or there is increased
                   sedimentation     due    to    wind   blown   material.     Increased
                   sedimentation due to wind blown material could be a significant
                   problem to Lake Phelps since the present level.s of suspended
                   residue in this lake are extremely low.

                        Impacts in Area 2 (all scenarios) will be similar to those
                   in Area 1. Effects on Lake Mattamuskeet fisheries will be
                   negligible.    However,   increased    freshwater    flows   to the
                   Intracoastal  Waterway and to Pamlico Sound via the Pungo River
                   and Albemarle Sound via the Alligator River in periods of high
                   flows and reduced flows and seepage during low flow periods may
                   adversely affect estuarine nursery areas. Increased nutrients in
                   drainage waters and siltation due to high volume water movements
                   may also impact nursery areas.

                        Impacts   on    fisheries   due to mining and reclamation
                   activities in Areas 3 and 4 (Scenario #2) are not known.

                        The   abandonment of mining areas in Scenario #3 will
                   probably result in the development of fish populations similar
                   to those of Pungo Lake, depending upon size, depth and quality
                   of the water bodies created. Abandoned drainage canals may be
                   used by anadromous and catadromous 1-ish, depending on flows and
                   the extent of clogging in the canals.

                   3.4.4 Wildlife

                        Of the ten species evaluated, pine warblers and hairy
                   woodpeckers   will    sustain   the    greatest   overall     habitat
                   degradation (generally 50-60%) under conditions created by the
                   scenarios. However, both species are relatively common, widely
                   distributed and tolerant of human activity. Thus no population
                   of either species will be jeopardized.

                        Black bears and bobcats will sustain proportionately less
                   loss (generally 20-40%). These species are much more narrowly
                   distributed,   and    the   bear is particularly intolerant of
                   disturbance and human activity.

                                                    12

                   The marsh rabbit, widely distributed through the lower
              Coastal Plain, will be moderately, though variably, impacted by
              peat    mining   and    reclamation    activities    created by the
              alternative scenarios.

                   Whitetail deer and the great horned owl will be only
              .slightly affected by mining activity, except in Area 4 of
              Scenario    #2, where residential development and open water
              reclamation will decrease available habitat.

                   Species    benefitting     from   the mining and reclamation
              activities will include muskrat, bobwhite and mourning dove.

              3.4.5 Recreation

                   Lost recreational hunting value over the 20-year mining
              period due to land conversion in Scenario #1 is estimated at
              roughly $513,000 (based on a $5.00 value per hunting trip and
              assuming that croplands are not accessible to hunters).

                   For Scenario #2 (all areas) lost recreational hunting value
              over the 20-year mining period is estimated at approximately
              $2.6 million.

              3.4.6 Amount of Surface Water Runoff

                   The average annual total flow over the 20-year mining
              period in Area 1, Scenario #1, will not vary by more than about
              5% from the pre-mined condition. A slight steady decline in the
              total annual water loss from the area will occur as the
              proportion    of the area reclaimed in row crops increases.
              However, a slight increase in runoff will follow the abandonment
              of the large area of temporary evaporation ponds (2550 acres) in
              favor of the smaller permanent lake (1450 acres).

                   In Area 2 (Scenario #1) the initial increase in total
              annual flows will be greater than for Area 1 because there will
              be no storage lake. Once the maximum disturbed area has been
              reached, total flows will level off as the area of reclaimed
              land    slowly   increases.    Once all mined acreage has been
              reclaimed, the average flow will drop to close to or below
              pre-mining levels, depending on crops planted and drainage
              systems installed.

                   In both areas of Scenario #1, the major factor controlling
              the occurrence of floods will be the capacity of the pumps
              removing water from the canal system to the lakes (Area 1) and
              the Intracoastal Waterway (Area 2). If water can not be pumped
              into the deep storage available in the lake (Area 1) at a high
              enough rate during high rainfall events, the canals may be
              breached, causing flooding. However, because of the low lying
              aspect of the mi,ied land in relation to the surrounding terrain,
              the flooding involved should remain localized for most events.

                                                 13

                   The lowered elevations due to mining will increase the capacity
                   to store water on the surface; therefore, the occurrence of
                   downstream    flooding should be reduced from the pre-mining
                   condition for all scenarios and areas except for Canal B in Area
                   1. The volume of flow in Canal B (draining Area 1) will increase
                   throughout the life of the peat mine until all the flow from the
                   15,000-acre area is routed through the lake to Canal B. The
                   increased flow in the canal will increase the risk of downstream
                   flooding as the storage capacity of the canal is reduced. Canal
                   B will have to be considerably deepened and maintained to ensure
                   rapid removal of water and to lessen -the risk of flooding.

                        For Scenario #2, all areas, annual flow during the       20-year
                   mining period will be less than 3019 above the pre-mining flow.
                   With the exception of Area 1, the flows will increase with
                   increased   acreage    in active mining, then hold relatively
                   constant until the mining area is gradually reclaimed and flows
                   decline. In all areas the flow in year 20 will be significantly
                   reduced from the during mining condition and should be close to
                   or below the pre-mining flow levels as a result of higher
                   evapotranspiration and lower flows from the areas reclaimed to
                   agriculture and forestry. In Area I (Scenario #2) annual flows
                   will remain closer to the pre-mining condition because of
                   controlled releases through and evaporation from the lake. Storm
                   peaks will be substantially reduced, assuming no lake or canal
                   over-topping.

                        Residential areas in Area 4 (Scenario #2) will experience
                   high surface runoff, counterbalancing the flow-reducing effect
                   of the bodies of water created as part of the reclamation plan
                   and resulting in annual flows similar to those of Areas 2 and 3.

                        Annual flows for Scenario #3 will be the same as Scenario
                   #1 for years 1 through 10. Upon cessation of pumping, canal dams
                   will be broken and all maintenance of-.' canals and dikes will end,
                   creating a swamp/lake area covering all mined and reclaimed
                   areas by year 20. The volume and distribution of runoff from
                   these areas will depend upon the changing nature of the outlets,
                   availability of water storage on the surface of mined areas and
                   the type and density of revegetation. Assuming that the water
                   levels     remain     high    enough . to      satisfy      potential
                   evapotranspiration (PET) at all times, the water available for
                   runoff will be approximately equal to rainfall minus PET.

                   3.4.7 Nutrient Yields and Surface WatE!r Eutrophication

                        The   peat mining, methanol production and agricultural
                   reclamation in the scenarios may have an adverse impact on water
                   quality.   The   natural vegetation yields less nitrogen and
                   phosphorus per unit area than other land uses, usually by a
                   large factor; therefore conversion to other uses will result in
                   loss of nutrients to downstream aquatic systems. The lagoons and
                   lakes into which runoff and effluents run or are pumped will
                   probably become unacceptably eutrophic. Unless these lagoons and

                                                    14

              buffer wetland systems efficiently remove nutrients from the
              water as it passes through, there will also be substantial
              nutrient    loading   of    the Pungo and Alligator Rivers and
              consequent eutrophication.

              3.4.8 Trace Element, Pesticide and Coliform Bacteria Yields

                   Peat    mining   and subsequent reclamation activities as
              described in the scenarios are likely to significantly increase
              trace metals, pesticides and coliform bacteria in runoff from
              permitted areas. Impacts of such increases presently are not
              fully known, but, should they occur, are likely to result from
              the cumulative effects of a variety of trace metals, pesticides,
              nutrients and other substances.

              3.4.9 Groundwater

                   The alternative scenarios will have a negligible effect on
              the recharge and yield of the major aquifers and on the
              fresh/saltwater    interface.    However, the effects of direct
              groundwater withdrawals for plant processing and the cumulative
              effects of direct withdrawals and peat mining are not known. The
              potential exists for saltwater intrusion into areas where peat
              is mined close to and below sea level.

              3.4.10 Land Use Conversions

                   The major land use change due to Scenario #2 will be the
              loss   of    large    tracts of natural, relatively undisturbed
              wetlands. Approximately 41% (84,000 acres) of the wetlands
              underlain by peat at least four feet in thickness in the state
              will be lost under Scenario #2. The mining of 68,000 acres of
              pocosins    (undisturbed    and disturbed) in Scenario #2 will
              constitute a loss of 4.5% of the total remaining pocosins and
              7.8% of the undisturbed pocosins in North Carolina. Since the
              wetland system of the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula constitutes
              the state's largest and least disturbed wetland complex, the
              elimination    of 84,000 acres from this system will be of
              significance.

                   Agricultural land will increase from 9.6% to 28.2% of the
              total acreage in Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington Counties by year
              20 under Scenario #2.

                                                 15

                   3.4.11 Air Quality

                        Fugitive dust emissions during peat mining, transport and
                   storage will probably be a more serious concern than emissions
                   from methanol plants because of greater particulate emission
                   rates, the occurrence of peat harvesting in all areas (Scenaric
                   #2) and the possibility of emissions immediately adjacent to the
                   mining area boundary.

                        The cumulative impacts of multiple source air pollutants
                   due to expansion of peat mining and processing operations are
                   unknown.

                   3.4.12 Solid Waste

                        Leachates   from gasification ashes and slags from the
                   methanol plants in the scenarios are not likely to exceed EPA
                   toxicity criteria, due to the relatively low concentrations of
                   most heavy metals in the source peat.

                        The high temperature and oxidizing environment of the
                   gasification stream is unlikely to produce significant amounts
                   of such substances as tars, oils, phenolics and polynuclear
                   aromatic hydrocarbons which are the hazardous by-products of
                   most concern in many synfuels and gasification facilities.

                        Large volumes of solid wastes will be generated during
                   conversion of peat to methanol in Scenario #2. Capacity of
                   potential disposal sites on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula to
                   handle this volume is uncertain. Inapacts of onsite use of some
                   of this waste during reclamation to agriculture and forestry are
                   not known.

                   3.4.13 Fire

                        The frequency of small fires will increase if large-scale
                   peat mining (as de8cribed in Scenario #2) occurs, due to
                   increased accessibility of the mined areas to human activity.
                   The larger, less easily controlled fires will decrease in
                   number, since fewer large blocks of open, undisturbed land will
                   remain after mining.

                   3.4.14 Local Economics and Employment

                        Peat mining and processing as outlined in the alternative
                   scenarios will lead to increased employment of local workers,
                   migration of new workers and their families into the study 4rea,
                   stimulation of local businesses, dE!mand for new businesses and
                   public services, such as education, and increased employment in
                   the service sector.

                                                   16

                   Long-run fiscal problems may arise in cases where a local
              government must provide expanded services and facilities but is
              unable to tax the new facilities. This is a spillover problem
              where new residents locate outside the political boundaries of
              the local governments having the power to tax the facility.
              Distributional aspects of tax revenues and services required may
              create deficits in some cities and counties and surpluses in
              others. Even if long-run benefits exceed costs, short-run fiscal
              problems may arise where revenues generated lag cost incidence.
                   To the extent that peat mining adversely affects the
              commercial fishing and recreation/tourism industries, the value
              of these economic sectors will decline.
                   Assuming the smaller peat-to-methanol facility described in
              Scenario #1 (Area 1) attracts the labor that is available
              locally, additional employment required for expanded methanol
              production in Scenario #2 will come primarily from migration.
              Thus the migrant, new resident and new student impacts will be
              larger both absolutely and proportionately under Scenario #2
              than under Scenario #1, and fiscal effects noted above will be
              magnified.
                   While an adequate supply of public services and facilities
              will probably be available to meet the needs of migrants under
              Scenario #1, it is unlikely that this would be the case under
              Scenario #2. More public funds would be required to meet these
              increased   demands    for   services.    This    problem   will be
              particularly acute if construction for the methanol production
              facilities in Scenario #2 is not staged.

                   The expansion of peat mining activity from the level of
              Scenario #1 to that of Scenario #2 will attract other related
              industries and enterprises that will act to magnify the economic
              impacts of the peat mining itself.

                   Under Scenario #3, following the failure of the peat mining
              industry, unemployment will be created proportional to the
              increase in employment generated by operation of the peat mining
              and processing facilities. Income will be lost by unemployed
              mine workers and by workers and businesses serving the basic
              mining   industry. Fixed facilities (housing, businesses and
              public facilities) will become unused unless other economic
              activities replace demand lost with the mining facilities.
                   The extent of the fiscal impacts of Scenario #3 will depend
              upon the extent to which local government has expanded the
              services   it    provides. Excess capacity and high costs of
              government may result if service construction programs were
              accelerated. Other services, such as the number of school
              teachers, could be reduced, but this would lead to higher
              unemployment and related costs.

                   Since   many    services of local government can not be
              proportionately adjusted downward once provided, and since many

                                                17

                   are funded by long-term debt, the reduction in tax revenue will
                   be greater than the reduction in costs of government. If this
                   does occur, the costs of operating local government will rise
                   unless offset in some other manner. Property taxes will rise
                   accordingly.

                   3.5 Summary of Critical Cumulative Environmental and Economic
                        Impacts and Recommended Approaches

                   3.5.1 Estuarine Impacts
                         Large-scale    conversion    of   peatlands     to agriculture,
                   forestry and peat mining on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula will
                   alter primary nursery areas in peripheral estuarine systems.
                   Changes     in   salinity regimes; surface water runoff rates;
                   nutrient    loading;    suspended    solids;    sedimentation; trace
                   element,     pesticide    and    coliform    bacteria    levels;   . and
                   interactions among these factors are believed to be the most
                   significant potential estuarine impacts from land conversion.

                         The recommended approach includes the initiation of an
                   integrated,    multidisciplinary     effort    toward    developing a
                   predictive    numerical model for use by decision makers in
                   assessing the impacts of existing and proposed coastal land use
                   on the state's estuarine resources. Such a model could also be
                   used to set effluent limitations to meet water quality standards
                   for   primary nursery areas, if such standards were to be
                   established by the state Environmental Management Commission.

                   3.5.2 Wildlife

                         A wildlife habitat simulation was used to analyze the
                   consequences of large-scale peat min.JLng on the Albemarle-Pamlico
                   Peninsula. A significant proportion of the currently existing
                   black bear and bobcat habitat will be lost if extensive mining
                   takes place.

                         Field   validation    of    habitat suitability indices for
                   important    species used in the simulation is required. In
                   addition, linking of the spatial and temporal aspects of the
                   wildlife habitat simulation model is necessary to enable land
                   managers    to evaluate the impacts of alternative land. use
                   decisions on wildlife.

                                                      18

              3.5.3 Upland Water Management
                   Extensive peat mining may increase annual runoff from the
              mined areas by up to 30% above the pre-mining flow. Annual flows
              may decrease or increase slightly from the pre-mining flow,
              depending on the crops, as the mined areas are reclaimed to
              agriculture and forestry.

                   Impacts of drainage systems and seasonal pumping on the
              location of the fresh/saltwater interface in estuarine areas are
              not known.

                   The cumulative impacts of groundwater withdrawals for peat
              processing    and   drainage     from mining sites are not well
              understood;    however,    the    potential    exists for saltwater
              intrusion into areas where peat is mined close to and below sea
              level.

                   Further    research    is    needed in the following areas:
              hydrology of undisturbed peatlands; nutrient transformation in
              canal and river networks; field measurement techniques and
              modeling of surface runoff from actively mined sites; long-term
              effectiveness of wetland buffers for filtration of nutrients,
              trace elements and sediments and for control of fresh water flow
              rate;   effectiveness of storage lakes in reducing negative
              estuarine impacts of land drainage; and effects of peat mining
              on groundwater supplies and the location of the fresh/salt water
              interface.

                   Data from the research recommended above will provide input
              to an already existing hydrological model, thus aiding in the
              estimation of the effects of alternative upland water management
              strategies on surface runoff. The output from this model could
              provide input to an estuarine model.

              3.5.4 Hurricane Flooding

                   Approximately       one-half      to     two-thirds     of      the
              Albemarle-Pamlico     Peninsula is subject to flood inundation
              caused by wind tides having a 1% chance of being equalled or
              exceeded in any one year.

                   Hurricane tides may push saline water from the sounds up
              rivers and canals into low lying areas created by peat mining,
              damaging    areas   reclaimed to agriculture and forestry. In
              addition, the effects of hurricane flooding on shallow aquifers
              under such conditions is not known.

                   Rains associated with hurricanes may accumulate in low
              lying areas faster than the capacity of pumps to remove it. Thus
              the potential also exists for freshwater damage to crop and
              forest land, depending on the duration of the flooding.

                                                 19

                        The recommended approach is to develop a new series of maps
                   delineating flood susceptibility based on land elevations that
                   would exist if substantial peat deposits were removed from the
                   region.    Sediments   underlying the peat deposits should be
                   examined     to  determine    their susceptibility to floodwater
                   infiltration.

                   3.5.5 Unique Natural Areas

                        Large-scale    peat    mining   on   the    peninsula will be
                   accompanied by a loss of part or much of the state's largest and
                   least disturbed wetland complex, and a large proportion of the
                   area underlain by peat of depths greater than four feet. Some of
                   these    areas   contain    prime Atlantic white cedar habitat.
                   Extensive mining will remove a significant proportion of these
                   unique areas and the biota they support.

                        A systematic attempt should be made to determine if the
                   peninsula   contains    areas    that are unique in biological,
                   hydrological, geological, pedological, chemical or other-natural
                   aspects    and   worthy   of consideration for preservation or
                   protection.

                   3.5.6 Air Quality

                        The cumulative effects of multiple source air pollutants
                   (from peat harvesting and multiple stacks) from large-scale peat
                   mining and processing on the peninsula are not known and should
                   be monitored and modeled to assess potentially negative impacts.

                        In addition, refinement of emissions estimates is needed to
                   determine whether fugitive dust emissions during peat mining and
                   transport and storage of peat will have significant negative
                   impacts if extensive mining occurs.

                   3.5.1 Solid Waste

                        The capacity of potential disposal sites on the Albemarle-
                   Pamlico Peninsula to handle the volume of non-hazardous waste
                   that would be created by extensive processing of peat is
                   uncertain. Additional research on site selection and evaluation
                   for solid waste disposal is needed.

                        Impacts of onsite use of some of this waste, for example,
                   on roadbeds or for agricultural land treatment, are not well
                   documented,   and   may    pose environmental problems. Further
                   characterization   of     the  properties of leachates of peat
                   combustion ashes is needed.

                                                    20

             3.5.8 Local Economics

                  Fiscal problems may arise when new residents (migrating to
             the area to work in peat mining operations) locate outside the
             political boundaries of local governments having the power to
             tax   peat    mining facilites. Distributional aspects of tax
             revenues and public services required may create deficits in
             some cities and counties and surpluses in others. Short-term
             fiscal problems may also arise where generated revenues lag
             costs.

                  The development of two simulation models is recommended: 1)
             a   model    to address the impact of potential peat mining
             facilities on tax rates and revenues and 2) a model to examine
             the overall fiscal impacts of peat mining on state and local
             government.

             3.6 Non-significant Impacts

                  Elements examined and found to be non-critical included
             impacts on recreational hunting, agricultural production, forest
             products (with the exception of Atlantic white cedar) and
             occurrence of fire.

                                               21

                    4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

                         The environment affected by the alternative peat mining
                    development scenarios (section 5) extends beyond the three
                    counties (Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington) in which development was
                    assumed to occur. This description of the affected environment,
                    therefore, addresses the entire Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula,
                    including Beaufort and Dare Counties, and the sounds (Albemarle
                    and Pamlico) that bound it on the north, east and south.
                    Groundwater and air resources, which extend beyond the original
                    three county study area, are also discussed.

                    4.1 Biophysical Environment

                    4.1.1 General Setting

                        The Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula is a low lying, tidewater
                    region bordered by Albemarle Sound to the north, Pamlico Sound
                    and the Pamlico River Estuary to the south, Croatan and Pamlico
                    Sounds to the east and the Suffolk Scarp to the west. Elevations
                    in this area are generally less than 20 feet above mean sea
                    level, and much of the eastern part of the peninsula is less
                    than   5   feet    in   elevation    (Heath, 1975). The area is
                    characterized by poorly integrated coastal streams, deep organic
                    soils, extensive swamps, marshes and evergreen wetlands, and a
                    low astronomical tidal range (Lukin and Mauger, 1983).

                        The peninsula covers 1,978 square miles (1,266,000 acres)
                    (McMullan, 1984) and includes the largest continuous area of
                    wetlands in North Carolina (Heath, 1975). Counties located on
                    the peninsula include all of Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington
                    Counties, the mainland part of Dare County, and part of Beaufort
                    County.

                        Approximately 37% of the five counties' total combined land
                    and water area is comprised by lakes, rivers, creeks and sounds.
                    These water bodies, and their intimate intermingling with the
                    land, have shaped the region's geography and its cultural and
                    economic development. The most critical environments in the
                    region occur at the margins between land and water: estuarine
                    marshes, primary nursery areas, shellfish waters and swamp
                    forests.

                    4. 1. 2 Hydrology

                    4. 1. 2. 1 Streams

                        Only two major streams on the peninsula region have their
                    sources west of the Coastal Plain, originating in the Piedmont.
                    The Roanoke River empties into Albemarle Sound just west of
                    Plymouth. The Tar River, which becomes the Pamlico River at
                    Washington, empties into Pamlico Sound. Other major streams in
                    the areas are the Pungo, Scuppernong and Alligator Rivers. These

                                                     22

              are short coastal plain streams that become estuaries in their
              lower reaches. Numerous short, slow flowing coastal tributaries
              empty into these rivers (Lukin and Mauger, 1983).

                   Prior to the construction of canals in the area, overland
              runoff    was a major factor in the water budget. Although
              long-term streamflow data are scarce, overland runoff may be
              estimated as the difference between precipitation and other
              water budget items (Heath, 1975):

                                                Outputs             Inputs

                  Precipitation                                    51.0 inches
                  Evapotranspiration           36.0 inches
                  Groundwater discharge         0.5 inches

                                               ------------
                      Subtotal                 36.5 inches

                  Overland runoff              14.5 inches
                    (estimation by
                    difference)

                   Overflow runoff probably moved north from Lake Phelps to
              the Scuppernong River and from Lake Mattamuskeet north to the
              Alligator River prior to construction of an extensive system of
              canals and ditches (see Figure 4A).

              4.1.2.2 Lakes

                   The peninsula is the site of several lakes: Lake Phelps, on
              the   Washington-Tyrrell      County     line;   Pungo Lake, on the
              Washington-Hyde County line; and New (Alligator) Lake and Lake
              Mattamuskeet in Hyde County (see Figure 2A). Lake Mattamuskeet
              is the largest of these with a surface area of 66.7 square miles
              (Coastal Zone Resources Corp., 1976). These lakes are very
              shallow;    average    depths range from 2.5 to 5 feet. Lake
              Mattamuskeet and Pungo Lake are now National Wildlife Refuges;
              Lake Phelps is part of Pettigrew State Park (Lukin and Mauger,
              1983).

                   All four lakes have been modified by drainage systems and
              the levels of Phelps and Mattamuskeet are regulated. The lakes
              are isolated from surface inflow and receive water only through
              rainfall. They accumulate fine organic sediments from dust blown
              in from the surrounding land and ash from occasional forest and
              ground fires. No water quality problems in either lake have been
              reported.

                                                  23

                  KEY
                  Natural.d
                        dl Ijo
                  Overland runoff
                  Overflow from                                       ALIBEMARLE SOIJND
                                                                                                              71
                         lakes

                                   0

                                          ,eL

                                                                                          X0

                                10 Miles

               FiRure 4A: I)rainaize dIvIdes and probable Daths of overland runoff prior to artifinial drninagp
                           (adapted from Heath, 1975)

             4. 1. 2. 3 Sounds

             4.1.2.3.1 Albemarle Sound

                  Albemarle Sound covers an area of approximately 480 square
             miles and contains some 233 billion cubic feet of water. The
             sound is a drowned river valley estuary with an average depth of
             less than 18 feet and a maximum depth of 30 feet. The central
             portion of the sound from Edenton to the Alligator River
             contains a broad, flat-bottomed trough with depths in excess of
             18 feet. Seaward of the Alligator River, the depth of the sound
             decreases. Textures of bottom sediments grade from predominantly
             clays in the trough to fine sands along the flanks and the lower
             portion of the sound (Pels, 1967).

                  Outflow from Albemarle Sound enters Pamlico Sound through
             Croatan and Roanoke Sounds, where it discharges into the ocean
             through Oregon, Hatteras and Ocracoke Inlets. The range of
             semidiurnal astronomic tides throughout Albemarle Sound is less
             than 0.5 feet due to the remote connection of the sound to the
             ocean, combined with freshwater outflow. The periodic tide range
             is somewhat greater in estuarine tributaries due to funneling
             effects of decreasing dimensions in an upstream direction (Lukin
             and Mauger, 1983).

                  Short-term, wind-driven currents dominate flow and water
             levels in Albemarle Sound and the adjoining open water areas of
             Croatan and Roanoke Sounds. The seasonal range of water levels
             induced by wind-driven currents on Albemarle Sound is about 0.8
             feet near Edenton at the mouth of the Chowan River (Daniel,
             1977). Wind-induced current velocities ranging from 0.5 knots to
             1.6 knots in Croatan and Roanoke Sounds have been measured
             (Singer and Knowles, 1975, cited by Lukin and Mauger, 1983).

                  Net flow into Albemarle Sound is dominated by freshwater
             inflow   because the effects of winds blowing from various
             directions tend to cancel each other out over time. Average
             inflow to Albemarle Sound is about 17,000 cubic feet per second,
             draining from a total area of about 18,359 square miles. The
             peninsula accounts for only 4% of the drainage basin. The
             average period required for water stored in Albemarle Sound to
             be completely flushed and replaced by fresh water is about five
             months (calculated from hydrologic data in Giese et al., 1979,
             by Lukin and Mauger, 1983).

                  Periods    of high freshwater inflow to Albemarle Sound
             usually reflect the typical peak flow period of many North
             Carolina streams, with maximum average freshwater inflow in
             February and minimum freshwater inflow in October (Lukin and
             Mauger, 1983).

                                              25

                         Average surface salinities are lowest in March following
                   high freshwater inflow from January through March. Surface
                   salinities reach a maximum in December following low freshwater
                   inflow and high evaporation from June through September (Lukin
                   and Mauger, 1983).

                        Various    water    quality problems have occurred in the
                   Albemarle Sound system. Severe eutrophication has occurred in
                   the Chowan River, which empties into the sound. Red sore disease
                   has occurred periodically throughout Albemarle Sound. Early
                   signs of general eutrophication are occasionally detected in the
                   western portion of the sound; such signs include elevated
                   phytoplankton     cell     counts    and   species    ratios,     water
                   discoloration and elevated nutrient levels.

                   4.1.2.3.2 Pamlico Sound

                        Pamlico Sound covers an area of approximately 2,060 square
                   miles and contains 920 billion cubic feet of water. It is the
                   largest sound formed behind a barrier island strand on the
                   Atlantic coast of the United States (Giese et al., 1979, cited
                   by Lukin and Mauger, 1983). The sound has an average depth of 16
                   feet and contains a "y"-shaped basin with maximum depths of 26
                   feet at the confluence of the Neuse and Pamlico Rivers. A
                   broader basin with a maximum depth of 24 feet occurs in the
                   central portion of the sound. A central lagoon shoal separates
                   the two basins and extends across Pamlico Sound from Ocracoke
                   Inlet to Bluff Point (Lukin and Mauger, 1983).

                        Pamlico Sound is connected with the ocean through Oregon,
                   Hatteras and Ocracoke Inlets. This limited access, combined with
                   the broad expanse of the sound, results in astronomical or ocean
                   tides being significantly dampened. The mean periodic tide range
                   within Pamlico Sound is approximately 0.2 feet. Periodic tide'
                   range is considerably greater in the narrow river-estuaries
                   tributary to Pamlico Sound, due to the funneling effect of
                   decreasing dimensions in the upstream direction (Roelofs and
                   Bumpus, 1953 and Giese et al., 1979, cited by Lukin and Mauger,
                   1983). For example, the mean periodic: tide range at the mouth of
                   the   Pamlico    River    is   about 0.5 feet and increases to
                   approximately    one foot at Washington. Wind-driven currents
                   dominate flow and water levels in the sound and adjoining
                   estuaries (Giese et al., 1979 and Singer and Knowles, 1975,
                   cited by Lukin and Mauger, 1983). The large surface area of
                   Pamlico Sound encourages wind setup over long fetches (Lukin and
                   Mauger, 1983).

                        Average annual inflow to Pamlico Sound is about 31,700
                   cubic feet per second, which drains from a total area of 28,820
                   square miles, less than 3% of which is on the peninsula.
                   Residence time of water in Pamlico Sound is about 11 months.
                   Maximum   average freshwater inflow to Pamlico Sound occurs
                   between January and April, with the highest freshwater inflow in
                   February. Minimum net freshwater inflow does not occur in

                                                     26

              September, October and November, as is the case for many North
              Carolina streams, but in June, when evaporation rates are
              greatest.    Evaporative water loss resulting from the large
              surface area and relatively low freshwater inflow rates are
              significant factors in the annual gross water budget (Giese et
              al., 1979, cited by Lukin and Mauger, 1983).

                   Surface    salinity    in    Pamlico    Sound    tracks seasonal
              variations of freshwater inflow, but short-term, wind-induced
              currents may obscure seasonal salinity variations (Woods, 1967
              and Giese et al., 1979, cited by Lukin and Mauger, 1983).
              Average surface salinities are lowest in April, following peak
              freshwater    inflow.    Surface salinities reach a maximum in
              December after a period of low freshwater inflow in the fall.
              Seasonal surface salinity differences of 4 to 6 parts per
              thousand (ppt) are observed at the mouths of major estuaries,
              while seasonal salinity fluctuations of 0 to 2 ppt are observed
              in the vicinity of ocean inlets (Giese et al., 1979, cited by
              Lukin and Mauger, 1983). Salinities in the sound rarely exceed
              15 ppt except near inlets.

                  .Over one-third of the sediment reaching Pamlico Sound is
              transported by the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico Rivers. Local shoreline
              erosion is an even larger source of sediment. Erosion rates up
              to 20 feet per year have been observed (Stephen B. Benton,
              Office of Coastal Management, NRCD, personal communication).

                   Like Albemarle Sound, Pamlico Sound shows some signs of
              incipient eutrophication, particularly in some of the tributary
              estuaries, which receive a nutrient load that is part natural
              and part man-induced. Agriculture and phosphate mining introduce
              significant amounts of nutrients, particularly phosphate, into
              the system.

              4.1.2.4 Groundwater

                   Sand layers in Quarternary sediments serve as the primary
              source of water supply in Dare County and are of importance to
              shallow draw throughout the region, particularly in Hyde County
              (Nelson, 1964). Sand and limestone layers in the Yorktown
              Formation of Pliocene age are the principal source of water
              supply in Hyde and Tyrrell Counties and are important for
              Washington County as well. The Castle Hayne Formation of Middle
              Eocene age (Jones and Sholar, 1981) is the primary source of
              water supply in Washington County and the northwestern part of
              Hyde County (Nelson, 1964).

                                                 27

                        Under the peninsula lie the cones of depression caused by-
                   two very large groundwater withdrawals: Texasgulf's phosphate
                   mines at Aurora, just south of the peninsula, and Union Camp at
                   Franklin, Virginia. Effects from Texasgulf's withdrawals from,
                   the Castle Hayne Aquifer have been detected as changes in the
                   potentiometric surfaces in much of the eastern peninsula. Union
                   Camp withdraws water from the Cretaceous Aquifer. No interaction
                   between these cones of depression has been detected. Clay and
                   silt layers act as aquitards, separating the aquifers. There is
                   no evidence that any portion of the study area serves to
                   recharge either the Castle Hayne or the Yorktown Aquifer (Bill
                   Jeter, Division of Environmental Management, NCRD, personal
                   communication).

                    4.1.2.5 Artificial Drainage

                        Drainage projects aimed at lowering the water table and
                   removing surface water in peatlands on the Albemarle-Pamlico
                   Peninsula have been undertaken to enhance agricultural and
                   lumbering operations since the late 1700s. The history of
                   drainage practices on the peninsula 'has been documented by Heath
                   (1975), Lilly (1981), Richardson (1981, 1983) and McMullan
                   (1984).

                        Since World War II, development of swamp lands for forestry
                   and agriculture in coastal North Carolina has continued. By the
                   1960s, paper companies owned most of the coastal swamp land not
                   in   public   ownership.    Clark    (1981)   has   estimated that
                   approximately 100,000 acres of wetlands have been cleared and
                   drained or recleared and redrained on the Albemarle-Pamlico
                   Peninsula within the past 15 years.

                        Drainage pattern alteration on the peninsula began in the
                   late eighteenth century, and a widespread system of canals,
                   ditches and associated roads had been developed in the area by
                   1970. Large-scale clearing and ditching of forest and evergreen
                   wetlands by the corporate farm industry since 1973 have resulted
                   in significant additions to this artificial drainage system
                   (Lukin and Mauger, 1983).

                        Main canals are spaced about one mile apart. The material
                   excavated from these canals is used as roadbed fill. Collector
                   ditches are then dug at right angles to the main canals.
                   Finally, smaller v-shaped field ditches are dug at right angles
                   to the collector ditches at intervals of 150 to 350 feet. In an
                   idealized situation, approximately 16 to 20 miles of field
                   ditches and 3 miles of collector ditches drain each square mile
                   .of land (Lukin and Mauger, 1983).

                                                    28

                    Studies of effects of development on regional hydrology and
              runoff water quality are few. However, available data suggest
              that peak runoff rates occur earlier and are three to four times
              higher on developed than on undeveloped lands. Average water
              table depths measured by Skaggs et al. (1980) were about 9
              inches deeper on developed organic soil than on undeveloped
              organic soil (Lukin and Mauger, 1983).

                    In eastern Hyde County the drainage system has apparently
              allowed saltwater intrusion into agricultural lands, although
              the area affected is relatively small. The intrusion is related
              to wind tides and the lack of flow control structures on outfall
              canals. Storm tides are a more significant source of flooding:
              in 1954, Hurricane Hazel flooded about half of the study area
              with saltwater.

                    The effect of freshwater flow from artificial drainage
              canals into primary estuarine nursery areas has become an issue
              of increasing concern in recent years. Freshwater intrusion into
              primary nursery areas was recognized as the most critical
              environmental problem in the coastal region by the Governor's
              Coastal Water Management Task Force (1982).

              4.1.3 Fishery Resources

              4.1.3.1 Marine Fisheries

                    Pamlico    Sound    and    its tributaries contain the most
              important fisheries resource in North Carolina. The sound itself
              is a major commercial fishing ground, and the primary nursery
              areas around its fringes are essential to commercially important
              fish and shellfish species. The same species, with a few
              exceptions such as the menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), bay
              anchovy     (Anchoa    mitchilli),     and silver perch (Bairdiella
              chrysur       support both commercial and recreational fisheries in
              the sound. These include: brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus), white
              shrimp (P. setiferus), pink shrimp (P. duorarum), blue crab
              (Callinectes     sa2idus), oyster (Crassostrea virginiqa), spot
              (Leiostomus xanthurus), croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), red
              drum    (Sciaenops     ocellatus),     weakfish (Cynoscion. regalis),
              spotted    seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), bluefish (Pomatomus
              saltatrix), striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), southern flounder
              (Paralichthys lethostigma), and summer flounder (Paralichthys
              1!1@atu@s    (Birkhead et al., 1977; Copeland et al., 1983; Hester
              and Copeland, 1975; and others).

                                                  29

                    4.1.3.2 Freshwater Fisheries

                         Freshwater     areas on and around the peninsula support.
                    smaller commercial and recreational fisheries than does Pamlico
                    Sound,    but   these    fisheries are nevertheless significant.
                    Recreational fishing overshadows commercial fishing for most.
                    species, but the white perch and eel fisheries are economically
                    important. Important freshwater species of the region include:
                    white   perch     (Morone americana), catfish (Ictalurus spp.),
                    bluegill (Lepomis macro@3-h-irus), other sunfish (Lepomis spp.),
                    largemouth     bass    (Micropterus    salmoides),     eel     (Angu-lla,.
                    rostrata), and crappie (Pomoxis spp.)

                    4.1.3.3 Anadromous Fisheries

                         A variety of important anadromous species characterizes the
                    drainage systems of the study area. The major rivers (Chowan,
                    Roanoke) and large creeks have historically supported large runs
                    of these fish. Some anadromous fishes now spawn in artificial
                    drainage    canals. Species present include: blueback herring
                    (Alosa aestivalis), alewife (Alosa pseudoharanqu ), striped bass
                    (Morone saxatilus), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), hickory
                    shad    (Alosa   mediocris),     and Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser
                    oxyrhynchus) (Hassler et al., 1981; Johnson et al., 1977, 1979;
                    Street, 1982; Street et al., 1975).

                         The striped bass populations in this region, and along the
                    entire Atlantic coast, appear to be declining, possibly in
                    response to water quality problems.

                                                       30

              4.1.4 Soils and Farmland

                   Soils of the area can be divided into two main groups,
              depending on their location. Those soils east of the Suffolk
              Scarp are the youngest and most poorly drained. Broad, flat
              interstream areas have combined with impermeable underlying
              sediments to create conditions favorable for slow water runoff
              and   eventual   accumulation    of   organic   matter. Extensive
              swamplands occur in this area. Soils west of the Suffolk Scarp
              tend to be better drained because of higher elevations and have
              better developed drainage patterns (Governor's Coastal Water
              Management Task Force, 1982).

                   Soils are predominantly sandy with firm subsoils, but
              clayey and silty textured soils are also commonly found. organic
              soils (histosols) have formed in swampy areas where organic
              matter accumulation has occurred. (Governor's Coastal Water
              Management Task Force, 1982). Deep organic soils cover much of
              the peninsula. In the three-county study area, over 100,000
              acres are covered by organic soils deeper than four feet.

                   Agricultural statistics indicate that 206,730      'acres of
              cropland were harvested on the peninsula in the 1979-80 season:
              83,280 acres in Washington County, 77,100 acres in Hyde County,
              45,440 acres in Tyrrell County, and 900 acres in Dare County
              (Lukin and Mauger, 1983).

              4.1.5 Forests

                   Between 1963 and 1973, commercial forest lands on the
              northeastern Coastal Plain of North Carolina decreased by more
              than 3%. More than half of this loss of forested areas was a
              result of conversion to agricultural land, primarily in those
              counties south of Albemarle Sound (Lukin and Mauger, 1983).

                   Forests on the peninsula cover 729,000 acres, about 70% of.
              the total area. Most of the forested areas occur on deep organic
              soils and fall into six classes in two major groups:

                 Upland Forests
                    Deciduous Forest Land: oak, hickory, tulip poplar
                    Evergreen Forest Land:      peninsular upland pine forests,
                        broadleaf-evergreen    dominated forest, managed pine
                        plantations
                    Mixed Forest Land

                                               31

                       Forested Wetlands
                         Swamp    Forest:     gum-cypress   swamps,,   mixed    hardwood
                              bottomland swamps, Atlantic white cedar swamps, some
                              pine-hardwood swamps, "high brush swamps"
                         Evergreen Wetland:      pond pine and broadleaf.evergreens
                              (bays and wax myrtle), pocosins, shrub bogs, bay
                              forests, pond pine forests
                         Disrupted Grass and/or Shrub Wetland: some pond pines,
                             'grouped with forest lands because they were produced
                              by alteration of evergreen forests and will revert to
                              evergreen forests if no further disruptions occur
                                                               (Lukin and Mauger, 1983)

                   4.1.6 Mineral and Energy Resources

                   4.1.6.1 Phosphate

                        The most economically valuable       mineral resource in the
                   North   Carolina    coastal region is     phosphate, occurring as
                   carbonate fluorapatite in the Pungo       River Formation of Middle
                   Miocene age. This formation underlieS     much of the outer Coastal
                   Plain north of the Neuse River. Phosphate is mined in central
                   Beaufort County, on the south shore of the Pamlico River. It is
                   not mined on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula because of the
                   depths at which the phosphate deposits lie in the subsurface.

                   4.1.6.2 oil and Gas

                        Oil and gas have been sought in 42 exploratory wells on the
                   peninsula in the past 37 years, but none has been found. Oil and
                   gas activity on the outer continental shelf 50 miles east of the
                   peninsula may eventually lead to pipeline construction, but no
                   such activity is currently planned.

                   ,4.1.6.3 Peat

                        The   only potentially valuable energy resource in the
                   coastal region is a generally fine grained, highly decomposed
                   black peat (Ingram and Otte 1981, 1982). Extensive peat deposits
                   occur in North Carolina, the largest of which are located on the
                   Albemarle-    Pamlico     Peninsula.     The   peninsula     contains
                   approximately 278 million dry tons of peat over an area of about
                   582 square miles (373,000 acres).        The peat deposits occur in
                   shallow depressions to a depth of 10 feet and in narrow former
                   stream channels to a depth of 16 feet (Ingram and Otte, 1982).

                                                    32

                  Peat deposits are associated primarily with the Alligator
             River drainage system. Thick peat occurs along both shores.
             Peat-filled   tributaries    extend eastward into Dare County,
             southward into Hyde County and westward into Tyrrell County,
             where the peats of the Southwest Fork of the river are very
             extensive, spreading west and south in the vicinity of Lake
             Phelps (see Figure 4B).

                  The peat is generally sapric and moderately to highly
             decomposed. Ash content is generally low (6-10 percent average),
             as is sulfur (less than 0.5%). Stumps and logs occur frequently,
             especially in the thicker peat deposits (Ingram and Otte, 1982).

                  The peats of the peninsula yield approximately 10,000 Btu's
             per pound (moisture free) and could provide almost 6 quadrillion
             Btu's of energy value if mined completely and used efficiently.
             This amount could meet the state's thermal needs for almost 4
             years at 1980 consumption levels (calculated from Ingram and
             Otte, 1982 and Harwood and McMullan, 1981, by Lukin and Mauger,
             1983).

             4.1.7 Wildlife

                  The Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula contains rich and abundant
             wildlife resources as a result of the high quality and diversity
             of available habitat. The broad floodplains of the Roanoke,
             Pamlico-Tar and Alligator Rivers transecting the area, the vast
             estuarine   marshes and the low flatlands that were historically
             the floor of the Atlantic Ocean create a mixture of ecological
             systems   unsurpassed    in richness, diversity and complexity
             anywhere in the state.

             4.1.8 Parks, Refuges and Natural Areas

                  Major portions of the peninsula are publicly owned and
             managed (Figure 4C). There are national wildlife refuges at
             Pungo Lake, Lake Mattamuskeet, and Swanquarter. In March, 1984,
             120,000 acres of land in Dare and Tyrrell Counties were donated
             to the federal government to create the Alligator River National
             Wildlife Refuge. Lake Phelps is a state park. Gull Rock State
             Gameland is managed to conserve wetlands and bear habitat. The
             Air Force Bombing Range in Dare County, while not a refuge, is
             managed to conserve natural habitat and is closed to hunting. A
             large portion (27,000 acres) of the bombing range is pending
             entry in the N. C. Natural Heritage Registry and will be managed
             by the Air Force to preserve large examples of three types of
             pocosin communities.

                                              33

                   +

                                                                                                                     IT

                                                                                           If

                                                                                 +
                                                                  +

          LO
                                                                   OF                                                fC/ y

                                                                                                  NZ,

              AM   ......
                                                                                    J ON

                                                                                                            ISOPACH MAP OF PAM
                                                                                                             2 ff INCkness int"Wal.
                                                                                                               mark Gainers of arlhe
                                                                                                               Names of maps are

                                                                        r
                         Figure  4B:    isopach map of peat on    the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula (from Ingram and 0

                                                 ALREMARtES

                                         Ole                                                                                                   z

                                                                                                                                               <

                                   Wash,ngt6nCo-ty
                                           ------ ----
                                    B-f.a c-'y                                            T-   C-n,@

                                                                                                                                                            C',

                                                                                            N-
                                                                                              Lik,     t

                                                          US 264

                                                                                                                A, Mgt
                                                                                                                                                                                  El       StaLe

                                                                                                                                                                                           Fede
                                         ,4,4t,CO R,tER
                                                                                                                                        7

                                                                                                                                                                                           Clear

                                                                                                                                                                                           Half

                                  Figure 4C: State and federal lands on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula

                         The peninsula has recently been inventoried for potential
                    natural areas. Such areas were identified and described on the
                    basis of: 1) relative lack of disturbance, 2) quality of
                    botanical assemblage, and 3) size (McDonald and Ash, 1981;
                    Peacock and Lynch, 1982a and 1982b; Lynch and Peacock, 1982a and
                    1982b).

                    4.2 Socioeconomic Environment

                    4.2.1 Population

                         The region is sparsely populated, with a few small cities
                    and towns. In the        three-county study area the population is
                    aggregated in areas of good farmland and along the shoreline in
                    towns originally settled as fishing ports. A long-term trend of
                    population loss in Hyde and Tyrrell Counties and very slow
                    growth in Washington County was apparently reversed in the past:
                    decade. Even so, the regional growth rate of +5.1% is only
                    one-third of the state growth rate of +15.5% for 1970-80. (See
                    Figure 4D for comparison of these counties with the rest of the
                    coastal region.)

                    4.2.2 Employment

                         Agriculture, forestry commercial fishing and shellfishing
                    and   recreational    industries    have    traditionally dominated.
                    economic activity, and therefore employment, on the peninsula.
                    Although   such    employment remains economically significant,
                    particularly in terms of income, the composition of the labor
                    force   in   the area is shifting toward employment in the
                    industrial and service sectors (see Table 4A). This shift has
                    been coupled with increased commuting to work in adjacent
                    counties.

                    4.2.3 Income

                         Median family and personal income fall below the state
                    medians in all three counties (Tables 4B and 4C).

                    4.2.4 Economic Sectors

                         Commercial fishing in Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington Counties
                    in 1980 produced fish and shellfish worth $4.5 million (Table
                    4D) and $49.4 million in the counties bordering on Pamlico
                    Sound. (Not all seafood landed in these counties was caught in
                    Pamlico   Sound.)    In the three counties, this compares to
                    agricultural products worth $42.3 million and estimated 1982
                    forestry output worth $3.9 million (Alex Dowdell, Div. Forest
                    Resources, NRCD, personal communication).

                                                      36

                                                                                                                             5,829           11,089
                                                                                                           VA.                                (58.0%)
                                                                                                                                           C,        o
                                                                                                         :21    ')Gates
                                                                                                       4,368',._ 8,875
                                                                                                           (4.40/.) '-@44.11%
                                                                                                       /'Hertford                      0?
                                                                                                                         C,                       28@46
                                                                                                       8ertie              NI                 486 (&1%)
                                                                                                                              io,
                                                                                                          21,024                    2,!558    (@1@3.6-6)
                                                                                                               (2.4%)                  Is
                                                                                                                              'o         Yrr  I         are
                                                                                              .oe-j,    /1?25,948
                                                                                                    It                   .j-@Q0-1%14@4,7863            13377
                                                                                                            (4.9%) 114AP       (5.3%
                                                                                                             -,.--'40 266 k
                                                                                          Pitt                Beaufo   ly.9%)             L    5 73
                                                                                              83 1                                        d 0 (5.4 %)
                                                                                                (1@,5
                                                                                                  .?a
                                                                                                    L)

                                                                                                    71,043
                                                                                                                  >
                                                                                ILenoir
                                                                             ,L59819 t \Craven                   1                 10,398
                                                                                    (@A%-@"                        @Panrllic          (9.8%)
                                                                                            9)705
                                                                                                (0.8%)
                                                                   1  40,952               Jones
                                                                          (7.7%)      Y-
                                                                      Ouplin             (9.4%)             LI--- feT
                                                                                      i Onslow                 Ca(W

                                             30,448                        22,2-15                                  41,092
                                                 (15%)          Of          (22.4%)                                 (30.0%)
                                            Bladen                    Pander
                                                               % %@,                      %

                                         Columbus                                      New Hanover
                                       51,037                                            103,471
                                           (8.7%) 1--/
                                     C,                                                  (24.7%)
                                                    j Brunswick
                                                 IrJ 35,7 7
                                                     (47.7%)

                            Figure 4D: Total population, 1980, and percentage change in total population,
                                                  1970-1980

                                                                                            37

                   Table 4A: Employment summary by industry groups by county,
                              1960, 1970

                                           Hyde              Tyrrell        Washington
                                        1960     1970     1960    1970     1960     1970

                   Total Employed        1,686    1,699    1,354   1,220   4,088 4,679

                   Agriculture/
                   Forestry/
                   Fisheries             44.7     26.0      27.7   18.4     16.9     9.8

                   Construction           5.3     10.0      6.7    11.7     .3.8     5.9

                   Manufacturing         10.3     17.4     20.0    19.9     17.2    42.4

                   Transportation/
                   Communication/
                   Utilities              3.3       4.5     3.1      1.9      2.2    2.2

                   Wholesale Trade/
                   Retail Trade          13.0     13.5     16.5    16.7     15.8    13.9

                   Services                -        6.8      -       8.0      -      8.5

                   Education              5.1     10.1      7.0    10.3       3.1    5.8

                   Government             4.4     25.1      2.0    18.4       3.4   13.0

                   Source:
                    U.S. Census of Population, 1960 General Social and Economic
                     Characteristics, North Carolina Table 85, 1960. U.S.
                     Census of Population, 1970, General Social and Economic
                     Characteristics, Table 123.

                                                       38

              Table 4B: Median family income by county, 1960,1970

                                           1960                1970

                                  Median     Families      Median    Families
                                  Family      Below        Family    Below
                                  Income     Poverty       Income    Poverty
                                             Line                    Line

              Hyde                $1,979        N.A.       $4,430     33.5
              Tyrrell               1,927       N.A.       4,307      37.9
              Washington            3,495       N.A.       7,152      23.7

              North Carolina      $3,956        N.A.       $7,770     16.5

              Note:
                N.A.=not available
              Source:
                Local Area Personal Income, South East Region, U.S.
                 Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis

              Table 4C: Per capita personal income by county, 1970, 1975, 1977

                                      Per Capita Personal Income
                                         1970      1975       1977

              Hyde                       $2,204    $3,612    $3,901
              Tyrrell                    2,046     3,589      4,358
              Washington                 2,710     4,096      4,946

              North Carolina             $3,200    $4,940    $5,916

              Source:
                Local Area Personal Income, South East Region, U.S.
                 Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

                                                   39

                 Table 4D: Commercial fishing vessel licenses, pounds landed
                             and dockside value by county 1975-1980*

                                                                              Commercial
                                                                              Vessel
                               Pounds               Dockside Value            Licenses
                           1975 1980 Change         1975 1980 Change       1975 1.980 Change
                          (000s) (000s) %         (000s) (000s) %        (000s) (000s)

                 Hyde    3,204  13,056 307.5        770 4,182 443.1        448     415 -7A
                 Tyrrell   766     976     27.4     143     228    59.4    143     113 -21.0
                 Wash-     604     532    -11.9       88   100     13.6    254     263    3.5
                 ington

                 NC     72,326  153,805 112.7 16,409    61,390    274.1  17,776 18,268    2.8

                 * The figures  do not include menhaden landings

                 Source:
                  Division of   Marine Fisheries, NRCD, "Annual Statistics on Fish Landings"

                         There    is     little  current manufacturing in the three
                    counties:    two small garment operations and numerous small.
                    agricultural processors and supplies. Large industrial paper and
                    textile operations are located in Beaufort and Martin Counties;
                    adjacent to the study area. There is no large scale chemical or
                    electrical facility in the region or any of the adjacent:
                    counties.

                    4.2.5 Transportation Infrastructure

                         Highway access on the peninsula is generally good east-west
                    and limited north-south. The north-s-Duth highways (NC 32, 45, 94
                    and 99) are utilized primarily by local traffic and are not
                    heavily traveled (Cribbins, 1983).

                         Water access is very good: the peninsula is bisected by the
                    Intracoastal Waterway and surrounded on three sides by water.
                    Barge terminals of varying quality exist in Belhaven, Columbia,
                    Edenton and Plymouth. Lack of shoreside loading equipment,
                    limited   depth    of    approach channel or turning basin and
                    inadequate storage area are characteristic of some of these
                    facilities (Cribbins, 1983).

                         Rail access is available only at the western end of the
                    peninsula. Dare, Hyde and Tyrrell Counties have no rail service
                    (Cribbins, 1983).

                         No petroleum product pipelines exist in the region and
                    natural gas service is not available in Dare and Tyrrell
                    Counties (Cribbins, 1983).

                                                       40

             4.3 Legal-institutional Environment
                  This section reviews the governmental setting in which the
             proposed peat mining will take place, the major regulatory
             controls    available    to   mitigate any adverse environmental
             consequences of mining and possible responses of the affected
             local governments.

             4.3.1 Local and County Government
                  Washington    and    Hyde   Counties have commission-manager
             governments. Tyrrell County is run directly by a board of
             commissioners;     the chief executive officer is the county
             finance officer. Washington and Hyde maintain planning officers.'
             All three counties participate in land use planning through the
             state Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). Each county has a
             single unified school district.
                  The only incorporated towns on the peninsula are Plymouth,
             Creswell,    Roper    and   Columbia.    Each has a mayor-council
             government. Plymouth has its own planning department. Plymouth,
             Roper and Creswell have zoning ordinances; the counties and
             Columbia do not. There are no special taxation districts on the
             peninsula.
                   In Washington County the county acts as a drainage district
             to carry out drainage projects, but is organized under Article
             3, Chapter 139 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, not
             under Chapter 156, which governs drainage districts. Hyde County
             contains Fairfield and Grassy Ridge drainage districts, both of
             which have been active since 1976. In Tyrrell County the only
             active drainage district is Gum Neck.

             4.3.2 Major Regulatory Controls

             4.3.2.1 State Regulatory Controls

                   Some exclusively state permits and some federal permits
             administered by the state are applicable to peat mining. This
             section    discusses    the    former.   Federal-state permits are
             addressed in section 4.3.2.2.

                                                41

                   4.3.2.1.1 Mining Act

                        The major state regulatory tool for the control of the
                   environmental impacts of peat mining is the mining Act: of 1971.
                   (G. S. 74-46 et seq.). This law requires a permit before surface
                   mining is undertaken, and in order to obtain a permit the
                   applicant must demonstrate that the mining will not violate ail:
                   and water quality standards, will not result in substantial.
                   deposits of sediment in stream beds or lakes, or landslides, and
                   will not have unduly adverse effects on fish and wildlife. A
                   reclamation plan is required; a bond must be kept in effect:
                   until reclamation is complete. The maximum amount of the bond
                   ($50,000) is set according to a schedule established by the
                   Mining Commission. This is an extremely small per acre amount if:
                   the state must undertake substantial reclamation efforts or must:
                   support pumping or maintenance of drainage systems. Since the
                   maximum amount of reclamation bonds is no longer set by statute,,
                   the Mining Commission has authority to increase the amount of:
                   the bonds to make them more adequate on a per acre basis.

                        Reclamation plans for some of the potentially minable areas
                   may require that water be perpetually pumped from the reclaimed
                   land in order for the land to support farming or timbering
                   activities.   A possible legal technique for enforcing this
                   requirement is through the mining permit and bond requirements..
                   The Mining Act provisions (G.S. 74-46 through G.S. 74-68), when
                   read as a whole, appear to comtemplate that reclamation will be
                   completed within a reasonable time after the conclusion of:
                   mining activities, and that when reclamation has been completed
                   in a satisfactory manner the bond will be released and no
                   further undertakings will be required of the holder of the
                   mining permit. That is, the Act appears to contemplate that.
                   reclamation activities will have a definite termination date..
                   Altho'ugh G.S. 74-53 requires reclamation to be completed within
                   two years of the termination of mining, it authorizes the
                   Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD)
                   to allow a longer time. If NRCD may allow a longer time, it is
                   arguable that when circumstances so require, NRCD may require a
                   longer time. This is supported by G.S. 74-49(12), which defines
                   11reclamation" as being the "reasonable rehabilitation of the
                   affected land for useful purposes". G.S. 74-54'provides that the
                   liability under the bond must be maintained until reclamation is
                   completed in accordance with the plan; thus it would appear that.
                   all or a portion of the bond could be continued in effect to
                   indemnify the state in the event it should have to continue the
                   pumping after failure or refusal of the permit holder to do so.

                                                    42

             4.3.2.1.2 Capacity Use Designation

                  All of Washington County and portions of Hyde and Tyrrell
             Counties have been designated capacity use areas pursuant to the
             Water Use Act of 1967 (G. S. 143-215.11 et seq.), and the
             remaining portions of the counties could be so designated
             pursuant to this law. Within the designated areas, a permit from
             the   Environmental   Management   Commission    is required for
             withdrawal or utilization of water in excess of 100,000 gallons
             per day. The Commission must also approve "any project involving
             the excavation of any single area in excess of five acres to a
             depth below the highest natural level of groundwater" (15
             N.C.A.C. 2E .0205).

             4.3.2.1.3 Areas of Environmental Concern (Coastal Area
                       Management Act)

                  The  North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), in
             listing potential areas of environmental concern, adopts as its
             definition   of   "wetlands" in G.S. 113A-113(b)(1) the same
             definition used in G.S. 113-230(a). G.S. 113-230(a) (part of the
             dredge and fill permit law) adopts for its definition of
             "coastal wetlands" any marsh as defined by G.S. 113-229(n)(3),
             plus certain contiguous land. G.S. 113-229(n)(3), in turn,
             defines "marshland" as any marsh subject to tidal flooding in
             which is found at least one of ten named species of plants. Thus
             a "wetland" as defined under CAMA is "any marsh subject to tidal
             flooding in which is found at least one of ten named species of
             plants".

                  Should any mining activity take place within an Area of
             Environmental Concern designated pursuant to the Coastal Area
             Management Act (G. S. 113-100 et seq.), a major development
             permit would be required from the Coastal Resources Commission.

             4.3.2.2 Federal Regulatory Controls

             4.3.2.2.1 NPDES Permits

                  Any water discharges from canals draining mining sites or
             other point sources require an NPDES Permit, administered by the
             state, but mandated by the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
             Section 1251 et seq.). Water quality standards must be met for
             the permit to be obtained. Also, under Section 401 of the Clean
             Water Act, the state must certify to EPA that no effluent
             standard, water quality limit or toxic pollutant standard will
             be violated by the mining activity.

                                              43

                    4.3.2.2.2 Clean Air Act

                        . The air quality in the study area counties meets or exceeds
                    that required by the national air quality standards, and,
                    therefore, the area is designated a Prevention of Significant
                    Deterioration     (PSD)   area.    The   state, through its state
                    implementation plan, administers and enforces the federal Clean
                    Air Act (42 U.S.C. section 7401 et seq.) and by means of that
                    plan must enforce the standards for PSD areas. These standards,
                    in summary, require that the air quality in PSD areas not exceed
                    certain    stated increments for listed pollutants, including
                    particulate matter. The area is a class II PSD area, to whic'11
                    moderately stringent standards are applied, except for the Swal.'I
                    Quarter National Wildlife Refuge in Hyde County, which is a
                    class I area, to which the most stringent standards are applied.
                    Activities occurring outside a class I area must not cause a
                    violation of the class I standards within the area. Mining
                    activities    would be regulated under the PSD planning and
                    permitting provisions if the activity emits or has the capacity
                    to emit 250 tons per year, or more, of a controlled pollutant,
                    such as particulates (40 C.F.R. section 52.21 et seq.). The most
                    likely control measures that would be applied are work practice
                    standards designed to control fugitive emissions.

                    4.3.2.2.3 404 Dredge and Fill Permits

                         If dredged or fill material is to be deposited into
                    navigable waters or associated wetlands as part of the mininq
                    activity, a permit must be obtained from the U. S. Army Corps of'
                    Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
                    Section 1344). The conditions of this permit must be such that
                    fishery areas and wildlife are not adversely affected. No permit.
                    is required for normal farming and forestry operations such as
                    plowing, seeding, cultivation and minor drainage or "for the,
                    purpose of construction or maintenance of farm roads or forest
                    roads, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment, where
                    such roads are constructed and maintained, in accordance with
                    best management practices" to assure that the flow and quality
                    of the water is unimpaired (33 U.S.C. section 1344(f)).

                        For purposes of issuing dred(       ije and fill permits in the
                    naviagable waters of the United States pursuant to Section 404,
                    the   Army   Corps Engineers and EPA have adopted the same
                    definition of "wetlands."       For the Corps of Engineers, the
                    definition appears at 33 C.F.R. section 323.2(c); for EPA, at 40
                    C.F.R. section 230.3(t). The definit:[on is: "The term 'wetlands'
                    means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
                    ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
                    and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
                    vegetation   typically, adapted      for life in saturated soil
                    conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and
                    similar areas."

                                                      44

                  If a Section 404 permit is required, the Corps of Engineers
             must also prepare an environmental impact statement under the
             National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. section 4321 et
             seq.).

             4.3.2.2.4 Endangered Species Act

                  The study area provides habitat for at least three animals
             that have been listed as endangered species: the redcockaded
             woodpecker, the bald eagle and the American alligator; another
             endangered species, the eastern cougar, may inhabit the area (50
             C.F.R. section 17.11). No critical habitats have been designated
             for these species, but the cougar and woodpecker are listed as
             endangered throughout their ranges and the eagle is endangered
             in the lower 48 states. The case of Palila v. Department of Land
             and Natural Resources, 471 F. Supp. 985 (D. Haw. 1979), aff'd
             639 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1981), held that state action allowing
             the deterioration of the habitat of an endangered species is a
             "taking" within the meaning of the Endangered Species Act (16
             U.S.C. section 1531 et seq.) and may be enjoined by a federal
             court. In that case, the habitat destruction was taking place in
             an area designated as critical habitat for the palila, an
             endangered Hawaiian bird, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
             and, therefore, the case against the state was strong. Private
             organizations might also rely on the Endangered Species Act to
             block mining activities that are disruptive to critical habitat.

             4.3.3 County Responses

                  A county may respond to large-scale mining activities by
             requiring a local environmental impact statement; adopting a
             land use ordinance requiring a county mining permit; and/or
             pressing for state enabling legislation that would authorize the
             levy of a severance tax (Brower et al., 1983).

             4.3.3.1 Local Environmental Impact Statement

                  Local governments are authorized by G.S. 113A-8 to require
             environmental impact statements for major development projects,
             which are defined to include commercial and industrial projects
             of more than two contiguous acres. A peat mine would appear to
             fit this definition. An environmental impact statement might be
             quite helpful to a county in making plans for dealing with the
             social,    economic   and environmental impacts of large-scale
             mining, but the statement is informational only and does not
             empower the county to veto the project because the predicted
             environmental consequences are severe, nor does it bind the mine
             operator to any particular environmental standards. For the
             requirement of a county environmental impact statement to be
             effective, the county must employ a person capable of drafting

                                               45

                   and administering the impact statE!ment ordinance and reviewing
                   the completed statement for adequacy.

                   4.3.3.2 County Mining Permit

                        Counties    may   respond   to mining activities that are
                   regulated by the state under the Mining Act by enacting land use
                   regulations. County zoning regulations might be honored to SOME?
                   extent, but a county prohibition of mining would -- in the face
                   of a state permit -- clearly be preempted by state law. Brower
                   et   al.    (1983) indicate that the county would require a
                   reclamation bond in addition to the state bond. However, the
                   strong possibility of preemption exists here also. Although SOME?
                   effective land use regulation might be adopted at the county
                   level to deal with mining, it would have to be very carefully
                   tailored to avoid state preemption, and even then it would
                   probably invit.e litigation by the mining companies.

                   4.3.3.3 Severance Tax

                        Peat mining itself will not generate additional property,
                   taxes in affected counties,      although counties in which peat.
                   processing plants are located    will receive some property taxes4
                   Therefore, for the counties to   realize any significant amount of
                   tax revenues from the mining     operations, a severance tax would
                   be required. For a number of     reasons outlined by Brower et al.
                   (1983), the ad valorem property tax on peat deposits is, as a
                   practical matter, worth nothing. The primary reason for this is
                   the great difficulty in appraising the deposits.

                        Severance taxes can take a number of forms, including a per
                   unit tax on each ton or other quantity of the product mined, or
                   a percentage of the sales price of the resource mined. A portion
                   of the tax could be allocated for reclamation efforts. Other
                   states with severance taxes could provide models for a North
                   Carolina   tax.   State legislation would be required before
                   counties could levy any sort of a severance tax. The tax could
                   also be made a state tax.

                                                    46

               5. ALTERNATIVE PEAT MINING DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS

               5.1 Introductory Section

                     In the context of this project, a scenario is a set of
               assumptions about the course of peat mining development over a
               20-year period. In Scenario #1 (currently permitted acreage
               mined as proposed), these assumptions are based as much as
               possible on the stated plans of peat mining companies that held
               mining permits or had applied for permits as of summer, 1983.
               Where plans for specific aspects of the scenarios were not
               available, attempts were made to make the most "reasonable"
               assumptions possible. Comments on early drafts of the scenarios
               by representatives of the peat mining industry and by state
               agency personnel involved with permitting processes contributed
               to the refinement of these assumptions.

                     Scenarios #2 and #3 are based entirely on assumption and
               (except for the section of Scenario #3 between years I and 10
               which corresponds to Scenario #1) do not represent the stated
               plans of any peat mining industry or landowner in the study
               area.

                     In all scenarios, national economic conditions are assumed
               to warrant the development described.

                     Two mining areas have been delineated for Scenarios #1 and
               #3 based on permits issued and permit applications submitted as
               of     summer,    1983,    geographical    location,     and    drainage
               characteristics. These areas are shown in Figure 5B.

                     Four mining areas are outlined for Scenario #2 based on
               drainage characteristics and geographical location (see Figure
               5G). Areas 1 and 2 of this scenario are expansions of Areas 1
               and 2 in Scenario #1. Areas 3 and 4 of Scenario #2 are areas for
               which no mining permit applications have been submitted to date,
               but in which substantial peat deposits lie.

                     The following pages outline each of the three scenarios,
               stating  assumptions made about each of the following aspects:

                     1) Permitted acreage
                     2) Land disturbance
                     3) Mining and processing technologies
                     4) Transportation
                     5) Water management
                     6) Air quality management
                     7) Solid waste management
                     8) Wildlife mitigation measures
                     9) Fire protection measures
                     10) Reclamation plans

                                                   47

                   5.2 Alternatives

                   5.2.1 No Change

                        This alternative assumes that neither peat mining nor any
                   other type of development occurs during the 20-year study period
                   in areas within the boundaries of the scenarios. No further
                   ditching occurs and the permit areas remain largely in their
                   present state. Agricultural and forestry operations currently
                   underway continue but do not expand; no conversions from one
                   land use-habitat type to another, other than normal succession,
                   occur.

                        Burned    and   otherwise    disturbed   acreage    not    under
                   cultivation or in pine plantations. in the permitted areas
                   undergo natural vegetational succession and eventually revert to
                   low or high pocosin.

                                                    48

              5.2.2 Scenario #1: Currently Permitted Acreage

               (Static: at years 1/10/20 and/or Cumulative: years 1-10
                and 11-20)

               Note: Peat Methanol Associates (PMA) documents refer only
                     to 15,012 acres assumed permitted for methanol
                     production in Area 1 and do not refer to
                     horticultural peat operations.

              5.2.2.1 Permitted mining Activity

              5.2.2.1.1 Permitted Acreage

                               year 1              10            20
                Area 1        15,818

                Area 2         7,142

                Total         22,960

                Assumptions:
                  No further  acreage is permitted during the next 20 years
                  Permit renewals are granted for continuation of mining on
                   already permitted acreage
                  First Colony Farms' mining permit is transferred to PMA

                Sources:
                  Mining Permits
                  Figure 5A

              5.2.2.1.2 Location of Permitted Acreage

                    see Figure 5B

                                                49

                        Figure 5A: Scenario #1-- Acreage disturbed

                                                                                  Year
                                                     1   2  3  4  5    6  7  8  9 10   11 12 13 14 15   16 17 18 19 20     Total

                        Area 1
                          Permitted: 15,818 ac.            3,080         2,440            3,400           2,440            11,360 ac.
                          Mined:      11,360 ac.

                        Area 2
                          Permitted: 7,142 ac.             1,500         1,500            1,500           1,500             6,000 ac.
                          Mined:       6,000 ac.

                        Maximum
                          Acreage                              8,520                              8,840                    17,360 ac.
                          Disturbed

                                                                                24
                                     Lake

                                          Phelps
                                                                                                +
                                                                                   %C!D

                                                                                                                    46

                                                                       New
              U1                                                          Lake                                                                          .6.--.,

                                                                                          N"

                                                       Y

                                                              P  C
                                                                                                of
                                                                                                                                            Z:
                                                   ir

                                          At

                     It N G 0                                                                                        1 A 9

                      Figure 5B:          Scenario #1-- Currently Permitted                   Acreage                        Key:     Area 1               15,81
                       (Basemap - Isopach Map of Pamlimarle Peat - 2 ft                                                               Area 2                 7,14
                        thickness interval - from Inpram and Otte. 1982)

                    5.2.2.2 Land Disturbance

                    5.2.2.2.1 Acreage Mined (cumulative)

                                       by 10          by 20
                      Area 1           5,520          11,360

                      Area 2           3,000           6,000

                      Total            8,520          17,360

                      Assumptions:
                        Mining start dates   and rates occur as indicated in Figure 5A
                        Disturbed acreages   for Area 2 and for the horticultural
                         operations,in Area 1
                      Sources:
                        PMA, 1983d, Fig. 2-10 (blocks fully or partially mined or in
                         preparation at years 5, 10, 15 and 20)
                        Figure 5A

                    5.2.2.2.2 Average Acreage in Peat Mining Production at Any One
                              Time

                                         1-10            11-20
                      Area 1           2,000             2,000

                      Area 2           1,500             1,500

                      Total            3,500             3,500

                      Assumption:
                        Average acreage in   production  for Area 2
                      Source:
                        PMA, 1983c, d

                   5.2.2.2.3 Maximum Acreage Disturbed (in Preparation or Being
                              Mined) at Any One Time
                                             at 10                    at 20
                      Area 1                 2,880                    2,560

                      Area 2                 1,800                    1,800

                      Total                  4,680                    4,360

                      Assumption:
                        Maximum acreage disturbed for Area .2
                      Source:
                        PMA, 19nc,d

                                                      52

             5.2.2.2.4 Average Annual Rate of Land Disturbance

                                          1-10                 11-20
                Area 1                     552                  584

                Area 2                     300                  300

                Assumptions:
                  Mining rates

             5.2.2.2.5 Elevation of Mined Acreage

                         Land Elev. Expected Max. Average Depth Elev of Mined
                          (MSL)        Mine Depth       of mining      Acreage (MSL)
                Area 1      13-181          91          4-51              7-121

                Area 2      5-101           91          4-51                  if

                Sources:
                  Elevations - see Figure    5C
                  Mining Permit Applications
                  WTF Mining Permit
                  PMA, 1983c

             5.2.2.2.6 Undisturbed Permitted Acreage at Year 20

                Area 1      4,458

                Area 2      1,142 (includes a 410 acre conservation easement-
                                    to remain unmined)

                Total       5,600

                Assumptions:
                  Mining of Area 1 acreage is expected to occur over a period
                   of 34 years
                  Mining of Area 2 permitted acreage is expected to occur over
                   a period of more than 20 years

                                                  53

                                                     A L    41 A

                                                                                               C9

                                                         /0
                                               W A  S H 1" N G T     Ni

                                                                                       TYRRELL
                                                                                                                           0 A R E

                                                       /0        ... ...

                                    BEAUFORT,

                                                %G                             too#

                                                                    /0

                                                                             10          H Y D E

                                                                                           5

                                                                                                  "off
                                                                                     -1.08
                                                                             5

                                         "Co

                                                                0                'o
                                                                                j__.             2.0              50 Nq S
                                                                                   EXPLANATION
                                                           TOPOGRAPHiC CONTOUR-- Contour interval   5 feel. Five-fool contour not shown
                                                       when it would Mer.ge with the 10-foof contour of this scale. Datum is mean sea level

                                  Figure 5C:        CL!iieralized topographic map of the             Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula

                                                                                                        (from Heath, 1975)

             5.2.2.3 Mining and Processing Technologies

             5.2.2.3.1 Mining Technologies in Use

               Area 1
                 Milled peat production (15,012 acres permitted)
                 Bulldozer, truck, and front-end loader (98 acres permitted)
                 Scrape mining (similar to milled method) (708 acres
                  permitted)

               Area 2
                 Milled peat production (7,142 acres permitted)

               Sources:
                 Mining Permit Applications

             5.2.2.3.2 Average Amount of Peat Mined Per Year at Years
                       10 and 20

                Area 1            525,000 dry tons (875,000 tons at 40%
                                                    moisture)

                Area 2            140,000 dry tons (235,000 tons at 40%
                                                    moisture)

                Total             665,000 dry tons (1,110,000 tons at 40%
                                                    moisture)

               Assumptions:
                 140 mining days per year (average)
                 Amount of peat mined is based on:
                   Area 1: 3,600 dry tons/day x (average) 140 mining
                           days-peat for methanol production
                           25,00 dry tons/year-horticultural peat
                   Area 2: 1,000 dry tons/day x (average) 140 mining days
               Source:
                 PMA, 1983d, p.14 (harvesting projected to take place
                  142 days per year)

                                             55

                    5.2.2.3.3 Processing Technologies in Use at Years 10 and 20

                      Area 1
                       Conversion to methanol (500,000 dry tons per year)
                       Export as horticultural peat (25,000 dry tons per year)

                      Area 2                                         -
                       Export to industry as peat for fuel (140,000 dry tons per
                       year)

                      Assumption:
                        Area 2: export of peat to off-peninsula industry for use
                                 as fuel
                      Sources:
                        Mining Permit Applications

                    5.2.2.3.4 Products from Mined Peat: Type and Amount at Years 10
                               and 20

                      Area 1
                         methanol                             60 million gals/year
                         horticultural peat                   25,000 dry tons/year

                      Area 2
                         peat for industrial use (fuel)       140,000 dry tons/year

                      Assumptions:
                        Area 1: methanol plant annual output is equivalent to
                          approximately 310 days per year at full capacity requiring
                          an average of 1,600 dry tons peat per day to produce an
                          average of 200,000 gallons of methanol per day

                        Area 2: peat for industrial use is mi'ned/produced 140 days
                          per year
                      Sources:
                        PMA documents

                                                         56

             5.2.2.4 Transportation

             5.2.2.4.1 Type and Maximum Volume of Transportation to and on
                        Site (Construction and Operation)

                                Type          Size       Number/day
               Area 1   heavy duty trucks     up to     40 (construction)
                                              36 tons   13 (operation)

               Area 2   trucks                up to      5 (operation)
                                              36 tons
               Assumptions:
                 Years 1-3: construction ongoing in Area 1
                 Years 4-20: no construction ongoing in Area 1
                 No construction required in Area 2
                 Operation excludes transportation of peat or peat products.
                  Refers primarily to transportation of slag and fly ash
                  (Area 1).
                 Number of trucks needed in Area 2
               Source:
                 PMA, 1983j, p. 25

             5.2.2.4.2 Type and Volume of Transportation on Site - Harvesting
                        (Years 1-20)

                              Type                                Volume
             Area 1     tractor & carts               233 loads/day to methanol
                         (15 ton capacity)            plant stoarge pile or
                                                      shipping area for
                                                      horticultural peat

             Area 2     tractor and carts             63 loads/day to shipping
                         (15 ton capacity)                  area

             Assumptions:
                 Assumes peat can be transported from mining site to
                  processing plant or shipping area 250 days/year
                 Transportation method and capacity in Area 2
               Calculations:
                 Area 1: 875,000 tons of peat at 40% moisture per year/15
                         tons per cart/250 days per year
                 Area 2: 235,000 tons of peat at 40% moisture per year/15
                         tons per cart/250 days per year
               Source:
                 PMA, 1983i, p. 22- peat to be transported from the mining
                  site to the plant stockpile an average of 251 days per year

                                                 57

                   5.2.2.4.3 Type, Volume, and Route of Transportation from Site
                              Products at Years 10 and 20

                              Number            Type             size         Route

                     Area 1    27/day           trucks         36-ton       Rte 64 to
                                                                         Plymouth, NC

                     Area 2      2/week         barges      1,500-ton          IWW
                                                                            (south)

                     Assumptions:
                       Peat from Area 2 is transported via barge through the IWW to
                        a major industry off the peninsula (50 weeks/year)
                       Horticultural peat and methanol from Area 1 is transported
                        to barge and RR facilities in Plymouth, NC
                     Source:
                       PMA, 1983j, pp. 44 & 73

                   5.2.2.4.4 Maximum Distance (Miles) Peat Transported on Unpaved
                              Roads on Site

                                      at 10                at 20

                     Area 1           2.5                    4

                     Area 2           4                      4

                     Assumptions:
                       Distances for  Area 2
                     Source:
                       PMA, 1983d, Fig. 4-1, general phases of mining (used
                        phase II for at 10/phase V for at 20)

                                                       58

             5.2.2.4.5 Distance Products Transported on Paved/Unpaved Roads
                       from Site (Miles) Years 1-10

                                paved      unpaved      total      destination

               Area 1           19           10     29 (one way)     Plymouth,
                                                                          NC

               Area 2           0             0            0

               Assumptions:
                 All peat products from Area 1  are transported to or through
                  Plymouth, NC and all peat from Area 2 is transported to
                  a major industry off the peninsula via barge on the IWW
                  (from a barge terminal adjacent to the mining site)
                 Road on northern edge of Area 1 mining site remains unpaved
               Source:
                 PMA, 1983j

             5.2.2.5 Water Management

             5.2.2.5.1 Acreage of Sediment, Evaporation, and Other Temporary
                       Ponds and Acreage of Permanent Lakes

                                1-9                    10-20

               Area 1       2550 (temp-max            1450 (perm-max
                                   depth V)                depth 8')
               Area 2           0                        0

               Assumptions:
                 All drainage water from Area 2 is discharged into IWW/no
                  holding ponds
               Note:
                 Area 1: holding ponds located on 15,012 acre tract in
                  methanol production
               Sources:
                 PMA, 1983c, d
                 PMA, 1983i, p. 19

                                                59

                     5.2.2.5.2 Groundwater Withdrawn from the Quarternary Shell Hash
                                Unit for Processing at Years 10 and 20

                       Area 1     2.3 mgd

                       Area 2     none

                       Assumptions:
                         Withdrawals are made from the Quarternary Shell Hash Unit
                          (underlying Area 1 at depths of 40 to 130 feet)
                       Sources:
                         PMA, 1983i, p. 74 and personal communication R. Hornstein,
                          Koppers Company, Inc.

                     5.2.2.5.3 Maximum Water Withdrawn from the Surficial Aquifer
                               during Plant Site Preparation

                       Area 1     3 mgd (for a period of two years)

                       Area 2     0 mgd

                       Sources:
                         PMA Water Use  Permit Applications and Permits

                     5.2.2.5.4 Water Balances for mining Sites

                     Condition         Total Runoff       Subsurface Surface        Evapo-
                                    mgy/2000 mgy/1500      Dr1ina2e      Rrof5      trans-
                                     acres       acres    (in /in      (in /in    pi5ati2n
                                    (Area 1)   (Area 2)                          (in /in

                     Pre-mining       1046       784          11.2         8.0       29.2
                     (disturbed)

                     Pre-mining        778       591          11.1         3.4       33.9
                     (shrub)

                     During mining 1336         1002            6.5        18.0

                     After mining      808       606           6.8         8.0       33.6
                     (agriculture
                     330' spaced
                     drainage ditches)

                       Note:
                         Data based on 15 year averages of computer simulations using
                         weather data from Elizabeth City weather station. Annual
                          average rainfall for the 15 years used is 48.41'.
                       Source:
                         R. Broadhead, Dept. Biol. and Agric. Eng., NCSU

                                                         60

             5.2.2.5.5 mined and Reclaimed Acreage from Which Drainage
                        Water is Being Pumped during Mining (Cumulative)

                                 0-5             5-10        10-15          15-20
                Area 1        3,080             5,520        8,920         11,360

                Area 2        1,500             3,000        4,500          6,000

                Total         4,580             8,520       13,420         17,360

                Assumptions:
                  All disturbed acreage requires    pumping  during mining (i.e.,
                   drainage water from all lands    gravity  drains to lowest
                   points on the mining sites and is pumped into lakes or
                   canals)
                  All reclaimed acreage requires pumping
                  Acreage figures do not include    unmined land which may drain
                   into the low points depending    on the location of the
                   unmined land relative to the sites being mined
                Sources:
                  L. Otte, Geol. Dept., ECU
                  R. Broadhead, Dept. Biol. and Agric. Eng., NCSU

              5.2.2.5.6.Maximum Changes in Surficial Groundwater at the
                        Mine Sites

                Areas 1 and 2
                 In areas where peat is removed, groundwater levels will
                 decline by the depth of peat mined. If vegetation is
                 replanted, groundwater level will drop an additional foot.

                Source:
                  R. Broadhead, Dept. Biol. and Agric. Eng., NCSU

                Area 1
                 Projected maximum effects of mining operations on water
                 levels along the northern edge of the mining site are a
                 decline of about 3.5' in the Fine Sand Unit and 2.5' in the
                 Shell Hash Unit.

                Source:
                  PMA, 1983k, p.   84

                                                  61

                   5.2.2.5.7 Drainage and Runoff Waters from All Mined and
                             Reclaimed Lands: Direction of Flow/Receiving
                             Body of Water

                                       1-10                             11-20
                     Area 1     All runoff to temp. lagoons     All runoff to central
                                or central lake to Canal        lake to Canal B to
                                B to Pungo River                Pungo River
                                (Mean annual discharge          (Mean annual discharge
                                from holding ponds: 8 cfs       from lake: 35.3 cfs
                                Max. runoff: 59.6 cfs)          Max. runoff: 151 cfs)

                     Area 2     Mine site to IWW                Same as 1-10

                     Assumptions:
                       Drainage systems on all mined lands similar to agricultural
                        drainage systems in use throughout the coastal area of NC
                       Area 1: Water will drain from disturbed areas by gravity to
                        low points from which it will be pumped to lagoons or a
                        central lake
                       Area 2: Water will be discharged into IWW`
                     Sources:
                       PMA, 1983f, p. 6-74
                       WTF NPDES Permit
                       PMA, 1983i, p. 91

                                                       62

                 5.2.2.5.8 Quality of Runoff from Mining Sites (Areas 1 and 2)

             Source Water           Parameters (all units except pH in mg/l
                    Type               (ppm) +/- approx. S.E.)

                               DO          pH             TSS      CN       SCN

             1 Drainage         3          4.2             25    <0.005       2
                 (measured  +/-0.6        +/-0.4         +/-8               +/-0.7
                 in existing
                 canals)

             2   Drainage                 4.3-8.5         100
                 (Mean effluent                       (200 max)
                 characteristics
                 projected from
                 harvesting)

             3   Processing      7         6-9              -      0.002
                 Effluent    (80% sat.
                               at 20 C)

             4   Storm                     6-9             50         -

             5   Drainage                     -             -
                 (11natural
                 peatlands")

             6   Drainage
                 (peatlands
                 converted to
                 pasture)

             Note:
                 Abbreviations may be found in Appendix 10.10
             Sources:
                 I- PMA, 1983f, Appendix A
                 2,3,4- PMA, 1983f
                 5,6- Skaggs et al., 1980
                 7- NRCD unpublished data

                                                   63

                   5.2.2.5.8 (Continued)

                   Source Water                             Parameter
                            Type               (mg/l (ppm) 4-/- approx. S.E.)
                                      Ci-      Fl-        so 4:     NH  3-N      NO 2-N
                   1 Drainage          12       0.1       12         1.0        0.01
                                     +/-2    +/-0.02     +/-2        +/-0.2

                   2 Drainage                     -                    0.96

                   3 Process           -           1.4                 -

                   5 Drainage          2.2           -                 0.11
                                                                     +/-0.01

                   6 Drainage          9.2                             0.36
                                                                     +/-0.04

                                       NO 3-N   Kjd-N Tot Org-N      Ortho-P    Tot-P
                   1 Drainage          0.01      3.5       2           0.2        0.3
                                              +/-0.4 +/-0.2         +/-0.04 +/-0.03

                   2 Drainage             -                            0.01        -

                   3 Process              -       -        -              -       0.5

                   5 Drainage          0.03       1.18     1.20                  0.006
                                    +/-0.01   +/-0.04  +/-0.03                +/-0.01

                   6 Drainage          0.24     1.68      1.92                   2.36
                                    +/-0.07   +/-0.04   +/-0.09               +/-0.21

                   Note:
                     Abbreviations may be   found in  Appendix 10.10
                   Sources:
                      1- PMA. 1983f, Appendix A
                      2,3,4- PMA, 1983f
                      5.6- Skaggs, et al., 1980
                      7- NRCD unpublished data

                                                       64

              5.2.2.5.8 (Continued)

              Source Water                                Parameter
                       Type                 (mg/1 (ppm) +/- approx. S.E.)
                            5 Day BOD       As          Sb        Ca        Cd      Cu

              1 Drainage         2.5     <0.02        <0.02       10       0.002 0.01
                                                                  +/-4

              2 Drainage         4             -         -                     -   0.02
                               (max  6)

              3 Process          6        0.003          -          -     0.001       -

              5 Drainage         -             -         -        1.4    <0.01     0.012

              6 Drainage                       -         -        10.4   <0.01     0.009

                                  Fe*      Cr           Mn        Mg     Pb**      Hg
              1 Drainage          5      0.005        0.03          3    0.02      0.001
                               +/-1.3                             +/-1         +/-0.002

              2 Drainage          4.9       -             -                     "ambient"

              3 Process      <0.001      0.01         0.02          - <0.001       0.00021

              5 Drainage      0.63          -         0.003        0.5     -        -

              6 Drainage      1.66                    0.027        2.5     -        -

              7 ?              -                          -         -      -     <0.0002

              Notes:
                   > criterion (1 & 2)
                   much variation, sometimes > criterion (0.03?)
               Abbreviations may be found in Appendix 10.10
              Sources:
                 1- PMA, 1983f, Appendix A
                 2,3,4- PMA, 1983f
                 5,6- Skaggs et al., 1980
                 7- NRCD unpublished data

                                                     65

                 5.2.2.5.8 (Continued)

                 Source Water                          Parameter
                          Type               (mg1l (ppm) +/-- approx. S.E.)

                                 Ni      Se      Ag     Na     Zn     Co      Be    D.S.
                 1 Drainage    <0.01 <0.001 <0.001       6    0.08   <0.01     -      250

                 3 Process     0.07    0.001     -       -     0.09 <0-001  <0.005 4500

                 5 Drainage      -      -        -       3.7   0.01      -     -       -

                 6 Drainage      -               -       5.1   0.02

                 Note:
                   Abbreviations may be found in Appendix 10.10
                 Sources:
                   1- PMA, 1983f, Appendix A
                   2,3,4- PMA, 1983f
                   5,6- Skaggs et.al., 1980.
                   7- NRCD unpublished data

                  5.2.2.5.9 Wastewater Treatment: Source/Rate/Route of Effluent
                             Discharge/Receiving Body of Water at Years 10 and 20
                              Source               Average        Route      Receiving
                                                 Daily Discharge           Water Body

                     Area 1 Methanol plant 870,000 gal/day        Canal B     Pungo R.

                     Area 2     none

                     Assumption:
                       No processing occurs in Area 2
                     Source:
                       PMA, 1983i

                                                         66

               5.2.2.5.10 Flood Gates/Flood Control Measures

               Area 1
                No flood gates constructed because of elevation of
                 permitted land

               Area 2
                Flood gates constructed at all drainage outlets from mining
                 sites to permit site drainage but prevent entry of water
                 from IWW

               Assumptions:
                 Flood gates constructed in Area 2
               Sources:
                 WTF Mining Permit
                 R. Hornstein, Koppers Co., Inc.

             5.2.2.5.11 Elevation of Dikes Around Mined Areas/Storage Ponds
                        and Lakes

                               at 10                    at 20

               Area 1           201 MSL           20' MSL around central lake
                            around temp  ponds

               Area 2         no dikes            8' MSL around eastern end
                                                          of mine
               Sources:
                 PMA, 1983d
                 WTF Mining Permit

             5.2.2.5.12 Probability of Hurricane Flooding in 100-year
                        Floodplain at Years 10 and 20

               Area 1
                Not susceptible to flood inundation caused by wind tides
                having a 1% chance of being equalled or exceeded in any one
                year

               Area 2
                Approximately half the area is susceptible to flood
                inundation caused by wind tides having a 1% chance of being
                equalled or exceeded in any one year (without protective
                barriers)

               Source:
                 Figure 5D

                                                67

                                                                                                                V A

                                                                                                                                                         01,#'0
                                                                               ,r,j                                                                           '0 '0 )
                                                                                                                                          f

                                                                                                                                 Lott

                                                                                                      lo'.11
                                                                                                                         a

                                                                                                 If
                                                                                          -(@be
                                                                                                                                          p                                     Coot
                                                                          <1                                          _6

                                                                                                                                                                                         35.
                                                                            Poll 09 a I ..;I;
                                                                                off

                                                                                                             to                  10       to         50 MIMS
                                                                                                                                 a  .     d    .     I
                                                                                                                 19    0     10    20    NO    40    90 $14.0101111's

                                                                      Figure 5D:                   Area subject to flood inundation caused
                                                                                                   by wind tides having a 1% chance of being
                                                                                                   equalled or exceeded in any one year
                                                                                                   (from'Wilder, Robison and Lindskov, 1978)

                                                                                                                             68

             5.2.2.5.13 Change in Groundwater Recharge Rate to the Castle
                          Hayne Aquifer Resulting from Land Clearing and Mining
                         Activities. Values are Average Changes in Recharge
                          Rates Over the Entire Acreage for Each Area.

                               1-10                  11-20             over 20years

                Area 1      -0.0005 in/yr         -0.0002 in/yr       -0.0007 in/yr
                               (-5.2%)                                  (-7.2%)
                               -66gpd               -230 gpd             -830 gpd

                Area 2      -0.0007 in/yr         -0.0001 in/yr       -0.0009 in/yr
                               (-7.6%)                                  (-8.8%)
                               -400 gpd              -60 gpd              -460 gpd
                Notes:
                  Rate at year 0 = 0.01 in/yr
                  Change in rate is noted in parentheses
                Assumptions:
                  Assumes layers are isolated laterally (i.e., essentially a
                   vertical system)
                  Stratigraphy for all areas similar to that found for First
                   Colony Farms (Area 1)
                  Depth of mining operations for all areas similar to that
                   proposed by PMA (Area 1)
                Source:
                  Foutz, 1983.

             5.2.2.5.14 Salt water Encroachment in Shallow and Deep Aquifers

                Areas 1 and 2
                 No significant lateral movement in the freshwater/saltwater
                 interface. Since there is already a wide diffused zone
                 ranging from salt to fresh water, the anticipated change in
                 head due to withdrawals (a few feet) is not expected to
                 significantly change the location of this diffused zone

                Sources:
                  P. Nelson, Groundwater Section, DEM, NRCD
                  PMA, 1983k

             5.2.2.5.15 Revegetation of Canal/Ditch Banks

                Revegetation is completed following ditch maintenance and as
                part of reclamation

                Assumption:
                  All of the above

                                                  69

                  5.2.2.5.16 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures

                    Adequate mechanical barriers including but not limited to
                    diversions, settling ponds, earthen dikes, brush barriers,
                    silt check dams, silt retarding structures; rip rap pits or
                    ditches provided in the initial stages of any land disturbance
                    to prevent sediment from discharging onto any adjacent surface
                    areas or into any lake or natural watercourse in proximity to
                    the affected land.

                    Assumptions:
                      All of the  above

                  5.2.2.5.17 Buffer Strips Adjacent to Estuaries/Lakes/Rivers at
                             Years 10 and 20

                    Area 1              2000' tree buffer between
                                        site and Phelps Lake

                    Area 2              300' between site and IWW

                    Note:  20001 tree buffer in Area 1 is outside permitted area
                    Sources:
                      PMA, 1983f
                      WTF Mining   Permit

                                                      70

              5.2.2.6 Air Quality Management

              5.2.2.6.1 Off-property Fugitive Dust Concentrations Resulting
                          from Mining and Processing operations at Years 10
                          and 20

                With adequate buffer strips, mining in Areas 1 and 2 is not
                anticipated to exceed air quality standards.

                Notes:
                  NC Air Quality Standards
                   Area 1 (15,012 acre tract)                         3
                     Annual Standard for Particulate - 75,ag/M          3
                     24-Hour Standard for Particulate - 150.,iAg/M
                   Area 1 (all other acreage) and Area 2                          3
                      Annual Standard for Particulate (Class I) - 5'"g/M
                      24-Hour itandard for Particulate (Class I) -
                        10 _'kg/M
                      Annual S   andard for Particulate (Class II) -
                        19 Ag/M
                      24-Hour itandard for Particulate (CLass II) -
                        37.wAgIM
                      Class I     protected areas having air cleaner than the
                                  National Ambient Standard (Swanquarter
                                  National Wildlife Refuge is the only Class I
                                  area on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula)
                      Class II     other areas having air cleaner than the
                           3       National Ambient Standard
                      .ZCg/M    micrograms per cubic meter
                Source:
                   M. Sewell, Air Quality Section, DEM, NRCD

              5.2.2.6.2 Mitigation Measures for Fugitive Dust Emissions from
                          Transportation of Peat in Use at Years 10 and 20

                Area 1
                   restricted speed limits
                   paving or watering of roadways
                   tree buffer strips

                Area 2
                   restricted speed limits
                   tree buffer strips

                Assumptions:
                   All of the above
                Source:
                   PMA, 1983j, p. 78

                                                      71

                   5.2.2.7 Solid Waste Management

                   5.2.2.7.1 Amount of Non-hazardous Waste Generated (Years 1-20)
                     Area 1    53,000 tons/yr (851,000 ft 3/yr*)
                                (non-burnable material from methanol production
                               including 27,000 tons/year of slag and fly ash)
                     Area 2     negligible
                     Assumptions:                                3
                         Assumes a bulk density of 0.062 tons/ft
                       No significant amount non-hazardous waste  generated
                        in Area 2
                     Source:
                       PMA, 1983h, Fig. 1

                   5.2.2.7.2 Amount of Hazardous Waste Generated (Years 1-20)
                     Area 1    1,000 ft 3/yr (does not include catalysts
                                                    recycled)
                               8,100 gals/yr waste oils

                     Area 2    none

                     Assumption:
                       No hazardous wastes generated in Area 2 since no peat will
                        be processed on site
                     Source:
                      PMA, 1983h

                   5.2.2.8 Wildlife Mitigation Measures

                   5.2.2.8.1 Permitted Acreage Restored to Native Vegetation
                             (Buffer Strips)

                         see section 5.2.2.10.6

                     Assumption:
                       20% mined/reclaimed land required re-established to native
                        vegetation or low intensity managed forest for buffer strips
                     Source:
                       D. Owens, Office of Coastal Management, NRCD

                                                    72

            5.2.2.8.2 Location of Native Vegetation Buffer Strips on
                       Permitted Areas at Years 10 and 20

               see Figure 5E

               Source:
                 PMA, 1983c, d

            5.2.2.9 Fire Protection Measures

            5.2.2.9.1 Source and Volume of Water for Fire Suppression

                             1-10                        11-20

              Area 1  Canals, lagoons-              Central lake (5 blocks)
                      14 unharvested blocks          (12,000 ac-ft)
                      in use as water storage
                      reservoirs

              Area 2 Fire protection/waterfowl      same as at 10
                      impoundment

              Source:
                PMA, 1983c, pp. 13, 37

            5. 2.2.9.2 Water Control Structures for Areas Not Being Mined

              Structures installed to prevent gravity drainage from lowering
              water level lower than l' below ground level on lands not
              being actively mined. These structures have capacity to retain
              sufficient water to flood or saturate peat soil to or slightly
              above ground level.

              Assumptions:
                All of the  above
              Sources:
                PMA, 1983c, p. 13
                WTF Mining Permit

                                               73

                                                                       Numbers indicate mining blocks

                                                yQ

                              Lake
                                                                      2              3

                                (Nat ral
                                                          4           5              6
                                      Area)     0

                                                          7           8              9

                                                              "K
                                                                      1          12

                                                           Wildlife
                                                                          14
                                                     13       I.Corridor

                                         15

                                                     16
                                         18                                              Cr
                                                                    19
                                                            0

                                         20          21             22                           Lake

                                                                                              Natural
                                         23          24             25                  M
                                                                                        W        Area)
                                               J

                                         26          27             28
                                                                                        rT
                            ,('300' buffer strip            20' buffer.strip
                                Assumptions:
                                 1/2 mi. buffer along major bodies of water
                                 1/2 mi. wildlife corridors between natural ar as
                                  (corridor can be mined if equivalent area maintaine
                                  in native vegetation, i. e., corridor is movable)
                                 300' buffer strips running N-S alorig me side of major canals
                                 20' buffer strips running E-W along one side of roads and smaller
                                   canals
                                                                               scale: 1"-2,000'
                           V             15

                             Fi.vure 5E:   Schematic of tvpical wildlife buffer plan

                                                                74

             5.2.2.10 Reclamation

             5.2.2.10.1 Mined Acreage Legally Required to be Reclaimed
                         (Cumulative)

                             by 10              by 20
               Area 1        2,020              7,980

               Area 2        1,500              4,500

               Total         3,500              12,480

               Assumptions:
                 NRCD requirement   that mined areas be reclaimed within 2
                  years of completion of mining is met
                 All legally reclaimable land reclaimed on schedule (refers
                   to sections 5.2.2.10.3-5.2.2.10.8)
                 Reclamation schedule for Area 2 and part of Area 1
               Source:
                 PMA, 1983d, Fig. 2-10

             5.2.2.10.2 Percentage of Total Reclaimed Land in Various Types
                         of Reclamation
                                                   Area 1              Area 2
                                                by 10   by 20       by 10 and 20

               Row crops with pumping             8       62             78

               Row crops without pumping          0         0             0

               Pine plantations                   10      10             10

               Restored native veg.               10      10             10

               Open water                         72      18              0

               Grass replanted                    0         0             2

               Assumptions:
                 Native vegetation restored in buffer strips as shown in
                  Figure 5E
                 Pumping required in all reclaimed farmland
                 Reclamation activities - percentages

                                                  75

                    5.2.2.10.3 Mined Acreage in Row Crops with Pumping (Cumulative)

                                      by 10               by 20
                      Area 1           162                4,930

                      Area 2          1,170               3,510

                      Total           1,332               8,440

                      Calculations:
                        Sections 5.2.2.10.3-5.2.2.10.8    calculated based.on % in
                         section 5.2.2.10.2 and acreages in section 5.2.2.10.1

                    5.2.2.10.4 Mined Acreage in Row Crops Without Pumping
                                 (Cumulative)

                                       by 10           by 20
                      Area 1              0               0

                      Area 2              0               0

                      Total               0               0

                    5.2.2.10.5 Mined Acreage in Pine Plantations (Including
                               Vegetative Buffer Strips) (Cumulative)

                                       by 10               by 20
                      Area 1             202                 798

                      Area 2             150                 450

                      Total              352              1,248

                    5.2.2.10.6 Mined Acreage Restored to Native Vegetation
                                (Buffer Strips) (Cumulative)

                                       by 10            by 20
                      Area 1           202                 798

                      Area 2           150                 450

                      Total            352                1,248

                                                          76

              5.2.2.10.7 Mined Acreage in Open Water Reclamation
                          With/Without Marshes and Islands (Cumulative)

                                 by 10             by 20
                Area 1          1,454              1,454

                Area 2               0                 0

                Total           1,454              1,454

              5.2.2.10.8 Mined Areas Replanted to Grass (Cumulative)

                                  by 10            by 20
                Area 1               0                0

                Area 2              30               90

                Total               30               90

              5.2.2.10.9 Unreclaimed Mined Acreage Not Yet Legally Required
                          to be Reclaimed (Cumulative)

                               by 10             by 20
                Area 1         3,500             3,380

                Area 2         1,500             1,500

                Total          5,000             4,880

              5.2.2.10.10 Unreclaimed Disturbed Acreage Legally
                           Required to be Reclaimed (Cumulative)

                                       by 10        by 20
                Area 1                   0            0

                Area 2                   0            0

                Total                    0            0

                Assumption:
                  All legally reclaimable land reclaimed on schedule

                                                   77

                    5.2.3 Scenario #2: Upper Boundary

                     (Static: at years 1/10/20 and/or   Cumulative: years 1-10
                      and 11-20)

                    5.2.3.1 Permitted Mining Activity

                    5.2.3.1.1 Permitted Acreage

                                     year 1              10             20
                      Area 1                                       30,000

                      Area 2                                       15,000

                      Area 3                                       26,000

                      Area 4                                       13,000

                      Total                                        84,000

                      Assumptions:
                        All of the above
                      Source:
                        Figure 5F

                    5.2.3.1.2 Location of Permitted Acreage

                         see Figure 5G

                    5.2.3.2 Land Disturbance

                    5.2.3.2.1 Acreage Mined (Cumulative)

                                       by 10            by 20
                      Area 1           7,500            30,000

                      Area 2           3,750            15,000

                      Area 3           5,500            26,000

                      Area 4           3,400            13,000

                      Total           20,150            84,000

                      Assumptions:
                       Mining start   dates and rates occur as indicated   in
                         Scenario #2  chart of disturbed acreages
                      Source: Figure  5F

                                                       78

                           Figure 5F: Scenario #2-- Acreage disturbed

                                                                                Year
                                                      1  2  3  4  5    6  7  8  9 10   11 12 13 14 15  116 17 18 19 20    Total

                           Area 1
                             Permitted: 30,000 ac.       3,000            4,500            9,000            13,500        30,000 ac.
                             Mined       30,000 ac.

                           Area 2
                             Permitted:  15,000 ac.      1,500            2,250            4,500             6,750        15,000 ac.
                             Mined:      15,000 ac.

                           Area 3
                             Permitted:  26,000 ac.      1,500            4,000            8,000            12,500        26,000 ac.
                             Mined:      26,000 ac.

                           Area 4
                             Permitted:  13,000 ac.      1,500            1,900            3,850             5,750        13,000 ac.
                             Mined:      13,000 ac.

                           Maximum
                             Acreage                            20,150                           63,850                   84,000 ac.
                             Disturbed

                                                                                                    WA

                                                0

                           Lake
                     Alf.,
                               Phelps
                                                                                          +

                                                                                                         Mr

                        'V                    %

                                                    N
                                                     ew
                                                     Lake

                                                                      X--
          00

                                                                                      A M V SK & Z
                  U,N2t60   a ,

                                                                                                       Xr

                               Scenario #2-- Upper Boundary
                  Figure   5G:                                               Key:
                  fRncomnn - Tsopach map  of Pamlimarle peat    2 ft
                    thickness interval   from Ingram and Otte, 1982)           Area 1         30,000 ac    Area
                                                                                       Ev-LAJ@U 15,000 ac
                                                                               Area 2                      Area

             5.2.3.2.2 Average Acreage in Peat Mining Production at Any
                        One Time

                                  1-10              11-20
               Area 1           3,750             11,250

               Area 2           1,875               5,625

               Area 3           2,750             10,250

               Area 4           1,700               4,800

               Total           10,075             31,925

               Source:
                 Figure 5F

             5.2.3.2.3 Maximum Acreage Disturbed (in Preparation or Being
                        Mined) at Any One Time

                                    at 10                    at 20

               Area 1               4,500                    13,500

               Area 2               2,250                     6,750

               Area 3               4,000                    12,500

               Area 4               1,900                     5,750

               Total                12,650                   38,500

               Source:
                 Figure 5F

                                                  81

                      5.2.3.2.4 Average Annual Rate of Land Disturbance

                                         1-5            6-10            11-15               16-20
                        Area 1           600             900            1,800               2,700

                        Area 2           300             450                900             1,350

                        Area 3           300             800            1,600               2,500

                        Area 4           300             380                770             1,150

                        Assumptions:
                          Mining rates
                        Source:
                          Figure 5F

                      5.2.3.2.5 Elevation of Mined Acreage

                                  Land Elev.      Maximum       Average       Minimum
                                   (MSL)        Mine Depth      DE!pth of    Elev of Mined
                                                                mining       Acr-eage (MSL)
                        Area 1       13-18'            10,         4-5'             41

                        Area 2       5-10'              91         4-6'             11

                        Area 3       <5-151             81         4-61             31 below MSL

                        Area 4       51 or   less      14'         4-8'             9' below MSL
                                                                                    or lower
                        Sources:
                          Maximum depth of peat deposits estimated from Ingram
                            and Otte, 1982
                          Elevations - see Figure 5C

                      5.2.3.2.6 Undisturbed Permitted Acreage at Year 20

                        Area 1            0

                        Area 2            0

                        Area 3            0

                        Area 4            0

                        Total             0

                                                              82

             5.2.3.3 mining and Processing Technologies

             5.2.3.3.1 Mining Technologies in Use

               Area 1
                Milled peat production (28,300 acres permitted)
                Bulldozer, truck, and front-end loader (200 acres permitted)
                Scrape mining (similar to milled method) (1,500 acres
                 permitted)

               Area 2
                Milled peat production (15,000 acres permitted)

               Area 3
                Milled peat production (26,000 acres permitted)

               Area 4
                Milled peat production (13,000 acres permitted)

               Assumption:
                 Hydraulic mining not in use/feasible

             5.2.3.3.2 Average Amount of Peat Mined (dry tons/yr)
                              at 10                 at 20
               Area 1         837,525               2,512,575

               Area 2         367,500               1,102,500

               Area 3         471,900               1,758,900

               Area 4         432,000               1,219,000

               Total        2,108,925               6,592,975

               Calculations:
                 Area 1:  Estimated peat contained within area boundaries
                          33.5 million dry tons
                          33.5 million tons/30,000 ac=1,116.7 tons/ac
                          yrs 1-10: 7,500 ac mined x 1,116.7 tons/ac/10
                            yrs=837,525
                          yrs 11-20: 22,500 ac mined x 1,116.7 tons/ac/10
                            yrs=2,512,575 tons/yr
                 Area 2:  Estimated peat contained within area boundaries
                          14.7 million dry tons
                          14.7 million tons/15,000 ac=980 tons/ac
                          yrs 1-10: 3,750 ac mined x 980 tons/ac/10
                            yrs=367,500 tons/yr
                          yrs 11-20: 11,250 ac mined x 980 tons/ac/10
                            yrs=1,102,500 tons/yr

                                                83

                   5.2.3.3.2 (Continued)
                        Area 3: Estimated  peat contained within area boundaries
                                22.3 million dry tons
                                22.3 million tons/26,000 ac=858 tons/ac
                                yrs 1-10: 5,500 ac mined x 858 tons/ac/10
                                  yrs=471,900 tons/yr
                                yrs 11-20: 20,500 ac mined x.858 tons/ac/10
                                  yrs=1,758,900 tons/yr
                        Area 4: Estimated peat contained within area boundaries
                                16.5 million dry tons
                                16.5 million tons/13,000 ac=1,270 tons/ac
                                yrs 1-10: 3,400 ac mined x 1,270 tons/ac/10
                                   yrs=432,00 tons/yr
                                yrs 11-20: 9,600 ac mined x 1,270 tons/ac/10
                                   yrs=1,219,000 tons/yr

                     Note:
                        Tonnages by area roughly estimated based on data
                        provided by R. L. Ingram - square miles of peat
                        by depth by USGS quad map. Bulk density assumed
                         to be 180 tons/acre-foot.

                   5.2.3.3.3 Processing Technologies in Use

                                Method                            Dry Tons/Year
                                                                 at 10     at 20
                     Area 1
                      Conversion to methanol                    787,273 2,361,821
                      Export as horticultural peat                50,252     150,754

                     Area 2
                      Export to industry as peat                367,500    1,102,500
                        for use as fuel

                     Area 3
                      Conversion to methanol                    471,900    1,758,900

                     Area 4
                      Export to industry as peat                432,000    1,219,000
                        for use as fuel

                     Calculations:
                        see section 5.2.3.3.2

                                                       84

             5.2.3.3.4 Products from Mined Peat: Type and Amount

                                               at 10                 at 20
                Area 1
                  methanol            94 million gal/yr      283 million gals/yr
                  horticultural      50,252 dry tons/yr      150,754 dry tons/yr
                     peat

                Area 2
                  peat for industrial
                   use (fuel)       367,500 dry tons/yr 1,102,500 dry tons/yr

                Area 3
                  methanol            57 million gals/yr     211 million gals/yr

                Area 4
                  peat for industrial
                   use (fuel)      432,000 dry tons/yr 1,219,000 dry tons/yr

                Assumption:
                   8,333 dry tons of peat produce 1 million gallons of
                     methanol (based on Scenario #1, section 5.2.2.3.4)

             5.2.3.4 Transportation

             5.2.3.4.1 Type and Maximum Volume of Transportation to and
                        on Site (Construction and Operation)

                             Type         Size        Number/day
                Area 1  heavy duty        up to       80  (construction)
                         trucks           36 tons     26  (operation) at  year 10
                                                      65  (operation) at  year  20

                Area 2  trucks            up to       10  (operation) at  year  10
                                          36 tons     30  (operation) at  year  20
                Area 3  heavy duty        up to       75  (construction)
                         trucks           36 tons     25  (operation) at  year  10
                                                      65  (operation) at  year  20
                Area 4  trucks            up to       10  (operation)   at year 10
                                          36 tons     33  (operation)   at year 20
                Assumptions:
                  Areas 2 and 4: no construction required
                  Areas 1 and 3: construction ongoing years 1-10
                  Years 11-20: no construction ongoing
                  Operation excludes transportation of peat or peat products.
                   For Areas 1 and 3 refers primarily to transportation of
                   slag and fly ash

                                                85

                   5.2.3.4.2 Type and Volume of Transportation on Site - Harvesting

                                                   1-5
                                    Type                         Volume
                     Area 1    tractor & carts                233 loads/day to
                               (15-ton capacity)              plant storage
                                                                   pile

                     Area 2     same as above                    98 loads/day to
                                                                  shipping area

                     Area 3     same as above                   126 loads/day to
                                                                plant storage
                                                                   pile

                     Area 4     same as above                   115 loads/day to
                                                                 shipping area
                     Assumptions:
                       Assumes peat can be transported from mining site to
                        processing plant or shipping area 250 days/year
                       Years 6-20: switch to conveyers for transportation of
                        peat to plant storage piles or shipping areas (all Areas)

                     Source:
                       PMA, 1983i, p. 22 peat to be transported from the mining
                        site to the plant stockpile an average of 251 days per
                        year

                   5.2.3.4.3 Transportation from Site - Products at Years 10 and 20

                               Type                      Route
                     Area 1    pipelines            to Plymouth, NC

                     Area 2    barges               IWW (south)

                     Area 3    pipelines            to Plymouth, NC

                     Area 4    barges               IWW (south)

                     Assumptions:
                       Peat from Areas 2 + 4 is transported via barge through the
                       IWW to major industries off the peninsula
                       Methanol from Areas 1 + 3 is transported via pipeline to
                       barge and RR facilities in Plymouth, NC

                                                    86

             5.2.3.4.4 Maximum Distance (Miles) Peat Transported on Unpaved
                        Roads on Site (Years 1-5)

               Area 1              5

               Area 2              8

               Area 3              6

               Area 4              8

               Assumption:
                 Years 6-20: conveyers in use for transportation of peat in
                  all areas

             5.2.3.4.5 maximum Distance Products Transported on Paved/Unpaved
                        Roads from Site (miles)

                                             1-10
                            paved        unpaved       total    destination

               Area 1        0              0             0     Plymouth, NC

               Area 2        0              0             0     off peninsula

               Area 3        0              0             0     Plymouth, NC

               Area 4        0              0             0     off peninsula

               Assumptions:
                 All peat products from Areas 1 + 3 are transported by
                  pipeline to Plymouth, NC and all peat from Areas 2 + 4
                  is transported to industries off the peninsula via
                  barge on the IWW (from barge terminals adjacent to
                  the mining sites)

                                               87

                   5.2.3.5 Water Management

                   5.2.3.5.1 Acreage of Sediment, Evaporation, and Other Temporary
                              Ponds and Acreage of Permanent Lakes

                                      1-10                     11-20
                      Area 1       5,000 (temp)              2,900 (perm)

                      Area 2            0                        0

                      Area 3            0                        0

                      Area 4       1,954 (perm)              4,280 (perm)

                      Assumptions:
                        All drainage water from  Area 2 is discharged into IWW/
                         no holding ponds
                        Area 1: 2 x Scenario #1
                        Area 3: no holding ponds: sheet flow through wetlands
                         utilized
                        Area 4: reclamation is open water

                   .5.2.3.5.2 Groundwater Withdrawn from the Quarternary Shell Hash
                              Unit, Yorktown Formation, or Castle Hayne Aquifer
                              for Processing

                                 at 10                  at 20
                      Area 1    3.7 mgd                 10.9 mgd

                      Area 2    none                    none

                      Area 3    2.2 mgd                 8 mgd

                      Area 4    none                    none

                      Assumptions:
                        At year 10:
                          Area 1: methanol production   160% x Scenario #1 (Area 1)
                          Area 3: methanol production   951; x Scenario #1 (Area 1)
                        At year 20:
                          Area 1: methanol production   472% x Scenario #1 (Area 1)
                          Area 3: methanol production   351% x Scenario #1 (Area 1)

                                                       88

              5.2.3.5.3 Maximum Water Withdrawn from the Surficial Aquifer
                        During Plant Site Preparation

                Area 1     3 mgd (for a period of ten years)

                Area 2     0 mgd

                Area 3     3 mgd (for a period of ten years)

                Area 4     0 mgd

                Assumptions:
                  Methanol plants under construction or expansion during
                   years 1-10 in Areas I and 3

              5.2.3.5.4 Water Balances for All Mining Sites

                Condition     Total Runoff Subsurface       Surface      Evapo-
                                mgy/2000     DrIinage         Ru 2off2   trans-
                                 acres       (in /in        (in /in    pi5ati2n
                                                                      (in /in

                Pre-mining        1046          11.2            8.0        29.2
                 (disturbed)

                Pre-mining         788          11.1            3.4        33.9
                 (shrub)

                During mining     1336           6.5           18.0

                After mining       808           6.8            8.0        33.6
                 (agriculture-
                 330' spaced
                 drainage ditches)

                Note:
                  Data based on 15 year averages of computer simulations using
                   weather data from Elizabeth City weather station. Annual
                   average rainfall for the 15 years used was 48.4 inches.

                Source:
                  R. Broadhead, Dept. Biol. and Agric. Eng., NCSU

                                                  89

                    5.2.3.5.5 Mined and Reclaimed Acreage from Which Drainage Water
                               is Being Pumped During mining (Cumulative)

                                       0-5         5-10       10-15        15-20
                      Area 1        3,000        7,500       1.6,500     30,000

                      Area 2        1,500        3,750        8,250      15,000

                      Area 3        1,500        5,500       1.3,500     26,000

                      Area 4        1,500        1,900        3,850        5,750

                      Total         7,500        18,650      42,100      76,750

                      Assumptions:
                        All disturbed acreage requires pumping     during mining (i.e.,
                          drainage water from all lands gravity    drains to lowest
                          points on the mining sites and is pumped into lakes or
                          canals)
                        Acreage figures do not include unmined land which may drain
                          into the low points depending on its location relative to
                          .the sites being mined
                        Area 4 reclamation is primarily open water, so pumping is
                          not required after mining ends.
                        Area 1,2 + 3 reclamation is primarily agriculture, so
                          pumping is required after mining ends.

                    5.2.3.5.6 Maximum Changes in Surficial Groundwater Levels Due
                                to Mining Operations in the Immediate vicinity of
                                the Mine Site

                      All areas:
                        Groundwater levels will decline in the immediate vicinity of
                          the mine by the depth of peat mined. If vegetation is
                          replanted, groundwater level will drop an additional foot.

                      Source:
                        R. Broadhead, Dept. Biol. and Agric. Eng., NCSU

                                                       90

            5.2.3.5.7  Drainage and Runoff Waters from   All mined and
                       Reclaimed Lands: Direction of Flow/Receiving
                       Body of Water

                               1-10                                11-20
              Area 1   all runoff to temporary    all runoff drains by gravity
                       lagoons to Canal B to      to a point near the central
                       Pungo River                lake (pumped into lake) from
                                                  which it is discharged into
                                                  Canal B to Pungo River

              Area 2    mine site to IWW               same as 1-10

              Area 3    mine site through wetlands     same as 1-10
                        to tributaries of the
                        Alligator River

              Area 4    all runoff into                same as 1-10
                        permanent lakes

              Assumptions:
                Drainage systems on all mined lands    similar to agricultural
                  drainage systems in use throughout   the coastal area of NC
                Capacity of Canal B is increased to    handle greater flows

            5.2.3.5.8 Quality of Runoff from All Mining Sites
                       (Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4)

                see section 5.2.2.5.8

            5.2.3.5.9 Wastewater Treatment: Source/Rate/Route of Effluent
                       Discharge/Receiving Body of Water at Years 10 and 20

                        Source          Average Daily    Route   Receiving Body
                                          Discharge
                                            (mgd)
                                         at 10 at 20
              Area 1 Methanol plant       1.4    4.1     Canal B    Pungo R.

                                                       or other
                                                         canals
              Area 2     none

              Area 3 Methanol plant       0.8    3.1   Wetlands Alligator R.
                                                                  tributaries
              Area 4     none

              Assumptions:
                Same as section 5.2.3.5.2

                                              91

                   5.2.3.5.10 Flood Gates/Flood Control Measures

                      Area I
                       No flood gates constructed beause of elevation

                      Areas 2, 3 and 4
                       Flood gates constructed at all drainage outlets from mining
                         sites to permit site drainage but prevent entry of water
                         from water bodies receiving drainage

                   5.2.3.5.11 Elevation of Dikes Around Mined Areas/Storage Ponds
                               and Lakes

                                      at 10                    at 20
                     Area 1           201 MSL                  201 MSL
                                   around temp ponds         around central lake

                     Area 2        dikes and flood gates built at elevation of
                                   100-yr storm

                     Area 3        same as Area 2

                     Area 4        same as Area 2

                   5.2.3.5.12 Probability of Hurricane Flooding in 50- and 100-year
                              Floodplains (at Years 10 and 20)
                     Area 1
                         Not susceptible to flood inundation caused by wind tides
                         having a 1% chance of being equalled or exceeded in any one
                         year

                     Area 2
                         Approximately 50% susceptible to flood  inundation caused by
                         wind tides having a 1% chance of being  equalled or exceeded
                         in any one year (without protective barriers)

                     Area 3
                         Approximately 75% susceptible to flood inundation caused by
                         wind tides having a 1% chance of being equalled or exceeded
                         in any one year (without protective barriers)

                     Area 4
                         100% susceptible to flood inundation caused by wind tides
                         having a 1% chance of being equalled or exceeded in any one
                         year (without protective barriers)

                     Source:
                       Figure 5D

                                                    92

              5.2.3.5.13 Change in Groundwater Recharge Rate to the Castle
                          Hayne Aquifer Resulting from Land Clearing and
                          Mining Activities. Values are Average Changes in
                          Recharge Rates Over the Entire Acreage for Each
                          Area.

                              1-10                     11-20            Over 20 yrs
                Area 1       -0.0005 in/yr        -0.0004 in/yr       -0.0009 in/yr
                              (-4.8%)                                       (-9.2%)
                              -1050 gpd                -950 gpd           -2000 gpd
                Area   2     -0.0005 in/yr        -0.0004 in/yr       -0.0009 in/yr
                               (-4.8%)                                      (-9.2%)
                               -530 gpd                -470 gpd           -1000 gpd
                Area 3     -0.0005 in/yr          -0.0004 in/yr       -0.0009 in/yr
                                 (-4.8%)                                    (-9.2%)
                                -910 gpd               -840 gpd           -1750 gpd
                Area 4     -0.0005 in/yr          -0.0004 in/yr        -0.0009 in/yr
                               (-4.8%)                                      (-9.2%)
                               -950 gpd                -870 gpd           -1820 gpd
                Notes:
                  Rate  at year 0 = 0.01 in/yr
                  Change in rate is noted in parentheses
                Assumptions:
                  Assumes layers are isolated laterally (i.e., essentially
                   a vertical system)
                  Stratigraphy for all areas similar to that found for
                   First Colony Farms (Scenario #I/Area 1)
                  Depth of mining operations for all areas similar
                   to that proposed by PMA (Scenario #l/Area 1)

                Sources:
                  Foutz, 1983
                  Calculations by R. Broadhead, Dept. Biol. and Agric. Eng.,
                   NCSU

                                                  93

                   5.2.3.5.14 Salt Water Encroachment in Shallow and Deep Aquifers

                     Area 1
                      Impact laterally insignificant in Castle Hayne, Tertiary Sand
                      Aquifer (including the Yorktown Formation), and the Quarternary
                      Shell Hash Unit. Greatest effect will occur if water pumped
                      from the Castle Hayne Aquifer, in which case an upconing or
                      upwelling of brackish water may occur at production wells.
                      Localized effect causing at most an increase in chloride
                      concentrations of a few mg/l.

                     Area 2
                      No significant lateral movement in. the freshwater/saltwater
                      interface. (No pumping from deeper aquifers for processing
                      water or plant site dewatering.)

                     Area 3
                      Impact laterally insignificant in Castle Hayne, Tertiary Sand
                      Aquifer (including the Yorktown Formation), and the Quarternary
                      Shell Hash Unit. Castle Hayne Aquifer is brackish in this area.
                      Greatest effect will occur if water pumped from Yorktown or
                      Tertiary Sand Aquifers, in which case an upconing or upwelling
                      of brackish water may occur at production wells. Localized
                      effect causing at most an increase in chloride concentrations of
                      a few mg/l.

                     Area 4
                      No significant lateral movement in the freshwater/saltwater
                      interface. (No pumping from deeper aquifers for processing
                      water or plant site dewatering.)

                     Source:
                       B. Jeter, Groundwater Section, DEM, NRCD

                   5.2.3.5.15 Revegetation of Canal/Ditch Banks

                     Revegetation is completed following ditch maintenance and as part
                     of reclamation

                   5.2.3.5.16 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures

                     Adequate mechanical barriers including but not limited to
                     diversions, settling ponds, earthen dikes, brush barriers, silt
                     check dams, silt retarding structures, rip rap pits or ditches
                     are provided in the initial stages of any land disturbance to
                     prevent sediment from discharging onto any adjacent surface areas
                     or into any lake or natural watercourse in proximity to the
                     affected land.

                                                     94

             5.2.3.5.17 Buffer Strips Adjacent to Estuaries/Lakes/Rivers at
                        Years 10 and 20

               Area 1         2000' tree buffer between
                              site and Phelps Lake

                              1/2 mile between site and Alligator (New) Lake

               Area 2         300' between site and IWW

               Area 3         1/2 mile between site and Alligator (New) Lake

               Area 4         1/2 mile between site and Alligator R.

                              300' between site and IWW

               Note:
                 2000' tree buffer is Area 1 outside permitted area
               Assumption:
                 1/2 mile buffer between mining sites and Alligator River
                  is required in mining permits

             5.2.3.6 Air Quality Management

             5.2.3.6.1 off-property Fugitive Dust Concentrations Resulting
                       from mining and Processing operations at
                       Years 10 and 20

               Assuming adequate buffer strips and appropriate spacing of
               methanol plants (as determined necessary by computer simulation),
               mining should not cause air quality standards to be exceeded.

               Note:
                 State air quality standards (Increments)            3
                 Annual Standard for Particulate (Class I)     5..z(g/M3
                 24-Hour Standard for Particulate (Class I)      10,ag/M3
                 Annual Standard for Particulate (Class II)      19,ug/M3
                 24-Hour Standard for Particulate (Class 11)     37 mg1M
                 Class I   protected areas having air cleaner than the
                           National Ambient Standard (Swanquarter National
                           Wildlife Refuge is the only Class I area on
                           the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula)
                 Class II   other areas having air cleaner than the National
                     3      Ambient Standard
                 'zig/M  micrograms per cubic meter
               Source:
                   M. Sewell, Air Quality Section, DEM, NRCD

                                              95

                    5.2.3.6.2 Mitigation Measures for Fugitive Dust Emissions During
                               the 20-year Period for All Areas:

                       restricted speed limits
                       paving or watering of roadways
                       tree buffer strips

                    5.2.3.7 Solid Waste Management

                    5.2.3.7.1 Amount of Non-hazardous Waste    Generated

                                        1-10                     11-20
                      Area 1      84,800 tons/yr   3            250,160 tons4yr
                                  (1.4 million ft /yr)          (4 million ft /yr)

                      Area 2      negligible                    same as 1-10
                      Area 3      50,350 tons/yr   3            186,000 tons4yr
                                  (0.8 million ft /yr)          (3 million ft /yr)

                      Area 4      negligible                    same as 1-10

                      Note:
                        Waste consists of non-burnable material from methanol
                         production approximately half of which is slag and
                         fly ash
                      Assumptions:         3
                        All figures in ft  3 based on an assumed bulk density
                         of 0.062 tons/ft
                        Same as section 5.2.3.5.2
                        No significant amount of non-hazardous waste generated
                         in Areas 2 and 4

                    5.2.3.7.2 Amount of Hazardous Waste Generated

                                       1-10 3               11-20    3
                      Area 1       1,600 ft /yr             4,720 ft /yr

                      Area 2       none                     none
                      Area 3       950 ft 3/yr              3,510 ft 3/yr

                      Area 4       none                     none

                      Assumptions:
                        No hazardous wastes generated in    Areas 2 + 4 since no peat
                         will be processed on site
                        Same as section 5.2.3.5.2
                        Excludes catalysts recycled and waste oils (amount unknown)

                                                       96

             5.2.3.8 Wildlife Mitigation Measures

             5.2.3.8.1 Permitted Acreage Restored to Native Vegetation
                       (Buffer Strips)

                 See section 5.2.3.10.6

               Assumption:
                 20% mined/reclaimed land required re-established to native
                  vegetation or low intensity managed forest for buffer
                  strips

               Source:
                 D. Owens, Office of Coastal Management, NRCD

             5i2.3.8.2 Location of Native Vegetation Buffer Strips on
                       Permitted Areas at Years 10 and 20

                    see Figure 5E

             5.2.3.9 Fire Protection Measures

             5.2.3.9.1 Source and Volume of Water for Fire Suppression

                            1-10                            11-20
               Area 1    Canals, lagoons-               Central lake (2900 ac)
                         28 unharvested blocks
                         in use as water storage
                         reservoirs

               Area 2    Fire protection/waterfowl      same as at 10
                         impoundment

               Area 3    same as Area 1                 same as Area 3 (1-10)

               Area 4    Reclaimed lakes                same as 1-10

             5.2.3.9.2 Water Control Structures for Areas Not Being Mined
               Structures installed to prevent gravity drainage from lowering
               water level lower than l' below ground level on lands not
               being actively mined. These structures have capacity to retain
               sufficient water to flood or saturate peat soil to or slightly
               above ground level.

                                             97

                    5.2.3.10 Reclamation

                    5.2.3.10.1 Mined Acreage Legally Required to be Reclaimed
                                (Cumulative.)

                                   by 10               by 20
                      Area 1       5,700              24,600

                      Area 2       2,850              12,300

                      Area 3       3,900              21,000

                      Area 4       2,640              10,700

                      Total        15,090             68,600

                      Assumptions:
                        NRCD requirement that mined   areas be reclaimed within
                         2 years of completion of mining is met
                        All legally reclaimable land reclaimed on schedule
                         (refers to sections 5.2.3.10.3-5.2.3.10.8)
                      Source:
                        Figure 5F

                    5.2.3.10.2 Percentage of Reclaimed Land in Various Types of
                               Reclamation (Cumulative)

                                             Area 1       Area 2     Area 3    Area 4
                                         by 10 by 20 by 10+20 by 10+20 by 10 by 20

                      Row crops with        24      63        78       75      0     0
                       pumping

                      Row crops without     0       0         0        0      0    0
                       pumping

                      Pine plantations      10      10        10       10     10   18

                      Restored native veg.  10      10        10       10     10   18

                      Open water            51      12         0       0      74   40

                      Grass replanted        5       5         2       5       2     2

                      Residential areas      0       0         0       0       4   22

                      Assumptions:
                        Native vegetation restored   in buffer strips  as   shown  in
                         Figure 5E
                        Pumping in all reclaimed lands is required

                                                      98

             5.2.3.10.3 Mined Acreage in Row Crops with Pumping (Cumulative)

                                by 10              by 20
               Area 1           1,368              15,543

               Area 2           2,223              9,594

               Area 3           2,925              15,750

               Area 4                0                   0

               Total            6,516              40,887

               Calculations:
                 Sections 5.2.3.10.3-5.2.3.10.8 calculated based on % in
                  section 5.2.3.10.2 and acreages in section 5.2.3.10.1

             5.2.3.10.4 Mined Acreage in Row Crops Without Pumping
                          (Cumulative)

                              by 10            by 20
               Area 1             0                0

               Area 2             0                0

               Area 3             0                0

               Area 4             0                0

               Total              0                0

             5.2.3.10.5 Mined Acreage in Pine Plantations (Including
                         Vegetative Buffer Strips) (Cumulative)

                                by 10            by 20
               Area 1              570           2,460

               Area 2              285           1,230

               Area 3              390           2,100

               Area 4              264           1,926

               Total             1,509           7,716

                                                99

                    5.2.3.10.6 Mined Acreage Restored to Native Vegetation
                                (Buffer Strips) (Cumulative)

                                        by 10               by 20
                      Area 1              570               2,460

                      Area 2              285               1,230

                      Area 3              390               2,100

                      Area 4              264               1,926

                      Total             1,509               7,716

                    5. 2.3.10.7 Mined Acreage in Open Water Reclamation With/Without
                                Marshes and Islands (Including Canals) (Cumulative)

                                        by 10             by 20
                      Area 1            2,907              2,907

                      Area 2                0                 0

                      Area 3                0                 0

                      Area 4             1,954             41,280

                      Total              4,861             7,187

                    5.2.3.10.8 Mined Areas Replanted to Grass (Cumulative)

                                      by 10              by 20
                      Area 1             285             1,230

                      Area 2              57               246

                      Area 3             195             1,050

                      Area 4              53               :214

                      Total              590             2,740

                                                       100

             5.2.3.10.9 Mined Acreage Reclaimed as Residential Areas
                          (Cumulative)

                               by 10               by 20

               Area 1                0                  0

               Area 2                0                  0

               Area 3                0                  0

               Area 4              106              2,354

               Total               106              2,354

             5.2.3.10.10 Unreclaimed Mined Acreage Not Yet Legally Required
                          to be Reclaimed (Cumulative)

                                 by 10            by 20

               Area 1            1,800            5,400

               Area 2               900           2,700

               Area 3            1,600            5,000

               Area 4               760           2,300

               Total             5,060            15,400

               Source:
                 Figure 5F

             5.2.3.10.11 Unreclaimed Mined Acreage Legally Required to be
                          Reclaimed (Cumulative)

                                      by 10         by 20

               Area 1                   0             0

               Area 2                   0             0

               Area 3                   0             0

               Area 4                   0             0

               Total                    0             0

               Assumption:
                 All Legally reclaimable acreage reclaimed on schedule

                                              101

                    5.2.4 Scenario #3: Industry Failure

                     (Static: at years 1/10/20 and/or Cumulative: years 1-10
                      and 11-20)

                     Note:
                      PMA documents refer only to 15,012 acres assumed permitted
                       for methanol production (Area 1) and not to horticultural
                        operations.

                    5.2.4.1 Permitted mining Activity

                    5.2.4.1.1 Permitted Acreage

                                     year 1                10            20
                      Area 1        15,818

                      Area 2         7,142

                      Total         22,960

                      Assumptions:
                        No further  acreage is permitted during the next 20 years.
                        Permit renewals are granted for continuation of mining
                         on already permitted acreage
                        First Colony Farms' mining permit is transferred to PMA
                      Sources:
                        Mining Permits

                    5.2.4.1.2 Location of Permitted Acreage

                         same as section 5.2.2 (see Figure 5B)

                    5.2.4.2 Land Disturbance

                    5.2.4.2.1 Acreage Mined (Cumulative)

                                         by 10             by 20
                      Area 1             5520              5520

                      Area 2             3000              3000

                      Total              8520              8520

                      Assumptions:
                        Mining start dates and rates occur as indicated in Figure 5H
                        Disturbed acreages: Area 2 and Area 1 (horticultural
                         operations)
                        All mining operations fail at year 10
                      Source: Figure 5H

                                                        102

                           Figure 5H: Scenario #3-- Acreage    disturbed

                                                                                Year
                                                      1 2 3 4 5        6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20            Total
                           Area I
                             Permitted: 15,818 ac.         3,080           2,440               0                0          5,520 ac.
                             Mined:      5,520 ac.

                           Area 2
                             Permitted: 7,142 ac.          1,500           1,500               0                0          3,000 ac.
                             Mined:       3,000 ac.

             0

                           Maximum
                             Acreage                             8,520                               0                     8,520 ac.
                             Disturbed

                      5.2.4.2.2 Average Acreage in Peat Mining Production at Any One
                                  Time

                                           1-10                11-20
                        Area 1             2000                  Q1

                        Area 2             1500                  Qf

                        Total              3500                  0

                        Source:
                          Section 5.2.2.2.2

                      5.2.4.2.3 Maximum Acreage Disturbed (in Preparation or Being
                                 Mined) at Any One Time.

                                                at 10                       at 20
                        Area 1                  2880                          0

                        Area 2                  1800                          0

                        Total                   4680                          0

                        Source:
                          Section 5.2.2.2.3

                      5.2.4.2.4 Average Annual Rate of Land Disturbance

                                                  1-10
                        Area 1                    552

                        Area 2                    300

                        Assumptions:
                          mining rates
                          Years 11-20: no mining

                      5.2.4.2.5 Elevation of Mined Acreage
                                                                   Average         minimum
                                 Land Elev. Expected Max.          Depth of     Elev of Mined
                                   (MSL)        Mine Depth         mining       Acreage (MSL)
                        Area  1     13-181        91                4-51        7-121

                        Area  2      5-101        91                4-51            if

                        sources:
                          Elevations - see Figure 5C
                          Mining Permit Applications and Permits

                                                            104

             5.2.4.2.6 Undisturbed Permitted Acreage at Years 10 and 20

               Area 1     10,298

               Area 2      4,142 (includes a 410 acre conservation easement-
                                  to remain unmined)
               Total      14,440

             5.2.4.3 Mining and Processing Technologies

             5.2.4.3.1 Mining Technologies in Use

               Area 1
                Milled peat production (15,012 acres permitted)
                Bulldozer, truck, and front-end loader (98 acres permitted)
                Scrape mining (similar to milled method) (708 acres
                 permitted)

               Area 2
                Milled peat production (7,142 acres permitted)

               Sources:
                 Mining Permit Applications

             5.2.4.3.2 Average Amount of Peat Mined Per Year (at Year 10)

               Area 1       525,000 dry tons (875,000 tons at 40% moisture)

               Area 2       140,000 dry tons (235,000 tons at 40% moisture)

               Total        665,000 dry tons (1,110,000 tons at 40% moisture)

               Assumptions:
                 140 mining days per year (average)
                 Amount of peat mined is based on:
                    Area 1- 3,600 dry tons/day x (average) 140 mining
                             days - peat for methanol production
                             25,000 dry tons/year - horticultural peat
                    Area 2- 1,000 dry tons/day x (average) 140 mining days
                 At Year 20: no mining ongoing

               Source:
                 Section 5.2.2.3.2

                                               105

                   5.2.4.3.3 Processing Technologies in Use at Year 10

                     Area .1
                      Conversion to methanol (500,000 dry tons per year)
                      Export as horticultural peat (25,000 dry tons per year)

                     Area 2
                      Export to industry as peat for fuel (140,000 dry tons
                       per year)

                     Assumption:
                       At 20: no processing ongoing
                     Sources:
                       Mining Permit Applications

                   5. 2.4.3.4 Products from Mined Peat: Type and Amount

                                                             at 10
                     Area 1
                        methanol                          60 million gals/year
                        horticultural peat                25,000 dry tons/year

                     Area 2
                        peat for industrial use (fuel) 140,000 dry tons/year

                     Assumptions:
                       Area 1: methanol plant annual output equivalent to
                        approximately 310 days per year at full capacity
                        requiring an average of 1,600 dry tons peat per day
                        to produce an average of 200,000 gallons of methanol
                        per day
                       Area 2: peat for industrial use (fuel) is mined/produced
                        140 days per year
                       At Year 20: none

                                                    106

             5.2.4.4 Transportation

             5.2.4.4.1 Type and Maximum Volume of Transportation to and on
                        Site (Construction and Operation)

                             Type              size        Number/day
                Area 1  heavy duty trucks      up to        40 (construction)
                                               36 tons      13 (operation)

                Area 2   trucks                up to        5 (operation)
                                               36 tons
                Assumptions:
                  Years 1-3: construction ongoing in Area 1
                  Years 4-20: no construction ongoing in Area 1
                  No construction required in Area 2
                  Years 11-20: no mining operation ongoing
                  operation traffic excludes transportation of peat or peat
                   products. Refers in Area 1 primarily to transportation
                   of slag and fly ash.
                Source:
                  PMA, 1983j, p. 25 and Fig. 4-2

             5.2.4.4.2 Type and Volume of Transportation on Site - Harvesting

                                                   1-10
                                 Type                                  Volume

                Area 1     tractor & carts                   233 loads/day to
                           (15-ton capacity)                 methanol plant
                                                             storage pile or
                                                             shipping area for
                                                             horticultural peat
                Area 2     tractor and carts                63 loads/day to
                           (15-ton capacity)                shipping area

                Assumptions:
                  Assumes peat can be transported from mining site to
                   processing plant or shipping area 250 days/year
                  Years 11-20: no harvesting
                Calculations (1-10):
                  Area 1: 875,000 tons of peat (at 40% moisture) per year/15
                   tons per cart/250 days per year
                  Area 2: 235,000 tons of peat (at 40% moisture) per year/15
                   tons per cart/ 250 days per year
                Source:
                  PMA, 1983i, p. 22 states that peat can be transported from
                   the mining site to the plant stockpile approximately 251
                   days per year

                                                107

                   5.2.4.4.3 Type, Volume, and Route of Transportation from Site
                             Products
                                                    at 10
                             Number       Type          Size           Route

                     Area I    27/day      trucks      36-ton      Rte 64 to
                                                                  Plymouth, NC

                     Area 2     2/week     barges   1,500-ton        IWW (south)

                     Assumptions:
                       Peat from Area 2  is transported via barge through the   IWW
                        to a major industry off the peninsula (50 weeks per year)
                       Horticultural peat and methanol from Area 1 transported to
                        barge and RR facilities in Plymouth, NC
                       At year 20: no products being transported
                     Source:
                       PMA, 1983j, pp. 44 & 73

                   5.2.4.4.4 Maximum Distance (Miles) Peat Transported on Unpaved
                             Roads on Site
                                                  1-10
                     Area 1                       2.5

                     Area 2                       4

                     Assumptions:
                       Years 11-20: no peat being mined -or transported
                       Distances for Area 2
                     Source:
                       PMA, 1983d, Fig. 4-1

                   5.2.4.4.5 Distance Products Transported on Paved/Unpaved Roads
                             from Site (Miles)
                                                   1-10
                                  paved      unpaved     total         destination

                     Area 1       19           10       29 (one way) Plymouth, NC

                     Area 2        0            0        0

                     Assumptions:
                       All peat.products from Area 1 are transported to or through
                        Plymouth, NC and all peat from Area 2 is transported to a
                        major industry off the peninsula via barge on the IWW
                        (from a barge terminal adjacent to the mining site)
                       Area 1: assumes road north of site remains unpaved
                       Years 11-20: no products being transported
                     Sources:
                       PMA, 1983j

                                                      108

             5.2.4.5 Water Management

             5.2.4.5.1 Acreage of Sediment, Evaporation, and other Temporary
                       Ponds and Acreage of Permanent Lakes

                               1-9                    10-20
               Area 1     2550 (temporary)        1450 (permanent
                           (maximum depth V)      (maximum depth 8')

               Area 2          0                       0

               Assumptions:
                 All drainage water from Area 2 is discharged into IWW (no
                  holding ponds)
                 At year 10 all pumping ceases
               Sources:
                 PMA, 1983d and 1983i, p. 91 (size of temp and perm ponds)

             5.2.4.5.2 Groundwater Withdrawn from the Quarternary Shell Hash
                       Unit for Processing at Year 10

               Area 1    2.3 mgd

               Area 2    none

                Assumptions:
                 Withdrawals made from the Quarternary Shell Hash Unit
                  (underlying Area 1 at depths of 40 to 130 feet)
                 At year 20: no withdrawals being made
                Sources:
                  Section 5.2.2.5.2

             5.2.4.5.3 Maximum Water Drained from the Surficial Aquifer
                       During Plant Site Preparation

               Area 1    3 mgd (for a period of two years)

               Area 2    0 mgd

               Assumption:
                 No plant constructed in Area 2
               Sources:
                 PMA Water Use Permit Applications and Permits

                                               109

                   5.2.4.5.4 Water Balances for Mining Sites (Until Cessation of
                               Pumping)

                      Condition         Total Runoff      Subsurface     Surface     Evapo-
                                      mgy/2000 mgy/1500 Dr    i inage     Rpof@      trans-
                                        acres     acres    (in /in      (in /in.) pi@ati    n
                                       (Area 1) (Area 2)                           (in /in
                      Pre-mining        1046        784      11.2         8.0        29.2
                       (disturbed)
                      .Pre-mining         788       591      11.1         3.4        33.9
                       (shrub)

                      During mining     1336       1002       6.5         18.0
                      After mining        808       606       6.8         8.0        33.6
                       (agriculture-
                        330' spaced
                        drainage ditches)

                      Notes:
                        Data based on 15 year averages of computer simulations using
                          weather data from Elizabeth City weather station.
                          Annual average rainfall for the 15 years used is 48.41'.
                      Source:
                        R. Broadhead, Dept. Biol. and Agric. Eng., NCSU

                    5.2.4.5.5 Mined and Reclaimed Acreage from Which Drainage Water
                               is Being Pumped During Mining (Cumulative)

                                      0-5             5-10       10-15           15-20

                      Area 1          3080           5520           0             0

                      Area 2          1500           3000           0             0

                      Total           4580           8520           0             0

                      Assumptions:
                        All disturbed acreage requires pumping      during mining
                          (i.e., drainage water from all lands gravity drains to
                          lowest points on the mining sites and is pumped into
                          lakes or canals)
                        Acreage figures do not include unmined land which may
                          drain into the low points depending on the location of
                          unmined lands relative to the sites being mined
                        All pumping ceases at year 10
                      Sources:
                        L. Otte, Geol. Dept., ECU
                        R. Broadhead, Dept. Biol.     and Agric. Eng., NCSU

                                                         110

              5.2.4.5.6 maximum Changes in Surficial Groundwater Levels at
                          the Mine Sites

                Areas I and 2
                 Groundwater levels will decline in areas where peat is
                 removed by the depth of peat mined. If vegetation is
                 replanted, groundwater level will drop an additional foot.

                Source: R. Broadhead, Dept. Biol. and Agric. Eng., NCSU

                Area I
                 Projected maximum effects of mining operations      on water
                 levels along the northern edge of the site are      a decline of
                 about 3.5' in the Fine Sand Unit and 2.5' in the Shell Hash
                 Unit.

                Note:
                 Surficial groundwater levels will return to pre-mining
                  conditions following failure of the industry and
                  cessation of pumping
                Source:
                  PMA, 1983k, p. 84

             5.2.4.5.7 Drainage and Runoff Waters from All Mined and
                        Reclaimed Lands: Direction of Flow/Receiving
                        Body of Water

                                 1-10                            after year 10

                Area 1     all runoff  to temp. lagoons         all runoff to
                           or central  lake to Canal B          Canal B to Pungo
                           to Pungo River                       River
                           (mean annual discharge from
                           holding ponds: 8cfs/ max
                           runoff: 59.6 cfs)

                Area 2     mine site to IWW                     same as 1-10

                Assumptions:
                  Drainage systems on all mined lands similar to agricultural
                   drainage systems in use throughout the coastal area of NC

             5.2.4.5.8 Quality of Runoff from All Mining Sites
                         (Areas 1 and 2)

                            see section 5.2.2.5.8

                   5.2.4.5.9 Wastewater Treatment: Source/Rate/Route of Effluent
                              Discharge/Receiving Body of Water at Year 10

                               Source          Average Daily    Route    Receiving
                                                 Discharge                Body
                     Area 1 Methanol plant       870,000        Canal B    Pungo R.
                                                 gal/day
                     Area 2     none

                     Assumption:
                        No processing occurs on mining site in Area 2
                        At year 20: none
                     Source:
                        PMA, 1983i

                   5.2.4.5.10 Flood Gates/Flood Control Measures

                     Area 1
                        No flood gates constructed because of elevation

                     Area 2
                        Flood gates constructed at all drainage outlets from mining
                        sites to permit site drainage but prevent entry of water
                        from IWW'. Flood gates not operational after industry fails.

                     Source:
                        Section 5.2.2.5.10

                   5.2.4.5.11 Elevation of Dikes Around Mined Areas/Storage Ponds
                               and Lakes
                                         at 10                     at 20
                     Area 1              201 MSL                  201 MSL

                     Area 2          no dikes                     no dikes

                   5.2.4.5.12 Probability of   Hurricane Flooding in 100-year
                               Floodplain (at  Years 10 and 20)

                     Area 1
                        Not susceptible to flood inundation caused by wind tides hav--
                        ing a 1% chance of being equalled or exceeded in any one year

                     Area 2
                        About 50% susceptible to flood inundation caused by wind tides
                        having a 1% chance of being equalled or exceeded in any one year
                        (without protective barriers)

                     Source:
                        Figure 5D

                                                    112

            5.2.4.5.13 Change in Groundwater Recharge Rate to the Castle Hayne
                       Aquifer Resulting from Land Clearing and mining
                       Activities. Values are Average Changes in Recharge
                       Rates Over the Entire Acreage for Each Area

                            1-10                   11-20

               Area 1     -0.0005 in/yr              0
                              (-5.2%)
                              -600 gpd

               Area 2     -0.0007 in/yr              0
                              (-7.6%)
                              -400 gpd

              Notes:
                Rate at year 0 = 0.01
                Change in rate is noted in parentheses
              Assumptions:
                Assumes layers are-isolated laterally (i.e., essentially a
                 vertical system)
                Stratigraphy for all areas similar to that found for First
                 Colony Farms (Area 1)
                Depth of mining operations for all areas similar to that
                 proposed by PMA (Area 1)

              Source:
                Foutz, 1983.

            5.2.4.5.14 Salt Water Encroachment in Shallow and Deep Aquifers

              Areas 1 and 2
                No significant lateral movement in the freshwater/saltwater
                interface. Since there is already a wide diffused zone ranging
                from salt to fresh water, the anticipated change in head due to
                withdrawals (a few feet) is not expected to significantly change
                the location of this diffused zone

              Sources:
                Perry Nelson, Groundwater Section, DEM, NRCD
                PMA, 1983k

            5.2.4.5.15 Revegetation of Canal/Ditch Banks

              Revegetation is completed following ditch maintenance and as part
              of reclamation through year 8

                                              113

                   5.2.4.5.16 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures

                     Adequate mechanical barriers including but not limited to
                     diversions, settling ponds, earthen dikes, brush barriers,
                     silt check dams, silt retarding structures, rip rap pits or
                     ditches provided in the initial stages of any land disturbance
                     to prevent sediment from discharging onto any adjacent surface
                     areas or into any lake or natural watercourse in proximity to
                     the affected land. Following industry failure no structures
                     are maintained.

                   5.2.4.5.17 Buffer Strips Adjacent to Estuaries/Lakes/Rivers at
                              Years 10 and 20

                     Area 1              2000' tree buffer between
                                         site and Phelps Lake

                     Area 2              300' between site and IWW

                     Note:
                       2000' tree buffer in Area 1 is outside permitted area
                     Sources:
                       PMA, 1983f
                       WTF Mining Permit

                   5.2.4.6 Air Quality Management

                   5.2.4.6.1 Maximum off-property Fugitive Dust Concentrations
                             Resulting from mining and Processing Operations

                     at Year 10: same as section 5.2.2.6.1

                     at Year 20: none

                   5.2.4.6.2 Mitigation Measures for Fugitive Dust Emissions from
                             Transportation of Peat in Use

                                        1-10
                     Area 1
                      restricted speed limits
                      paving or watering of roadways
                      tree buffer strips

                     Area 2
                      restricted speed limits
                      tree buffer strips

                     Assumptions:
                       All of the  above
                       Years 11-20: no mining

                                                   114

             5.2.4.7 Solid Waste Management

             5.2.4.7.1 Amount of Non-hazardous Waste Generated

                                       1-10          3
               Area 1    53,000 tons/yr (851,000 ft /yr*)
                         (non-burnable material from methanol production,
                         including 27,000 tons/yr of slag and fly ash)

               Area 2     negligible
               Assumptions:                                3
                 * Assumes a bulk density of 0.062 tons/ft
                 No significant amount of non-hazardous waste generated in
                  Area 2
                 Years 11-20: none generated
               Source:
                 PMA, 1983h, Fig. 1

             5.2.4.7.2 Amount of Hazardous Waste Generated

                             1-103
               Area 1    1,000 ft /yr (excluding catalysts recycled)
                         8,100 gals/yr waste oils

               Area 2    none

               Assumptions:
                 No hazardous wastes generated in Area 2 since no peat will
                  be processed on site
                 Years 11-20: none generated
               Source:
                 PMA, 1983h

             5.2.4.8.Wildlife Mitigation Measures

             5.2.4.8.1 Permitted Acreage Restored to Native Vegetation
                       (Buffer Strips)

                         See section 5.2.4.10.6

                 Assumption:
                   20% mined/reclaimed land required re-established to
                    native vegetation or low intensity managed forest
                    for buffer strips
                 Source:
                   D. Owens, Office of Coastal Management, NRCD

                                                 115

                    5.2.4.8.2 Location of Native Vegetation Buffer Strips on
                              Permitted Areas at Year 10

                           see Figure 5E

                    5.2.4.9 Fire Protection Measures

                    5.2.4.9.1 Source and Volume of Water for Fire Suppression

                                       1-10
                      Area 1 Canals, lagoons-
                             14 unharvested blocks
                             in use as water storage
                             reservoirs

                      Area 2 Fire protection/waterfowl
                             impoundment

                      Assumption:
                        Years 11-20: Areas will be floodE@d following cessation of
                         pumping
                      Source:
                        PMA, 1983c, pp. 13, 37

                    5.2.4.9.2 Water Control Structures for Areas Not Being Mined

                      Structures installed to prevent gravity drainage from lowering
                      water level lower than l' below ground level on lands not being
                      actively mined. These structures have capacity to retain sufficient
                      water to flood or saturate peat soil to or slightly above ground
                      level. Structures not functional after year 10.

                      Assumptions:
                        All of the above

                                                         ll 6

             5.2.4.10 Reclamation

             5.2.4.10.1 Mined Acreage Legally Required to be Reclaimed
                         (Cumulative)

                                by 10              by 20
               Area 1           2,020              5,520

               Area 2           1,500              3,000

               Total            3,520              8,520

               Assumptions:
                 NRCD requirement that mined areas be    reclaimed within 2
                  years of completion of mining is met
                 Land mined during years 1-8 reclaimed on schedule (refers
                  to sections 5.2.4.10.3-5.2.4.10.8)
                 No land is reclaimed after year 8
                 Reclamation rate for Area 2
                 Land fully reclaimed (cumulative):

                              by 10         by 20
                      Area 1 2,020            2,020
                      Area 2 1,500            1,500
               Source:
                 PMA, 1983d, Fig. 2-10

             5.2.4.10.2 Percentage of Reclaimed Land in Various Types of
                         Reclamation by Year 10
                                                   Area 1              Area 2
               Row crops with pumping                  8                 78

               Row crops without pumping               0                  0

               Pine plantations                      10                  10

               Restored native vegetation            10                  10

               Open water                            72                   0

               Grass replanted                         0                  2

               Assumptions:
                  Native vegetation restored in buffer strips as shown in Figure
                   5E
                  Pumping required for all reclaimed farmland
                  When pumping ceases, dikes around the central lake are broken,
                   Canal B is no longer maintained, and mined areas in Area 1
                   gradually fill up with water until, by year.20, all mined
                   acreage (5,520) has become open water. Area 2 also becomes
                   open water by year 20 (3,000 acres).

                                                   117

                      5.2.4.10.3 Mined Acreage in Row Crops with Pumping

                                            by 10
                        Area 1                 162

                        Area 2              1,170

                        Total               1,332

                        Calculations:
                          Sections 5.2.4.10.3-5.2.4.10.8 calculated based on
                           % in section 5.2.4.10.2 and acreages in section
                           5.2.4.10.1

                      5.2.4.10.4 Mined Acreage in Row Crops Without Pumping

                                         by 10
                        Area 1             0

                        Area 2             0

                        Total              0

                      5.2.4.10.5 Mined Acreage in Pine Plantations (Including
                                  Vegetative Buffer Strips)

                                        by 10
                        Area 1           202

                        Area 2           150

                        Total            352

                      5.2.4.10.6 Mined Acreage Restored to Native Vegetation
                                  (Buffer Strips)

                                        by 10
                        Area 1           202

                        Area 2           150

                        Total            352

                                                            118

             5.2.4.10.7 Mined Acreage in Open Water Reclamation With/Without
                         marshes and Islands (Including Canals)

                                by 10
               Area 1           1,454

               Area 2                0

               Total            1,454

             5.2.4.10.8 Mined   Acreage Replanted to Grass

                                 by 10
               Area 1              0

               Area 2             30

               Total              30

             5.2.4.10.9 Unreclaimed Disturbed Acreage Not Yet Legally
                         Required to be Reclaimed (Cumulative)

                                 by 10            by 20
               Area 1           3,500               0

               Area 2           1,500               0

               Total            5,000               0

               Source:
                 Section 5.2.2.10.9

             5.2.4.10.10 Unreclaimed Disturbed Acreage Legally Required to be
                          Reclaimed (Cumulative)

                                      by 10         by 20
               Area 1                    0          3,500

               Area 2                    0          1,500

               Total                     0          5,000

               Assumption:
                   All legally reclaimable land reclaimed on schedule only
                    through year 8

                                                   119

                   6. ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE SCENARIOS

                   6.1 Resource Production/Consumption

                   6.1.1 Agriculture

                   6.1.1.1 Approach/Assumptions
                         Two approaches to estimating the value of agricultural
                   production under the alternative scenarios were taken: 1) the
                   value of mined land reclaimed to agriculture was estimated at.
                   years 10 and 20 (see section 6.1.1.1.1) and 2) the cumulative
                   value   of total agricultural production on permitted sites
                   (reclaimed    areas   in    row   crops plus acreage already irk
                   agricultural production prior to mining and not yet mined) was
                   estimated for the periods years 1-10 and 1-20 (see section
                   6.1.1.1.2).
                         An important difference in the two approaches was that the
                   assumption was made in section 6.1.1.1.1 that no acreage was in
                   agricultural production at year 0, while in section 6.1.1.1.2
                   the assumption was made that part of the total permitted acreage
                   was in agricultural production at year 0 (see acreages by
                   habitat/land use type in Appendix 10.1).

                   6.1.1.1.1 Value of Mined Land Reclaimed to Row Crops at Years 10
                              and 20

                     1.  Acreage in agricultural production (row crops) at years
                         10 and 20 for each scenario was based on sections
                         5.2.2.10.3, 5.2.3.10.3 and 5.2.4.10.3.

                     2.  Crop mix was assumed to be traditional corn-soybeans
                         rotation on 50% of each area and corn-soybeans-wheat
                         rotation on the other 50%.

                     3.  Budgets were based on standard budget for 1983
                         produced by Department of Economics and Business,
                         N. C. State University (see Appendix 10.2).

                     4.  Run #1 - Yields assumed: 115 bushels (bu/ac) for corn,
                         3,5 bu for soybeans single cropped; 25 bu for soybeans
                         double cropped and 50 bu.for whE!at were estimated
                         based on yields reported in Soil. Survey of Washington
                         County (USDA, SCS, 1981). Prices assumed for Run #1:
                         Corn $2.26/bu, soybeans $5.85/bui and wheat $3.60/bu.

                                                         1120

              5. Run #2 - Yields assumed: 115 bu for corn, 35 bu for
                 soybeans single cropped, 30 bu for soybeans double
                 cropped and 50 bu for wheat. Prices assumed for Run #2:
                 Corn $2.71/bu, soybeans $6.75/bu and wheat $4.00/bu.

              6. Drainage cost was estimated at $10.00/acre/year.

            6.1.1.1.2 Cumulative Value of Total Agricultural Production
                      on Permitted Sites During Years 1-10 and 1-20

              1. Acreages in agricultural production in all permitted
                 areas at year 0 were based on habitat type/land use
                 data located in Appendix 10.1.

              2. Crop mix, Run #1 and #2 assumptions and estimated
                 drainage costs were the same as in section 6.1.1.1.1.

              3. Without the mining projects, agricultural production
                 was assumed to remain constant throughout the
                 20-year period.

              4. Conversion rates from one habitat type/land use to
                 another were the same as those used in section
                 6.1.4 (see Appendix 10.4).

              5. A Suitability Index (SI) was determined for each crop
                 by multiplying assumed yield (bu/ac) x price/bu x %
                 of cropland planted with that crop.

              6. Annualized units (SI x acres of cropland) for each
                 crop for each year were computed.

              7. Cumulative values for the periods years 1-10 and years 1-20
                 were calculated.

                                               121

                    6. 1. 1. 1. 2 Data

                    Table 6.1.1A: Value of mined areas reclaimed to row crops with
                                   pumped drainage at years 10 and 20 (Run #1)

                    Crop         Reclaimed   Total            Gross Income Net Return
                                Acres in     Bushels             Per Year    to Land and
                                Row Crops    Per Year                       Mgt Per Year

                    Scenario #1 - Area 1

                    1. 162 acres reclaimed to row crops at year 10

                    Corn             81       9,315          $ 21,052          $ 3,818
                    Soybeans         40       1,400                8,190               2
                    Soybeans-                 1,025
                    Wheat            41       2,050              13,376           2,271
                    Total                                    $   42,618        $  6,091

                    2. 4,930 acres reclaimed to    row crops at year     a-
                    Corn          2,465     283,475          $ 640,654         $ 116,195
                    Soybeans      1,232     43,120              252,252                62
                    Soybeans-               30,825
                    Wheat         1,233     61,650              402,266           68,297
                    Total                                    1,295,172         $ 184,554

                    Scenario #1 - Area 2

                    1. 1,170 acres reclaimed to row crops at year 10
                    Corn           585      67,275         $    152,042        $ 27,576
                    Soybeans       292      10,220               59,787                15
                    Soybeans-                7,325
                    Wheat          293      14,650               95,591           16,229
                    Total                                       307,420        $  43,820

                    2. 3,510 acres reclaimed to     row crops at year 20
                    Corn          1,755     201,825             456,125        $ 82,727
                    Soybeans       877      30,695              179,566                44
                    Soybeans-               21,950
                    Wheat          878      43,900              286,448           48,633
                    Total                                       922,139        $ 131,404

                                                           122

             Table 6.1.1A (Continued)

             Crop     Reclaimed    Total         Gross Income       Net Return to
                      Acres in     Bushels          Per Year         Land and Mgt
                      Row Crops    Per Year                           Per Year

             Scenario #2 - Area 1

             1. 1,368 acres reclaimed to row crops at year 10

             Corn           684        78,660         $ 177,772        $    32,242
             Soybeans       342        11' 970            70,025                 17
             Soybeans-                   8,550
             Wheat          342        17,100           111,578             18,944
             Total                                    $ 359,375        $    51,203

             2. 15,543 acres reclaimed-to row crops     at year  20

             Corn          7,772      893,780       $ 2,019,943        $  366,357
             Soybeans      3,885      135,975           795,454                 196
             Soybeans-                 97,150
             Wheat         3,886      194,300         1,267,808           215,248
             Total                                  $ 4,083,205        $  581,801

             Scenario #2 - Area 2

             1. 2,223 acres reclaimed to row crops at year 10

             Corn          1,112      127,880       $   289,009        $    52,418
             Soybeans       555        19,425           113,636                  28
             Soybeans-                 13,900
             Wheat          556        27,800           181,395             30,797
             Total                                  $   584,040        $    83,243

             2. 9,594 acres reclaimed to row crops at year      20

             Corn          4,797      551,655       $ 1,246,740        $ 226,121
             Soybeans      2,398       83,930           490,991                 121
             Soybeans-                 59,975
             Wheat         2,399      119,950           782,674           132,882
             Total                                  $ 2,520,405        $ 359,124

                                                   123

                    Table 6.1.1A (Continued)

                    Crop      Reclaimed    Total         Gross Income    Net Return to
                              Acres in     Bushels          Per Year        Land and Mgt
                              Row Crops    Per Year                           Per Year

                    Scenario #2 - Area 3

                    1. 2,925 acres reclaimed to row crops at year 10

                    Corn         1,463    168,245            $ 380,234             68,963
                    Soybeans       731     25,585               149,672                 37
                    Soybeans-              18,275
                    Wheat          731     36,550               238,489            40,491
                    Total                                    $  768,395       $  109,491

                    2. 15,750 acres reclaimed to row crops at year 20

                    Corn           7,875  905,625           $ 2,046,713       $  371,212
                    Soybeans       3,938  137,830               806,306                198
                    Soybeans-              98,425
                    Wheat          3,937  196,850              1,284,446         218,073
                    Total                                    $ 4,137,465      $  589,483

                    Scenario #2 - Area 4

                    No land in row crops at year 10 or 20.

                    Scenario #3 (both areas)

                    Same as Scenario #1 at year 10 in ArE!as 1 and 2.

                                                          12 4

              Table 6.1.1B: Value of mined areas reclaimed to row crops with
                             pumped drainage at years 10 and 20 (Run #2)

              Crop       Reclaimed     Total           Gross Income Net Return to
                        Acres in       Bushels           Per Year      Land and Mgt
                         Row Crops     Per Year                           Per Year

              Scenari'o #1 - Area 1

              1. 162 acres reclaimed to row crops at year 10

              Corn             81        9,315         $    25,244        $  8,010
              Soybeans         40        1,400                9,450          1,262
              Soybeans-                  1,230
              Wheat            41        2,050              16,503           5,397
              Total                                    $    51,197        $ .14,669

              2. 4,930 acres reclaimed to row crops at year 20

              Corn           2,465    283,475          $    768,217       $ 243,763
              Soybeans       1,232     43,120               291,060          38,868
              Soybeans-                36,990
              Wheat          1,233     61,650               496,283        162,314
              Total                                    $  1,555,560       $444,945

              Scenario #1 - Area 2

              1. 1,170 acres reclaimed to row crops at year 10

              Corn           585       67,275          $    182,315       $ 57,850
              Soybeans       292       10,220                 68,985         9,212
              Soybeans-                  8,790
              Wheat          293       14,650               117,933          38,571
              Total                                    $    369,233       $ 105,633

              2. 3,510 acres reclaimed to row crops at year 20
              Corn         1,755       201,825         $    546,946       $ 173,551
              Soybeans       877       30,695               207,191          27,668
              Soybeans-                26,340
              Wheat          878       43,900               353,395        115,581
              Total                                    $ 1,107,532        $316,800

                                               125

                   Table 6.1.1B (Continued)

                   Crop         Reclaimed   Total           Gross Income Net Return to
                               Acres in     Bushels             Per Year     Land and Mgt:
                               Row Crops    Per Year                            Per Year

                   Scenario #2 - Area 1

                   1. 1,368 acres reclaimed to row    crops at year 10

                   Corn            684        78,660        $     213,169     $   67,641
                   Soybeans        342        11,970                80,798        10,790
                   Soybeans-                  10,260
                   Wheat           342        17,100              137,655         45,021
                   Total                                    $     413,622     $  123,452

                   2. 15,543 acres reclaimed to row crops      at year 20

                   Corn          7,772       893,780        $   2,422,144     $ 768,570
                   Soybeans      3,885       135,975              917,831        122,567
                   Soybeans-                 116,580
                   Wheat         3,886       194,300            1,564,115        511,559
                   Total                                    $   4,904,090     $1,402,696

                   Scenario #2 - Area 2

                   1. 2,223 acres reclaimed to row crops at year 10

                   Corn          1,112       127,880        $     346,555     $ 109,965
                   Soybeans        555        19,425              131,119         17,510
                   Soybeans-                  16,680
                   Wheat           556        27,800              223,790         73,193
                   Total                                    $     701,464     $ 200,668

                   2. 9,594 acres reclaimed to row crops at year 20

                   Corn          4,797       551,655        $ 1,494,985          474,374
                   Soybeans      2,398        83,930              566,528         75,654
                   Soybeans-                  71,970
                   Wheat         2,399       119,950              965,598        315,808
                   Total                                    $ 3,027,111       $  865,836

                                                     126

              Table 6.1.1B (Continued)

              Crop        Reclaimed     Total           Gross Income Net Return to
                         Acres in       Bushels            Per Year    Land and Mgt
                         Row Crops      Per Year                         Per Year

              Scenario #2 - Area 3

              1. 2,925 acres reclaimed to row crops at year 10

              Corn          1,463      168,245         $    455,944     $ 144,676
              Soybeans        731       25,585              172,699           23,062
              Soybeans-                 21,930
              Wheat           731       36,550              294,228           96,230
              Total                                    $    922,871     $   263,968

              2. 15,758 acres by 20 years

              C6rn            7,875    905,625         $   2,455,244    $   778,756
              Soybeans        3,938    137,830              930,353         124,239
              Soybeans-                118,110
              Wheat           3,937    196,850             1,584,643        518,273
              Total                                    $   4,970,240    $1,421,268

              Scenario #2 - Area 4

              No land in row crops at year 10 or 20

              Scenario #3 (both areas)

              Same as Scenario #1 at year 10 in 20

                                               127

                    Table 6.1.1C: Summary- Value of mined areas reclaimed to
                                   agriculture with pumped drainage at years 10
                                   and 20 (Run #1)

                                Reclaimed     Gross       Net Return to      Net Income
                                Acres in      Income       Land and Mgt        Minus
                                Row Crops     Per Year        Per Year      Drainage Cost

                    Scenario #1 (both areas)

                    At year 10   1,332    $   350,038    $      49,911         $     36,585
                    At year 20   8,440      2,217,211         315,958              231,597

                    Scenario #2  (all areas)

                    At year 10   6,516    $ 1,711,810    $    243,937          $ 178,806
                    At year 20 40,887      10,741,075      1,530,408             1,121,789

                    Scenario #3 (both areas)

                    Same as Scenario #1 at year 10

                    Table 6.1.lD: Summary- Value of mined areas reclaimed to
                                   agriculture with pumped drainage at years 10
                                   and 20 (Run #2)

                                Reclaimed     Gross        Net Return to     Net Income
                                Acres in      Income          Land and Mgt       Minus
                                Row Crops     Per Year        Per Year      Drainage Cost

                    Scenario #1 (both areas)

                    At year 10   1,332    $   420,430    $    120,302          $ 106,948
                    At year 20   8,440      2,663,092         761,745              677,191

                    Scenario #2  (all areas)

                    At year 10   6,516    $ 2,055,957    $    588,088          $ 522,810
                    At year 20 40,887      12,901,441      3,689,800             3,280,232

                    Scenario #3 (both    areas)

                    Same as Scenario #1 at year 10

                                                          128

                  Table 6.1.1E: Cumulative value of total acreage in row
                                 crops with the mining projects (Run #1)

                  Crop             Gross Income     Net Return to
                                    (Cumulative)    Land & Mgmt
                                                     (Cum)
                  Scenario #1, Area 1

                  1. Years 1-10

                  Corn            $   3,010,000       $ 545,924
                  Soybeans            1,190,000                293
                  Soybeans-             850,000
                  Wheat               1,040,000           320,884
                  Total               6,090,000           867,101

                  2. Years 1-20

                  Corn               8,280,000         1,501,744
                  Soybeans           3,260,000                802
                  Soybeans-          2,340,000
                  Wheat              2,860,000            882,856
                  Total              16,740,000        2,385,402

                  Scenario #1, Area 2

                  1. Years 1-10

                  Corn                1,540,000           279,310
                  Soybeans              610,000                150
                  Soybeans-             430,000
                  Wheat                 530,000           162,989
                  Total               3,110,000           442,449

                  2. Years 1-20

                  Corn                5,300,000           961,261
                  Soybeans            2,080,000                512
                  Soybeans-           1,500,000
                  Wheat               1,840,000           567,065
                  Total              10,720,000         1,528,838

                                                   129

                     Table 6.1.1E (Continued)

                     Crop               Gross Income      Net Return to
                                         (Cumulative)     Land & Mgmt
                                                          (cum)

                     Scenario #2, Area 1

                     1. Years 1-10

                     Corn                  3,190,000           578,570
                     Soybeans              1,260,000                310
                     Soybeans-               900,000
                     Wheat                 1,100,000           339,560
                     Total                 6,450,000           918,440

                     2. Years 1-20

                     Corn                16,940,000          3,072,408
                     Soybeans              6,680,000              1,643
                     'Soybeans-            4,760,000
                     Wheat                 5,860,000         1,803,064
                     Total               34,240,000          4,877,115

                     Scenario #2, Area 2

                     1. Years 1-10

                     Corn                  2,020,000           366,367
                     Soybeans                800,000                197
                     Soybeans-               570,000
                     Wheat                   700,000           215,621
                     Total                 4,090,000           582,185

                     2. Years 1-20

                     Corn                10,740,000          1,947,914
                     Soybeans              4,240,000              1,043
                     Soybeans-             3,020,000
                     Wheat                 3,720,000         1,144,317
                     Total               21,720,000          3,093,274

                                                      130

                  Table 6.1.1E (Continued)

                  Crop                Gross Income    Net Return to
                                        (Cum)          Land & Mgmt
                                                        (Cum)

                  Scenario #2, Area 3

                  1. Years 1-10

                  Corn                  1,220,000            221,271
                  Soybeans                480,000                 118
                  Soybeans-               340,000
                  Wheat                   420,000            129,033
                  Total                 2,460,000            350,422

                  2. Years 1-20

                  Corn                  15,060,000         2,731,432
                  Soybeans              5,920,000               1,456
                  Soybeans-             4,240,000
                  Wheat                 5,220,000          1,606,119
                  Total                 30,440,000         4,339,007

                  Scenario  #2, Area 4

                  1. Years  1-10

                  Corn                    270,000             48,970
                  Soybeans                100,000                  25
                  Soybeans                  70,000
                  Wheat                     90,000            27,165
                  Total                   530,000             76,160

                  2. Years 1-20

                  Corn                    480,000             87,058
                  Soybeans                200,000                  49
                  Soybeans-               140,000
                  Wheat                   160,000             50,934
                  Total                   980,000            138,041

                  Scenario #3 (both areas)

                  Same as Scenario #1, Areas 1 and 2, years 1-10

                                                    131

                        Table 6.1.1F: Cumulative value of total acreage in row
                                         crops without the mining projects (Run

                        Crop         Gross Income            Net Return to
                                        (Cum)                 Land & Mgmt
                                                               (Cum)

                        Scenario #1, Area 1

                        1. Years 1-10

                        Corn            3,700,000                  671,069
                        Soybeans        1,460,000                       359
                        Soybeans-       1,040,000
                        Wheat           1,280,000                  -393,890
                        Total           7,480,000                1,065,318

                        2. Years 1-20

                        Corn            7,400,000                1,342,138
                        Soybeans        2,920,000                       718
                        Soybeans-       2,080,000
                        Wheat           2,560,000                  787,779
                        Total          14,960,000                2,130,636

                        Scenario #1, Area 2

                        1. Years 1-10

                        Corn            1,390,000                  252,104
                        Soybeans          550,000                       135
                        Soybeans-         390,000
                        Wheat             480,000                  1.47,709
                        Total           2,810,000                  399,948

                        2. Years 1-20

                        Corn            2,780,000                  504,209
                        Soybeans        1,100,000                       270
                        Soybeans-         780,000
                        Wheat             960,000                  295,417
                        Total           5,620,000                  799,896

                                                              132

                  Table 6.1.1F (Continued)

                  Crop        Gross Income         Net Return to
                               (CUM)               Land & Mgmt
                                                    (CUM)

                  scenario #2, Area 1

                  1. Years 1-10

                  Corn          3,510,000              636,609
                  Soybeans      1,380,000                   340
                  Soybeans-       990,000
                  Wheat         1,220,000              375,214
                  Total         7,100,000             1,012,163

                  2. Years 1-20

                  Corn          7,020,000             1,273,217
                  Soybeans      2,760,000                   679
                  Soybeans-     1,980,000
                  Wheat         2,440,000              750,428
                  Total         14,200,000            2,024,324

                  Scenario #2, Area 2

                  1. Years 1-10

                  Corn          1,560,000              282,937
                  Soybeans        610,000                   150
                  Soybeans-       440,000
                  Wheat           540,000              166,384
                  Total         3,150,000              449,471

                  2. Years 1-20

                  Corn          3,120,000              565,874
                  Soybeans      1,220,000                   300
                  Soybeans-       880,000
                  Wheat         1,080,000              332,769
                  Total         6,300,000              898,943

                                                   133

                    Table 6.1.1F (Continued)

                    Crop           Gross Income       Net Return to
                                    (CUM)             Land & Mgmt
                                                        (Cum)

                    Scenario #2, Area 3

                    No land in agricultural production years 1-20

                    Scenario #2, Area 4

                    1. Years 1-20

                    Corn            340,000                61,6661
                    Soybeans        130,000                     32
                    Soybeans-       100,000
                    Wheat           120,000                37,352
                    Total           690,000                99,050

                    2. Years 1-20

                    Corn            680,000                123,332
                    Soybeans        260,000                     64
                    Soybeans-       200,000
                    Wheat           240,000                74,703
                    Total          1,380,000               1,98,099

                    Scenario #3 (both areas)

                    Same as Scenario #1, Areas 1 and 2, years 1-10

                                                      134

                   Table 6.1.1G: Cumulative value of total acreage in row
                                 crops with the mining projects (Run #2)

                   Crops      Gross Income        Net Return to
                               (Cumulative)       Land & Mgmt
                                   ($)             (cum)

                   Scenario #1, Area 1

                   1. Years 1-10

                   Corn          3,610,000            1,145,489
                   Soybeans      1,370,000              182,950
                   Soybeans-     1,170,000
                   Wheat         1,160,000              762,050
                   Total         7,310,000            2,090,489

                   2. Years 1-20

                   Corn          9,920,000            3,147,715
                   Soybeans      3,760,000              502,110
                   Soybeans-     3,220,000
                   Wheat         3,180,000            2,093,184
                   Total         20,080,000           5,743,009

                   Scenario #1, Area 2

                   1. Years 1-10

                   Corn          1,840,000              583,850
                   Soybeans        700,000                93,478
                   Soybeans-       600,000
                   Wheat           590,000              389,201
                   Total         3,730,000            1,066,529

                   2. Years 1-20

                   Corn          6,360,000            2,018,092
                   Soybeans      2,400,000              320,496
                   Soybeans-     2,060,000
                   Wheat         2,040,000            1,340,946
                   Total         12,860,000           3,679,534

                                                    135

                      Table 6.1.1G (Continued)

                      Crop         Gross Income           Net Return to
                                    (Cum)                 Land & Mgmt
                                                            (Cum)

                      Scenario #2, Area 1

                      1. Years 1-10

                      Corn           3,820,000                1,21.2,124
                      Soybeans       1,450,000                  193,633
                      Soybeans-      1,240,000
                      Wheat          1,230,000                  807,838
                      Total          7,740,000                2,21.3,595

                      2. Years 1-20

                      Corn           20,300,000               6,441,393
                      Soybeans       7,700,000                1,028,258
                      Soybeans-      6,600,000
                      Wheat          6,520,000                4,291,027
                      Total          41,120,000              11,760,678

                      Scenario #2, Area 2

                      1. Years 1-10

                      Corn           2,420,000                  767,890
                      Soybeans           920,000                122,@857
                      Soybeans-          790,000
                      Wheat              780,000                513,484
                      Total          4,910,000                1,404,231

                      2. Years 1-20

                      Corn           12,880,000               4,086,953
                      Soybeans       4,880,000                  651,675
                      Soybeans-      4,180,000
                      Wheat          4,140,000                2,721,139
                      Total          26,080,000               7,459,767

                                                            136

                 Table 6.1.1G (Continued)

                 Crop         Gross Income       Net Return to
                              (cum)              Land & Mgmt
                                                 (Cum)

                 Scenario #2, Area 3

                 1. Years 1-10

                 Corn          1,460,000              463,273
                 Soybeans        550,000               73,447
                 Soybeans-       470,000
                 Wheat           470,000              307,436
                 Total         2,950,000              844,156

                 2. Years 1-20

                 Corn         18,040,000             5,724,272
                 Soybeans      6,840,000              913,414
                 Soybeans-     5,860,000
                 Wheat         5,800,000             3,813,520
                 Total        36,540,000            10,451,206

                 Scenario #2, Area 4

                 1. Years 1-10

                 Corn            320,000              101,539
                 Soybeans        120,000               16,025
                 Soybeans-       100,000
                 Wheat           100,000               65,412
                 Total           640,000              182,976

                 2. Years 1-20

                 Corn            580,000              184,040
                 Soybeans        220,000               29,379
                 Soybeans-       180,000
                 Wheat           180,000              117,742
                 Total         1,160,000              331,161

                 Scenario #3 (both areas)

                 Same as Scenario #1, Areas 1 and 2, years 1-10

                                                  137

                     Table 6.1.1H: Cumulative value of total acreage in row
                                    crops without the mining projects (Run #2)

                     Crop         Gross Income       Net Return to
                                   (Cumulative)      Land & Mgmt
                                                      (Cum)

                     Scenario #1, Area 1

                     l..Years 1-10

                     Corn          4,440,000             1,408,856
                     Soybeans      1,680,000               224,347
                     Soybeans-     1,440,000
                     Wheat         1,420,000               935,392
                     Total         8,980,000             2,568,595

                     2. Years  1-20

                     Corn          8,880,000             2,817,713
                     Soybeans      3,360,000               448,694
                     Soybeans-     2,880,000
                     Wheat         2,840,000             1,870,783
                     Total         17,960,000            5,137,190

                     Scenario #1, Area 2

                     1. Years 1-10

                     Corn          1,670,000               529,908
                     Soybeans         630,000                84,130
                     Soybeans-        540,000
                     Wheat            540,000              353,225
                     Total         3,380,000               967,263

                     2. Years 1-20

                     Corn          3,340,000             1,059,815
                     Soybeans      1,260,000               168,260
                     Soybeans-     1,080,000
                     Wheat         1,080,000               706,450
                     Total         6,760,000             1,934,525

                                                       138

                  Table 6.1.1H (Continued)

                  Crop          Gross Income     Net Return to
                                (Cum)            Land & Mgmt
                                                  (Cum)

                  Scenario #2, Area 1

                  1. Years 1-10

                  Corn          4,210,000            1,335,875
                  Soybeans      1,600,000              213,664
                  Soybeans-     1,370,000
                  Wheat         1,350,000              889,603
                  Total         8,530,000            2,439,142

                  2. Years 1-20

                  Corn          8,420,000            2,671,750
                  Soybeans      3,200,000              427,328
                  Soybeans-     2,740,000
                  Wheat         2,700,000            1,779,206
                  Total         17,060,000           4,878,284

                  Scenario #2, Area 2

                  1. Years 1-10

                  Corn          1,870,000              593,370
                  Soybeans         710,000               94,813
                  Soybeans-        610,000
                  Wheat            600,000             395,743
                  Total         3,790,000            1,083,926

                  2. years 1-20

                  Corn          3,740,000            1,186,739
                  Soybeans      1,420,000              189,627
                  Soybeans-     1,220,000
                  Wheat         1,200,000              791,485
                  Total         7,580,000            2,167,851

                                                   139

                       Table 6.1.1H (Continued)

                       Crop               Gross Income        Net Return to
                                           (Cum)              Land & Mgmt
                                                               (Cum)

                       Scenario #2, Area 3

                       No land in agricultural production years 1-20

                       Scenario #2, Area 4

                       1. Years 1-10

                       Corn              410,000                  1.30,097
                       Soybeans          150,000
                       Soybeans-         130,000
                       Wheat             130,000                   :35,036
                       Total             820,000                  2.35,164

                       2. Years 1-20

                       Corn              820,000                  260,194
                       Soybeans          300,000                   40,062
                       Soybeans-         260,000
                       Wheat             260,000                  1-70,071
                       Total           1,640,000                  470,327

                       Scenario #3 (both areas)

                       Same as Scenario #1, Areas 1 and 2, 1
                                                                   years 1-10

                                                            140

               Table 6.1.11: Summary- Cumulative value of total acreage
                              in row crops with the mining projects
                              (Run# 1)

                                  Gross Income Net Return to Net Income
                                  (Cumulative) Land & Mgmt       Minus Drainage
                                                 (Cum)           Cost (CUM)
               Scenario #1
                 (both areas)

                 Years 1-10        9,200,000       1,309,550        959,900
                 Years 1-20       27,460,000       3,914,240     2,869,138

               Scenario #2
                 (all areas)

                 Years 1-10       13,530,000       1,927,207     1,412,643
                 Years 1-20       87,380,000      12,447,437     9,123,971

               Scenario #3
                 (both areas)

                 Years 1-10       same as Scenario #1, years 1-10

               Table 6.1.1J: Summary- Cumulative value of total acreage
                              in row crops without the mining projects
                              (Run #1)

                                  Gross Income Net Return to Net Income
                                  (Cumulative) Land & Mgmt       Minus Drainage
                                                 (Cum)           Cost (CUM)
               Scenario #1
                 (both areas)

                 Years 1-10       10,290,000       1,465,266     1,074,040
                 Years 1-20       20,580,000       2,930,532     2,148,080

               Scenario #2
                 (all areas)

                 Years 1-10       10,940,000       1,560,684     1,143,981
                 Years 1-20       21,880,000       3,121,366     2,287,961

               Scenario #3
                 (both areas)

                 Years 1-10       same as Scenario #1, years 1-10

                                                141

                   Table 6.1.1K: Summary-- Cumulative impacts on row crop
                                 agriculture years 1-20 with and without
                                 the projects (Run #1) - Net income minus
                                 drainage costs ($)

                                           Years 1-10              Years 1-20

                                   With          Without       With        Without

                   Scenario #1       959,900    1,074,040    2,869,138    2,148,080

                   Scenario #2    1,412,643     1,143,981    9,123,971    2,287,961

                   Scenario #3       959,900    1,074,040          -

                   Table 6.1.1L: Summary-- Cumulative value of total acreage
                                 in row crops with the mining projects
                                 (Run #2)

                                     Gross Income Net Return to Net Income
                                     (Cumulative) Land & Mgmt      Minus Drainage
                                                   (Cum)           Cost (Cum)
                   Scenario #1
                     (both areas)

                     Years 1-10      11,040,000       3,157,018    2,314,094
                     Years 1-20      32,940,000       9,422,543    6,906,724

                   Scenario #2
                     (all areas)

                     Years 1-10      16,240,000       4,6441,958   3,404,754
                     Years 1-20     104,900,000      30,002,812    21,992,061

                   Scenario #3
                     (both areas)

                     Years 1-10      same as Scenario #1, years 1-10

                                                   142

             Table 6.1.1M: Summary- Cumulative value of total acreage
                            in row crops without the mining projects
                            (Run #2)

                               Gross Income Net Return to Net Income
                               (Cumulative) Land & Mgmt      Minus Drainage
                                              (Cum)         Cost (Cum)
             Scenario #1
               (both areas)

               Years 1-10      12,360,000       3,535,858    2,591,784
               Years 1-20      24,720,000       7,071,715    5,183,567

             Scenario #2
               (all areas)

               Years 1-10      13,140,000       3,758,232    2,754,784
               Years 1-20      26,280,000       7,516,462    5,509,567

             Scenario #3
               (both areas)

               Years 1-10      same as Scenario #1, years 1-10

             Table 6.1.1N: Summary- Cumulative impact on row crop
                            agriculture years 1-20 with and without
                            the projects (Run #2)    Net income
                           minus drainage costs

                                 Years 1-10             Years 1-20

                             With      Without        With      Without

             Scenario #1     2,314,094 2,591,784     6,906,724 5,183,567

             Scenario #2     3,404,754 2,754,784 21,992,061 5,509,567

             Scenario #3     2,314,094 2,591,784         -           -

             6.1.1.2.3 Summary and Conclusions

             6.1.1.2.3.1 Net Annual Income from Mined Lands Reclaimed
                         to Agriculture

                  Using the assumptions for Run #1, the annual income at year
             20 under Scenario #1 is estimated to be $231,597 on 8,440 acres
             planted   to corn, soybeans and wheat. Annual income under
             Scenario #2 at year 20 is estimated to be @1,121,789 on 40,887

                                              143

                    acres.  Under Scenario #3, annual income at year 10 is $36,585 on
                    1,332 acres.
                         For Run #2, with the slightly higher prices and a higher
                    yield for soybeans double cropped, the annual. income at year 20
                    under Scenario #1 is estimated to be $677,191 for 8,440 acres
                    planted to corn, soybeans and wheat. Under Scenario #2, with the
                    same crop mix, annual income at year 20 is estimated to be!
                    $3,280,232 on 40,887 acres. Annual income under Scenario #3 at.
                    year 10 would be $106,948 on 1,332 acres.

                    6.1.1.2.3.2 Cumulative Value of Agricultural Lands Under the
                                Alternative Scenarios

                         Based  on Run #1 assumptions, cumulative net income minus
                    drainage costs under Scenario #1 for the 20-year study period is;
                    approximately    $2,869,000    with the projects and $2,148,000
                    without the projects. Under Scenario #2, cumulative net income
                    for the 20-year period is approximately          $9,124,000 with the
                    projects   and    $2,288,000    without    the projects. Estimated
                    cumulative net income under Scenario #3 during the period prior:
                    to industry failure and flooding of the permitted areas (years
                    1-10) is $960,000 with the projects and $1,074,000 without the
                    projects.   The with-project loss in agricultural production
                    during years 1-10 under Scenarios #1 and #3 is due to the
                    conversion    of agricultural land into mined acreage. Since
                    reclamation in Area 1 (Scenarios #1 and #3) involves the
                    creation of a 1454-acre lake during the first 10 years of:
                    mining, more agricultural land is lost to mining than is gained
                    via reclamation during this period. Thus the cumulative value of:
                    agricultural production under these two scenarios is lower with
                    the projects than wihout the projects for the first 10 years.
                         Based on Run #2 assumptions, cumulative net income minus
                    drainage costs for the 20-year period under Scenario #1 is
                    estimated at approximately $6,907,000 with the projects and
                    $5,184,000 without the projects. Under Scenario #2, cumulative
                    net income for the 20 years is about $21,992,000 with the
                    projects    and   $5,510,000    without    the projects. Estimated
                    cumulative net income under Scenario #3 during years 1-10 is
                    approximately     $2,314,000 with the projects and $2,592,000
                    without the project.
                         The mining projects will thus add between $2.9 and 6.1.)
                    million (Scenario #1) or between $9.1 and 22 million (Scenario
                    #2) to the local agricultural economy during the 20-year study
                    period. Under Scenario #3, the local agricultural economy will
                    lose between $114,000 and $278,000 during 10 years of mining.

                                                     144

              6.1.2 Forest Products

              6.1.2.1.Approach/Assumptions

                   Data were collected on the present forestry production
              value of the areas covered by the scenarios prior to peat mining
              activities.   Information on forest products was scarce. No
              information was obtained for Areas 2 and 4 (Scenario #2). Total
              acreage of woodland by type was based on habitat type/land use
              data in Appendix 10.1.

                   Assumptions made were:

                1. The pocosin acreage in  Area 1 of Scenario #1 was assumed to
                   have no present timber  value (based on discussions with H.
                   Truesdell, First Colony Farms, and Sizemore and Sizemore,
                   a consulting firm that conducted a forest appraisal survey
                   on First Colony Farms in 1978).

                2. The current total timber value for Areas I and 3 of
                   Scenario #2 was estimated at $1,500,000. Several Atlantic
                   white cedar and swamp hardwood forest stands of high value
                   are located in Area 3, but limited access reduces their
                   value considerably below their potential market value of
                   several million dollars (H. Truesdell, First Colony Farms,
                   personal communication).

                3. All timber would be cut once a block was established for
                   peat mining. This would reduce harvest costs and maximize
                   returns.

                4. Pine plantation value was based on a per acre value at year
                   20 (site index 40-60). The,value from years 0 to 20 is
                   based roughly on a yield of 35-40 (approximately 2 cords
                   per years) cords per acre for pulpwood at $15-25 per cord
                   value. These values assume a well-managed plantation
                   (fully stocked). The values are prorated and adjusted for
                   future worth at 6% inflation.

                5. A large portion of this plantation land will act as a
                   buffer strip and would not be available for harvesting.
                   The amount of this land can not be determined at this time.

                                             145

                    6.1.2.2 Data

                    Table 6.1.2A: Scenario #2 (Areas 1 and 3)-- Value of timber
                                    harvested prior to peatt mining

                    Area        Year       Timber Value

                    1            10               0
                    1            20               0

                    3            10        233,000
                    3            20      1,500,000

                    Total value          1,500,000

                    Table 6.1.2B: Scenario #2-- Value of plantation pine if
                                    harvested at year 20

                    Area        Year       Timber Value

                    1           10                 0
                    1           20         1,291,500  - 2,460,000

                    2           10                 0
                    2           20            645,750 - 1,2--:10,000

                    3           10                 0
                    3           20         1,102,500  - 2,100,000

                    4           10                 0
                    4           20         2,086,875  - 3,975,000

                    Total value            5,124,000  - 9,765,000

                    6.1.2.3 Conclusions

                         The present value of the timber (hardwood, cedar) contained
                    in Areas 1 and 3 of Scenario #2 is approximately $1,500,000. The
                    plantation pine in all four areas will have a $5 - 10 million
                    value at year 20 if 1) it is all harvested and 2) it has been
                    properly managed. The net result will be a gain in timber value
                    due to the activity       of peat mining and reclamation in pine
                    plantations. However,     Atlantic white cedar habitat will be
                    significantly reduced.

                                                      146

             6.1.3 Fish

             6.1.3.1 Approach/Assumptions

                  Major freshwater and estuarine recreational and commercial
             fisheries occur in and around the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula.
             However, available information is not extensive enough to fully
             assess the impacts that may occur as a result of the alternative
             scenarios (see section 7.1).

                  The    literature   for North Carolina and other coastal
             estuarine areas of the United States were examined to determine
             the results of studies related to the fisheries impacts of
             altered freshwater flows. (Abstracts of literature reviewed may
             be found in Appendix 10.3.)        Altered salinities and water
             quality in marine finfish and shellfish nursery grounds are
             considered negative impacts by many biologists familiar with
             such areas (Stegman, 1981).       The major factors that alter
             historic freshwater flow patterns and water quality are upstream
             municipal and industrial development (including dams) and local
             and upstream agricultural practices. These factors, as well as
             exploitation, have degraded many fisheries (Rote and Roberts,
             1981; Stegman, 1981; Armstrong and Ward, 1981; Spear, 1981).
             The impacts on estuarine fisheries of large-scale agriculture,
             forestry and peat mining activities that accelerate drainage and
             otherwise modify normal movemets, quantities and quality of
             surface   waters    are   not   fully understood and should be
             investigated further.

             6.1.3.2 Conclusions

             6.1.3.2.1 Scenario #1

             6.1.3.2.1.1 Area 1

                  The fisheries resources of Area 1 are limited to canals and
             low  order streams. Appreciable sport or commercial fisheries do
             not  exist in the immediate area covered by this scenario, and
             the  species are generally tolerant of low pH-humic waters which
             may  be subject to periodic drying. Drainage and lowered water
             tables will restrict fish to canal and water storage areas.
             Reduced flows of streams (all waters are to be stored in
             temporary ponds) could eliminate fish from small streams during
             much of the year. Migration and spawning of many species occurs
             in late winter and spring. Accelerated removal of the waters at
             this time will limit those activities.

                  Since lateral seepage is indicated as low in peat soils,
             water levels of Pungo Lake and Lake Phelps may not be affected
             by lowering of soil water levels some distance from the lakes.
             However, alterations of surface drainage patterns to or from the

                                             147

                    lakes   may   affect    their    levels and, consequently, their
                    fisheries.

                         No other significant effects on the fisheries of Lake
                    Phelps or Pungo Lake are anticipated unless there is increased
                    sedimentation due to wind blown material.           An increase in
                    sedimentation could be a significant problem to Lake Phelps,
                    especially since the present levels of suspended residue in this
                    lake are extremely low.
                         Until water quality and configuration of the storage lakes;
                    are more clearly described, predictions of the fish complexes;
                    which may develop in the areas are not possible. If the water,
                    quality resembles that of Pungo Lake, the fisheries will be less
                    desirable than if the water quality resembles Lake Phelps.
                         Suspended organic matter (probably of peat origin), low pH,
                    low total hardness and shallow character (less than 3 ft) of'
                    Pungo Lake precludes a desirable sport fishery. Species present:
                    include   yellow    bulhead,    channel    catfish,    longnose gar,
                    mosquitofish, and little else.        The  standing crop is probably
                    less than 40 pounds per acre.
                         Lake Phelps apparently is not         afflicted with as many
                    factors limiting to fish and as a result the fish population is
                    considered more desirable.
                         No significant effects on anadromous species are expected.
                         Aquaculture potentials have not been adequately explored
                    and would depend on characteristics of soils, waters and species
                    cultured.   Availability of pumping facilities and high quality
                    aquifer water suggest that a potential for this activity exists.

                    6. 1. 3. 2. 1. 2 Area 2

                         Studies of the fish and fisheries of Area 2 have not been
                    conducted, but they are probably similar to those of Area 1.
                         A difference is that some streams and canals are connected
                    to the Intracoastal Waterway (IWW) and may be periodically
                    invaded by estuarine forms including American eel and herring.
                    Drainage canals opening into the IWW may provide additional
                    spawning sites for herring, but will probably not significantl,
                                                                                          Y
                    increase the population of this species. American eel elvers
                    may also use the new environments, but their overall population
                    will probably not be increased.
                         Drainage of water from Area 2 to the IWW suggests that
                    impacts on Lake Mattamuskeet fisheries will be negligible.

                                                     148

                   Aquaculture potential is similar to that of Area 1, except
              that brackish waters may also be available, depending on canal
              depths in relation to the water level of the. IWW.

                   Waters drained to the IWW would result in increased
              amplitudes of fresh water during times of high precipitation and
              reduced fresh water during periods of low rainfall. Thus
              salinities and flows of the IWW may be affected. Impacts of
              those changes and the extent to which they may influence the
              Pungo and Alligator Rivers and their fisheries are not'known.

              6.1.3.2.2 Scenario #2

              6.1.3.2.2.1 Area 1

                   Impacts on fisheries will be similar to those described in
              section 6.1.3.2.1.1; however, the volume of drainage water
              entering the Pungo River via Canal B will be much greater. The
              effect of this increased runoff on the fisheries in receiving
              waters is unknown.

              6.1.3.2.2.2 Area 2

                   Impacts on fisheries will be similar to those described in
              section 6.1.3.2.1.2.

              6. 1. 3. 2. 2. 3 Area 3

                   Impacts will be similar to Area 2 except that waters would
              move by sheet flow toward the IWW and the Alligator River.
              Volumes and periodicities would be determined by velocities of
              sheet flow, presumably greater than presently occur.

              6.1.3.2.2.4 Area 4

                   The effects of increased amplitudes of fresh water to the
              Alligator River and its associated fisheries can not be
              determined until these fisheries are described.

                   The fisheries that are likely to develop in the lagoons
              will probably be similar to those described for the water
              storage areas in section 6.1.3.2.1.1.

                                              149

                   6.1.3.2.3 Scenario #3

                   6. 1. 3. 2. 3. 1 Area 1

                        Failure of the industry and flooding of the mined areas
                   will result in fish populations other than those present in
                   streams and canals. Depending on the expanses and depths of the
                   flooded areas, the fish populations will be more or less similar
                   to those currently found in standing waters in the area (see
                   section 6.1.3.2.1.1). If the waters are of appreciable depth
                   and permanent in nature, the freshwater fisheries may be of
                   value as recreational resources and as limited commercial
                   fisheries.

                   6. 1. 3. 2. 3. 2 Area 2

                        Freshwater fisheries impacts will probably be similar to
                   those in Area 1 except that abandoned drainage canals may
                   continue to function and divert surface waters to the IWW. The
                   use of the canals by anadromous and catadromous (American eel)
                   species will depend on flows in the canals and the extent of
                   vegetative re-establishment.

                                                    150

            6.1.4 Wildlife

            6.1.4.1 Approach/Assumptions

                 Wildlife habitat impacts were evaluated (Appendix 10.4)
            through a modified Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) analysis
            (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980) which involved:

              1. Inventorying existing habitat-land use types in each
                 project area

              2. Selecting an array of "indicator species" representative of
                 various environmental conditions

              3. Determining a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) for each
                 species in each habitat-land use type

              4. Selecting a regression that describes the change from one
                 type to another, under each scenario and the no change
                 alternative

              5. Computing annualized habitat units (HSI x (type x acres))
                 for each species for each year during the project period
                 and summing the results as indicators of impacts during
                 the period

              6. Computing average HSI's for each species for each area
                 pre- and post-project as static indicators of conditions
                 at those times

                 Validity of the process depends upon the degree to which
            the array of species used reflects total "wildlife value" in the
            area, the validity of the Habitat Suitability Indices (HSIs),
            and the accuracy with which land use change regressions reflect
            actual events -- all of which are subject to large error. It
            does, however, provide a quantitative, reproducible measure of
            impacts and its assumptions and mathematical functions are
            declared and can be modified to accommodate differences in
            opinion and to test sensitivity.

                 Indicator species and habitat suitability indices were
            obtained from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
            (D.  Stewart, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
            personal communication). Habitat types and acreages of each
            habitat type were based on data in Appendix 10.1. Changes in
            land use over time were based on the scenarios and, for the no
            change alternative, on reasonable assumptions (e.g., rotation
            rates on forested lands).

                                          151

                   Assumptions made in the simulation were:

                     Without the project:

                       1. No timber is harvested from high or low pocosins

                       2. Agricultural land, residential development, roads and
                          rights-of-way, and other developed area habitat types
                          remain in current acreage

                       3. Disturbed areas revert to native vegetation in the same
                          proportions as currently exist, as an exponential
                          function over 5 years

                       4. Forested habitat types are harvested (converted to
                          disturbed land) at exponential rates corresponding
                          to the reciprocal of their rotation period:

                                                Assumed Rotation Ages

                                        Habitat Type           Rotation Period
                                                                   (years)

                                        Evergreen forest              30
                                        Mixed forest                  60
                                        Deciduous forest              60
                                        White cedar swamp             80
                                        Mixed swamp                   80
                                        Bay forest                    100

                       5. All inactive unreclaimed mine reverts to water and marsh
                          habitat as a linear function over 5 years

                      With the project - all scenarios:

                       1. Habitat types are converted to peat mine in the same
                          proportions as they currently exist

                       2. Inactive mine that is reclaiME!d as native vegetation
                          reverts to each native vegetation habitat type in the
                          same proportion as it currently exists

                                                   152

             6.1.4.2 Data

             Table 6.1.4A: Scenario #1-- Total accrued annualized habitat
                            units at the end of the project period, with
                            and without the project

                             With      without Difference % Change

                Area 1      56,594     64,828    -8,234     -12.7

                Area 2      26,604     31,259    -4,655     -14.9

                Total       83,198     96,087   -12,889     -13.4

                                              153

                    Table 6.1.4B: Scenario #1, Area I-- I@ccrued annualized habitat
                                    units at end of project: period, with and
                                    without the project, by species

                        Species        With        Without       Difference         Change

                    Black bear         5,975       9,470         -3,485            -36.8

                    Whitetail deer     8,201       8,586         - 385             - 4.5

                    Marsh rabbit       5,916       8,375         -2,459            -29.4

                    Muskrat            3,804       3,110         + 694             +22.3

                    Bobwhite           8,043       6,905         +1,138            +16.5

                    Mourning  dove     6,776       4,707         +2,069            +44.0

                    Great horned owl   6,244       5,837         + 407             + 7.0

                    Pine warbler       2,173       4,313         -2,140            -49.6

                    Hairy woodpecker   2,333       4,515         -2,182            -48.3

                    Bobcat             7,129       9,009         -1,880            -20.9

                    Table 6.1.4C: Scenario   #1, Area 2-- Accrued annualized habitat
                                    units at end of project: period, with and
                                    without the project, by species

                      Species             With       Without:      Difference       % Change

                    Black bear          2,771        4,188          -1,417           -33.8

                    Whitetail deer      3,730        4,004          - 274            - 6.8

                    Marsh rabbit        2,283        3,206          -   923          -28.8

                    Muskrat             1,334           988         +   346          +35.0

                    Bobwhite            3,767        3,244          +   543          +16.7

                    Mourning  dove      3,423        2,474          +   949          +38.4

                    Great horned owl    2,932        3,061          -   129          - 4.2

                    Pine warbler        1,668        3,114          -1,446           -46.4

                    Hairy woodpecker    1,512        2,837          -1,325           -46.7

                    Bobcat              3,184        4,143          - 959            -23.1

                                                      154

             Table 6.1.4D: Scenario #1-- Average Habitat Suitability Index,
                             4y species, for the beginning and end of the
                             project period, with and without the project

                 Species         Beginning                     End of Period
                                 of Period           Without Project With Project
             Area 1
             Black bear          0.48                      0.63            0.31

             Whitetail deer      0.63                      0.52            0.47

             Marsh rabbit        0.42                      0.56            0.32

             Muskrat             0.20                      0.20            0.29

             Bobwhite            0.60                      0.40            0.51

             Mourning  dove      0.48                      0.25            0.48

             Great horned owl    0.48                      0.34            0.36

             Pine warbler        0.16                      0.30            0.15

             Hairy woodpecker    0.19                      0.31            0.13

             Bobcat              0.57                      0.57            0.37

             Area 2
             Black bear          0.52                      0.61            0.30

             Whitetail deer      0.62                      0.55            0.48

             Marsh rabbit        0.41                      0.47            0.25

             Muskrat             0.16                      0.14            0.25

             Bobwhite            0.56                      0.43            0.57

             Mourning  dove      0.45                      0.31            0.59

             Great horned owl    0.48                      0.41            0.38

             Pine warbler        0.31                      0.45            0.19

             Hairy woodpecker    0.30                      0.41            0.15

             Bobcat              0.58                      0.58            0.35

                                               155

                    Table 6.1.4E: Scenario #2-- Total accrued annualized habitat
                                   units at the end of the project.period, with
                                   and without the project,

                                   With     Without    Difference % Change

                    Area 1       103,534    125,601    -22,067      -17.6

                    Area 2       53,301      64,100    -10,799      -16.8

                    Area 3       95,196     117,228    -22,032      -18.8

                    Area 4       42,761      56,302    -13,-41      -24.1

                    Total        294,791    363,230     -68,439      -18.8

                    Table 6.1.4F: Scenario #2, Area 1-- Accrued annualized habitat
                                   units at the end of thE? project period, with
                                   and without the project, by species

                       Species          With        Without    Difference        % Change

                    Black bear          12,031      20,057       -8,026           -40.0

                    Whitetail deer      14,206      16,311       -2,105           -12.9

                    Marsh rabbit        11,632      17,304       -5,672           -32.8

                    Muskrat             6,818         4,709      +2,109           +44.8

                    Bobwhite            13,313      11,606       +1,707           +14.7
                    Mourning dove       11,118        6,489      +4,629           +71.3
                    Great horned owl    10,460      10,747       - 287            - 2.7

                    Pine warbler        5,554         9,752      -4,198           -43.0
                    Hairy woodpecker    5,481       10,254       -4,773           -46.5
                    Bobcat              12,920      18,371       -5,451           -29.7

                                                      156

             Table 6.1.4G: Scenario #2, Area 2-- Accrued annualized habitat
                             units at end of project period, with and
                             without the project, by species

                 Species         With        Without      Difference        % Change

             Black bear          6,276        9,948       - 3,672           -36.9

             Whitetail deer      7,149        8,114       -    965          -11.9

             marsh rabbit        5,449        8,355       - 2,906           -34.8

             muskrat             2,832        2,162       +    670          +31.0

             Bobwhite            6,775        5,694       + 1,081           +19.0

             Mourning  dove      5,962        3,391       + 2,571           +75.8

             Great horned owl    5,394        5,714       -    320          - 5.6

             Pine warbler        3,612        5,774       - 2,162           -37.4

             Hairy woodpecker    3,356        5,750       - 2,394           -41.6

             Bobcat              6,496        9,198       - 2,702           -29.4

             Table 6.1.4H: Scenario #2, Area 3--     Accrued annualized habitat
                             units at end of project period, with and
                             without the project, by species

                 Species         With        Without      Difference        % Change

             Black bear         12,385       19,482       - 7,097           - 36.4

             Whitetail deer     12,640       15,416       - 2,776           - 18.0

             marsh rabbit       10,118       14,546       - 4,428           - 30.4

             Muskrat             4,600        2,643       + 1,957           + 74.0

             Bobwhite           10,347        9,544       +    803          +   8.4

             Mourning dove       8,646        4,389       + 4,257           + 97.0

             Great horned owl    9,965       10,389       -    424          -   4.1

             Pine warbler        7,078       11,352       - 4,274           - 37.6

             Hairy woodpecker    7,456       12,148       - 4,692           - 38.6

             Bobcat             11,961       17,318       - 5,357           - 30.9

                                               157

                     Table 6.1.41: Scenario #2, Area 4-- Accrued annualized habitat
                                    units at the end of the project period, with
                                    and without the project, by species

                        Species         With       Without       Difference        % Change

                     Black bear         5,750       9,018        - 3,268           - 36.2

                     Whitetail deer     5,379       7,495        - 2,116           - 28.2

                     Marsh rabbit       5,977       7,361        - 1,384           - 18.8

                     Muskrat            3,067       1,711        + 1,-356          + 79.3

                     Bobwhite           3,472       4,883        - 1,411           - 28.9

                     Mourning dove      2,473       2,597        -     124         -   4.8

                     Great horned owl   4,580       5,323        -    743          - 14.0

                     Pine warbler       2,919       4,483        -  1,564          - 34.9

                     Hairy woodpecker   3,415       5,051        -  1,636          - 32.4

                     Bobcat             5,728       8,379        -  2,651          - 31.6

                                                       158

                Table 6.1.4J: Scenario #2-- Average Habitat Suitability Index,
                                by species, for the beginning and end of the
                                project period, with and without the project

                   Species          Beginning                       End of Period
                                    of Period            Without Project With Project

                Area 1
                Black bear             0.60                    0.69              0.27

                Whitetail deer         0.59                    0.53              0.44

                Marsh rabbit           0.51                    0.59              0.27

                Muskrat                0.16                    0.16              0.33

                Bobwhite               0.48                    0.36              0.53

                mourni,ng dove         0.32                    0.19              0.57

                Great horned owl       0.42                    0.34              0.34

                Pine warbler           0.25                    0.34              0.16

                Hairy woodpecker       0.28                    0.36              0.12

                Bobcat                 0.61                    0.61              0.31

                Area 2
                Black bear             0.63                    0.67              0.27

                Whitetail deer         0.56                    0.54              0.47

                Marsh rabbit           0.53                    0.57              0.22

                Muskrat                0.15                    0.14              0.28

                Bobwhite               0.42                    0.37              0.59

                mourning  dove         .0.27                   0.21              0.64

                Great horned owl       0.41                    0.37              0.37

                Pine warbler           0.36                    0.39              0.17

                Hairy woodpecker       0.36                    0.39              0.12

                Bobcat                 0.61                    0.61              0.31

                                                     159

                    Table 6.1.41 (continued)

                       Species          Beginning                    End of Period
                                        of Period           Without Project With Project

                    Area 3
                    Black bear            0.76                    0.76            0.27

                    Whitetail deer        0.59                    0.59            13.47

                    Marsh rabbit          0.59                    0.56            0.22

                    Muskrat               0.13                    0.09            0.28

                    Bobwhite              0.32                    0.36            0.59

                    Mourning  dove        0.15                    0.15            0.64

                    Great horned owl      0.46                    0.38            0.37

                    Pine warbler          0.43                    0.46            0.17

                    Hairy woodpecker      0.49                    0.48            0.13

                    Bobcat                0.67                    0.67            0.31

                    Area 4
                    Black bear            0.71                    0.72            0.31

                    Whitetail deer        0.58                    0.56            0.35

                    Marsh rabbit          0.59                    0.58            0.53

                    Muskrat               0.17                    0.12            0.36

                    Bobwhite              0.32                    0.36            0.21

                    Mourning dove         0.18                    0.17            0.20

                    Great horned owl      0.49                    0.37            0.25

                    Pine warbler          0.34                    0.37            0.22

                    Hairy woodpecker      0.43                    0.41            0.20

                    Bobcat                0.65                    0.64            0.30

                                                        160

             Table 6.1.4K: Scenario #3-- Total accrued annualized habitat
                            units at the end of the project period, with
                            and without the project

                             With     Without Difference % Change

                Area 1      58,035    64,828     -6,793       -10.5

                Area 2      26,878    31,259     -4,381       -14.0

                Total       84,913    96,987    -11,174       -11.6

             Table 6.1.4L: Scenario #3, Area 1-- Accrued annualized habitat
                            units at the end of the project period, with
                            and without the project, by species
                Species        With        Without      Difference        % Change
             Black bear        6,339       9,470         -3,131            -33.1

             Whitetail deer    8,267       8,586         - 319             - 3.7

             Marsh rabbit      7,017       8,375         -1,358            -16.2

             Muskrat           4,911       3,110         +1,801            +57.9

             Bobwhite          7,652       6,905         + 747             +10.8

             Mourning dove     5,963       4,707         +1,256            +26.7
             Great horned owl  6,210       5,837         + 373             + 6.4
             Pine warbler      1,916       4,313         -2,397            -55.6
             Hairy woodpecker  2,247       4,515         -2,268            -50.2

             Bobcat            7,513       9,009         -1,496            -16.6

                                               161

                  Table 6.1.4M: Scenario #3, Area 2-- Accrued annualized habitat
                                  units at the end of the project period, with
                                  and without the project, by species
                      Species        With        Without      Difference        % Change
                  Black bear         2,965        4,188        -1,153            -27.6
                  Whitetail deer     3,621        4,004        - 383             - 9.6
                  Marsh rabbit       3,026        3,206        - 180             - 5.6
                  Muskrat            2,028           988       +1,040            +105.3
                  Bobwhite           3,272        3,244        +     28          + 0.9
                  Mourning  dove     2,646        2,474        + 172             + 7.0
                  Great horned owl   2,814        3,061        - 247             - 8.1
                  Pine warbler       1,608        3,114        -1,506            -48.4
                  Hairy woodpecker   1,526        2,837        -1,311            -46.2
                  Bobcat             3,373        4,143        - 770             -18.6

                                                      162

             Table 6.1.4N: Scenario #3-- Average Habitat Suitability Index, by
                            species, for the beginning and end of the project
                            period, with and without the project

                species          Beginning                    End of Period
                                 of Period          Without Project With Project

             Area 1
             Black bear          0.48                     0.63             0.39

             Whitetail deer      0.63                     0.52             0.49

             marsh rabbit        0.42                     0.56             0.53

             Muskrat             0.20                     0.20             0.46

             Bobwhite            0.60                     0.40             0.43

             Mourning  dove      0.48                     0.25             0.31

             Great horned owl    0.48                     0.34             0.36

             Pine warbler        0.16                     0.30             0.10

             Hairy woodpecker    0.19                     0.31             0.12

             Bobcat              0.57                     0.57             0.45

             Area 2
             Black bear          0.52                     0.61             0.40

             Whitetail deer      0.62                     0.55             0.45

             Marsh rabbit        0.41                     0.47             0.53

             Muskrat             0.16                     0.14             0.47

             Bobwhite            0.56                     0.43             0.37

             Mourning  dove      0.45                     0.31             0.27

             Great horned owl    0.48                     0.41             0.34

             Pine warbler        0.31                     0.45             0.18

             Hairy woodpecker    0.30                     0.41             0.17

             Bobcat              0.58                     0.58             0.44

                                                 163

                   6.1.4.3 Conclusions

                   6.1.4.3.1 Scenario #1

                        With the mining projects, total accrued annualized habitat
                   units, summed over all species, will be 13% less in Area 1, 15%
                   less in Area 2, and 13% less in the entire project area than
                   without the projects (Table 6.1.4A). This summation confounds
                   gains and losses among the indicator species, equates all
                   species, and assumes comparability and linearity among all
                   components of the model. A more valuable interpretation may be
                   gained by examining impacts upon individual species.

                        Black bear, pine warbler and hairy woodpecker will be most
                   severely (adversely) affected by the mining projects. Overall
                   habitat suitability (Table 6.1.4D) will be reduced about 50%.
                   During the 20-year project period, habitat suitability with the
                   projects    will be 50-60% of no-project conditions (accrued
                   annualized habitat units, Tables 6.1.4B and C). These species
                   are associated more with native vegetation (pocosin, swamp and
                   evergreen forest) than with the water and marsh, agriculture and
                   mined areas characteristic of during-project and post-project
                   conditions. The bear, a wilderness animal which cannot survive
                   in areas intensively modified by man, will have an overall
                   Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) of 0.2 following the 20-year
                   project period (Table 6.1.4D) and a habitat quality reduction of
                   63% (Area 1) and 51% (Area 2) during-project operation (Tables
                   6.1.4B and C).

                        With    mining,     marsh    rabbit    and bobcat will sustain
                   moderately negative impacts. Habitat suitability for both will
                   decrease about 35% in,, Area 1 and over 40% in Area 2 (Table
                   6.1.4D). The increase in water and marsh (HSI=0.7), suitable
                   habitat for marsh rabbits,          will not offset the increase in
                   unsuitable agriculture and mining (HSI=<0.2). The bobcat is
                   associated with native vegetation (HSI=>0.5); habitat quality
                   will be reduced 21% (Area 1) and 23% (Area 2) (Tables 6.1.4B and
                   C) during the project period, and post-project habitat quality
                   will    be    reduced    35%    (Area    1) and 40% (Area 2) from
                   without-project conditions.

                        With the projects, whitetail deer will experience a 10%
                   decrease in HSI in Area 1 and a 13% decrease in Area 2, compared
                   to no-project conditions (Table 6.1.4D), and a 4-7% decrease
                   during the projects (Tables 6.1.4B and C).

                        Muskrat, bobwhite, mourning dove and great horned owl will
                   all benefit from the projects. The muskrat will gain about 22%
                   (Area 1) and 35% (Area 2) during-project operation (Table 6.1.4B
                   and C), but will have an overall suitability of 0.25-0.29 at
                   project conclusion. The mourning dove will gain 44% (Area 1) and
                   38% (Area 2) during the projects (Tables 6.1.4B and C), and

                                                        164

             post-project conditions will be 92% (Area 1) to almost 200%
             (Area 2) better than no-project conditions (Table 6.1.4D).
             Conditions for great horned owls will improve about 7% in Area 1
             and decline 4% in Area 2 during-project operation (Table 6.1.4B
             and C), and will be about the same, with or without the
             projects, after the 20-year period (Table 6.1.4D).

             6.1.4.3.2 Scenario #2

                  Total accrued annualized habitat units, with the mining
             projects will be less than without the projects in each area,
             summing over all species (Table 6.1.4E). The decline in total
             habitat units will be 18% in Area 1, 17% in Area 2, 19% in Area
             3 and 24% in Area 4. Overall, habitat quality (as measured by
             the   evaluation    species    cited)    will    decrease    19% from
             without-project conditions.

                  Black bears will lose 60% or more in habitat suitability in
             three of the four areas with the projects compared to no-project
             conditions at the end of the period (Table 6.1.41). Loss of
             accrued annualized habitat units will range from 36% (Areas 3
             and 4) to 40% (Area 1) during the projects (Tables 6.1.4F-I) due
             to conversion of land from native vegetation to agricultural
             land in Areas 1, 2 and 3 and conversion to residential property
             and water in Area 4. Whitetail deer will lose 38% in habitat
             suitability in Area 4 with the project compared to no-project
             conditions because of the residential land (HSI= 0.02) and
             4280-acre water body (HSI=0.23) planned for reclamation. The
             conversion to residential property and lake areas in Area 4 will
             be accompanied by a substantial loss of habitat units (28%)
             during-project operation (Table 6.1.4F). The habitat suitability
             for deer in Areas 1, 2 and 3 will decline 20% or less (Table
             6.1.4J). Habitat unit losses in Areas 1, 2 and 3 during-project
             operation will be less than 20% (Tables 6.1.4G-I).

                  Land conversion with the projects will severely reduce the
             habitat   suitability for marsh rabbit, pine warbler, hairy
             woodpecker and bobcat in Areas 1, 2 and 3 over the no-project
             alternative (Table 6.1.4J). Habitat quality for marsh rabbit
             will be reduced because of the loss of low pocosin vegetation
             (HSI=0.54-0.66) and conversion to mined land (HSI=0.06) and
             agriculture (HSI=0.18)--partially off-set by the increase in
             water (HSI=0.7) in Area 4. The rabbit HSI for water was
             originally intended for small-area water bodies such as canals,
             and for marshy areas. The 4280-acre water body in Area 4 will
             not be   suitable habitat for marsh rabbits, but was assigned a
             HSI of   0.7 in this analysis. Thus the impacts of the mining
             project  upon this species in Area 4 have been underestimated.
             Habitat  unit loss during-project operation will be about 30% in
             Areas 1, 2, and 3, and 19% in Area 4 (Tables 6.1.4F-I).

                                               165

                       original habitat conditions are only fair in all areas for
                  pine warbler and hairy woodpecker (HS'E=0.25-0.43 for warbler and
                  HSI=0.28-0.49 for woodpecker) (Table 6.1.4J). For both species,
                  habitat will become marginal under project conditions (HSI
                  generally less than 0.2) (Table 6.1.4J).

                       Bobcat habitat suitability will decrease about 30% during
                  the projects (Tables 6.1.4F-I), and resultant HSIs will be about
                  50% less than under no-project conditions (Table 6.1.4J).

                       Muskrat,   bobwhite    and   mourning dove will experience
                  substantial   increases in habitat suitability under project
                  conditions, with muskrat and mourning dove habitat more than
                  doubling in quality (Table 6.1.41). These species are associated
                  with agriculture and/or water, both of which increase in all
                  areas. Initial habitat suitability for muskrat is poor in all
                  areas (HSI=<0.2). Although habitat quality will be greatly
                  improved with the projects (HSI=about 0.3), it will still not be
                  high enough to consider any of the areas (in total) really
                  suitable for muskrat (Table 6.1.4J). Canals and water bodies
                  created   by the projects will, however, provide excellent,
                  localized muskrat habitat.

                       Habitat quality for great horned owl will be relatively
                  unaffected by the projects (Tables 6.1.4F-I), except in Area 4
                  where conversion to residential property (HSI=0.3) and water
                  (HSI=0.15) will reduce overall quality by about 30% (Table
                  6.1.41).

                  6.1.4.3.3 Scenario #3

                       With the mining projects, total accrued annualized habitat
                  units, summed over all species, will be 11% less in Area 1 and
                  14% less in Area 2 than without the projects (Table 6.1.4K).
                  Overall, habitat quality will decrease about 12% (as measured by
                  the evaluation species used).
                       Pine warbler and hairy woodpecker will experience the
                  greatest loss in habitat suitability with the mining projects
                  compared to no-project conditions at the end of the period
                  (Table 6.1.4N). Loss of accrued annualized habitat units will
                  range from 46% to 56% during the projects (Tables 6.1.4L and M).
                  Currently, the area is not well suited for either species (pine
                  warbler HSI=0.16-0.31; hairy woodpecker HSI=0.19-0.30).

                       Black bear will lose 34-38% in habitat quality, compared to
                  without-project conditions (Table 6.1.4N), and accrued habitat
                  units will be 28-33% less than under without-project conditions
                  (Tables 6.1.4L and M). Bobcats will sustain less, but still
                  substantial,    reduction   in    habitat   quality under project

                                                    166

              conditions--about 18% in accrued habitat units (Tables 6.1.41,
              and M) and 20-30% in post-project conditions (Table 6.1.4N).

                   Whitetail deer, marsh rabbit and great horned owl will be
              only slightly affected by project conditions; with-project HSIs
              and accrued habitat units will be within +20% (and usually
              within +10%) of without-project values (Table 6.1.4N).

                   Muskrat, bobwhite and mourning dove will all benefit from
              the projects, with gains of more than 200% in the case of
              mourning dove (Table 6.1.4N). These species are characteristic
              of agricultural and aquatic environments, which expand as a
              result of the mining projects.

              6.1.4.3.4 Summary

                   Project impacts can be evaluated in terms of magnitude,
              significance, and possible    mitigation.

                   Pine    warblers and     hairy woodpeckers will sustain the
              greatest overall habitat degradation under project conditions
              (generally 50-60%). Both species are relatively common, widely
              distributed and tolerant       of human activity. No population of
              either species will be        jeopardized and mitigation is probably
              unnecessary.

                   Black bears and bobcats will sustain proportionately less
              loss (generally 20-40%). These species are much more narrowly
              distributed,    and    the    bear is particularly intolerant of
              disturbance and human activity. HSIs used in this analysis were
              based upon professional opinion; during- and post-project values
              were dependent upon estimates of the effects of mitigation
              measures (buffer strips, corridors, habitat type interspersion)
              which have not yet been tested. The implications of potential
              habitat loss and of errors in the HSIs used are therefore
              substantial. If necessary, additional mitigation measures could
              be required by modifying existing permits to reduce the acreage
              disturbed or to require greater reforestation in the reclamation
              plans.   Legal    authority     for    permit and reclamation plan
              modification is   granted by G. S. 74-51 (6th paragraph) and G. S.
              74-57.   Additional.    strength     is given to permit and plan
              modifications to mitigate loss of wildlife           resources by G. S.
              74-51, which makes "unduly adverse effects on        wildlife" a ground
              for denying a permit for any mining operation.
                   Whitetail deer and the great horned             owl will be only
              slightly affected by the projects, except in         Area 4 of Scenario
              #2, where residential development and open water reclamation
              will decrease available habitat.

                                                167

                      The marsh rabbit is widely distributed through the lower
                 Coastal Plain and will be moderately,, though variably, impacted
                 by the projects. This species has not been intensively studied
                 in North Carolina, however, and rE@SUlts reported here may be
                 subject to considerable error.

                      Species benefitting from the projects -- muskrat, bobwhite,
                 and mourning dove    are all common and widely distributed.

                                                168

             6.1.5 Recreation

             6.1.5.1 Approach/Assumptions

               1. The literature was analyzed for data on the present
                  recreational value of the areas included in the scenarios
                  prior to peat mining activities.

               2. The acreage figures of peatland by land use category at
                  year zero (T=O) for Scenarios #1 and #2 are based on
                  habitat type/land use data in Appendix 10.1. These data
                  were used to calculate the actual recreation value at T=O.
                  Cropland was not given a hunting value since access to
                  the land was assumed to be restricted. (If this assumption
                  is not met, then recreational hunting values would not
                  change; however, game species would change significantly.)
               3. The recreational value of pocosins prior to development was
                  based on Postel (1981).

               4. The primary use of pocosin lands for recreation is for
                  hunting and fishing (Richardson, 1981). Under the moderate
                  assumptions of a $5.00 per trip hunting value, a 9% benefit
                  appreciation rate and a 7% interest rate, hunting benefits
                  yield a present worth of $36 per acre over a twenty-year
                  period (Postel, 1981). This does not take into account
                  the downstream benefits related to the role of pocosins in
                  estuarine water quality maintenance, which may control an
                  annual $500 million fishing industry. Other nonquantifiable
                  benefits include critical habitat maintenance, ecosystem
                  preservation and option value to future generations.

               5. The loss in recreational value due to the conversion of
                  pocosin ecosystems as well as surrounding swamp forest,
                  cropland and marsh habitat was based on the acreage in a
                  somewhat natural state at T=O multiplied by $36 per acre,
                  minus the acreage of landscape converted to peat mining
                  at time T+1 times $36 per acre. This simplistic approach
                  does not take into account the opportunity costs of
                  development and was chosen since a marginal analysis of
                  these opportunity costs was not possible. The acres that
                  are calculated to be reclaimed at each calculation period
                  are added back into the value at $36 per acre. The data
                  representing an estimate of changes in recreational value
                  due to peat mining are shown in Table 6.1.6A.

                                            169

                 6.1.5.2 Data

                 Table 6.1.5A-- Estimated changes in recreational value (primarily
                                 hunting) based on a value of $36/acre over 213 yrs

                 Scenario   Area Year      Total Value    Value Lost

                  1         1       0     $  452,156    $       -
                  1         1      10        177,994        274,162
                  1         1      20        121,174        '330,982

                  1         2       0        222,486            -
                  1         2      10          73,513       148,973
                  1         2      20          40,872       181,614

                 Total loss for Scenario #1    (all areas)  at year 20      512,596

                  2         1       0     $  978,486     $      -
                  2         1      10        393,177        1585,309
                  2         1      20          98,477       1380,009

                  2         2       0        500,237            -
                                                            . 03,649
                  2         2      10        196,588        .3
                  2         2      20          49,238       450,999

                  2         3       0        952,832            -
                  2         3      10        353,926        598 , 906
                  2         3      20          84,065       368,767

                  2         4       0        462,124            -
                  2         4      10        168,431        :29 3 , 69 3
                  2         4      20          77,100       385,024

                 Total loss for Scenario #2 (all areas)     at year 20 $2,584,799

                 Notes:
                  $ value of forest and native land assumed to be $36/acre
                  $ value/acre of pasture, cropland, mining area and open water
                   all assumed to be 0; thus, value of forest and native land
                   assumed to equal total value of all acreage in permitted area

                 6.1.5.3 Conclusions

                      An estimate of the loss in value over 20 years in terms of
                 hunting recreational value in Scenario #1 is roughly $512,600
                 (Table 6.1.5A). This assumes that cropland is not available to
                 hunters in the future and that a portion of the peat mine is not
                 yet reclaimed. In Scenario #2 the total loss of recreational
                 value in Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Scenario #2 due to peat mining
                 is approximately $2.6 million when projected over the next 20
                 years (Table 6.1.5A). In both cases, the estimated losses in
                 recreational value are based on an assumed value of $5.00 per
                 hunting trip.

                                                   170

               6.2 Water

               6.2.1 Surface Water

               6.2.1.1 Amount of Surface Water Runoff

               6.2.1.1.1 Approach/Assumptions

               6.2.1.1.1.1 Scenario #1

                    For the analysis of Scenario #1, Area I was considered to
               consist of 45 333-acre blocks permitted for methanol production
               and 800 acres permitted for horticultural peat production. The
               pre-mining conditions were based on habitat type/land use data
               in   Appendix 10.1. The habitat type data and PMA's 'Peat
               Harvesting   Sequence' (PMA, 1983d, Fig. 2-10) were used to
               determine    the number of acres existing in each land use
               condition    in   Table 6.2.1.1A at any one time. Pre-mining
               disturbed    land   was equivalent to habitat type categories
               (Appendix    10.1) 'agricultural land' and 'disturbed land
               transitional/field ditched'. This category thus includes all
               land ditched and recently cleared for agriculture including
               burned and rejuvenated areas and pasture land. These areas were
               all modeled as pasture sites with field ditches spaced 330 feet
               apart. Pre-mining shrub encompassed high and low pocosin areas.
               These areas were modeled assuming a standard ditched area as for
               pasture with increased rooting depths and surface storage. For
               the first ten years an extra 80 acres per year (1/4 block) were
               considered cleared for mining in areas producing horticultural
               peat (Area 1).

                    A block was considered to be in pre-mined condition until
               the second year of bog preparation. (Bog preparation involves
               digging an extra drainage ditch between the existing ditches,
               breaking down and grinding up the vegetation and land forming
               the block to encourage rapid surface drainage.)              From the
               beginning of the second year of bog preparation the block was
               considered to be in the mined condition. increased runoff may be
               expected with the removal of vegetation but not to the extent
               modeled for the actively mined phase. The one year delay in
               considering a block in the mined condition was an attempt to
               account for this progressive change in expected runoff.

                    Reclaimed land not used for the lake in Area 1 was assumed
               to be in 80% agriculture (row crop rotation with poor subsurface
               drainage), 10% forestry and 10% native vegetation (see section
               5.2.2.10). Reclaimed native vegetation was considered the same
               as forestry in the analysis. If reclamation was scheduled to
               begin before the end of the first quarter of a particular year,
               a block was considered reclaimed for that entire year. If
               reclamation was not scheduled to begin until after the first
               quarter, the block was considered in the mined condition until
               the following year. All land being mined for horticultural peat
               was assumed recl-imed to agriculture and forestry in year 11.

                                                171

                         At the completion of mining, the soil surface will be
                   fairly well compacted from the continuous passage of heavy
                   harvesting equipment. High surface runoff may be expected prior
                   to plowing and planting. Although it will take several seasons
                   of plant residue incorporation and fertilization to produce the
                   soil type assumed for after mining agriculture and forestry, the
                   most significant effect of reclamation will be the alteration of
                   evapotranspiration. These effects will begin immediately after
                   planting    of    the   first    crop.    once a crop is planted,
                   transpiration will increase significantly over the during mining
                   condition,     lowering    the water table and reducing runoff.
                   Assuming quick reclamation is thus considered reasonable.

                         Average total annual flows from 20 years of simulation were
                   generated    for each of the land surface conditions (Table
                   6.2.1.1A) using the models described in Gregory et al. (1984).
                   The slight differences from values reported in section 5.2.2.4
                   are    due   to    improved    records of rainfall data for the
                   simulations. Flows from pre-mining shrub areas are higher than
                   flows from post-mining agriculture because of the difference in
                   soil type. Although the shrub has a deeper root depth than the
                   row crops, in the post-mining mineral soil more water is
                   available to the plant for evapotranspiration, resulting in
                   deeper water tables and, thereforE!, less runoff. Flows were
                   weighted by their various areas throughout the study period to
                   determine an expected average annual. flow per unit area for all
                   20 years (Table 6.2.1.1A). The assumed acreage by land use
                   category for each scenario and area for the 20 year study period
                   may be found in Appendix 10.5. In year 10 the land used for the
                   large temporary lake was assumed to revert back to pasture
                   before being mined at a later date. The 20 year maximum and
                   minimum flows were also considered throughout the study period.
                   The resulting expected average, maximum and minimum annual flows
                   per unit area for Scenario #1, Area 1, for the 20 year study
                   period are plotted in Figure 6.2.1.1A. The plant discharge of
                   870,000 gallons per day (0.7 inches per year over the entire
                   Area 1) was added to the flow for all years after year 0. (The
                   horizontal lines in Figures 6.2.1.IA-F represent the no project
                   condition (i.e., the average annual flow at year 0).)

                        For Area 2 of Scenario #1, precise mining strategy was not
                   available. It was assumed for this analysis that 300 acres were
                   prepared for mining each year up to a maximum of 1,500 acres. An
                   extra 300 acres were included in the active mining condition. for
                   each year to simulate areas in bog preparation and areas mined
                   but not yet reclaimed. The land use areas were taken from data
                   on acreage by habitat type in Appendix 10.1 and each of the
                   non-forested    areas was assumed to be depleted at a rate
                   proportional to the original habitat type acreage. The assumed
                   acreages of each land use thoughout the 20 year study period are
                   given in Appendix 10.5. As with Area 1, forested areas were

                                                     172

               assumed to be replenished at a rate equal to 20 percent of the
               reclaimed area. Differences in hydrology between forestry on the
               reclaimed areas and on the original peat soil were found to be
               small (less than 2%) and consequently the same annual flow
               totals were used for both. The predicted average, maximum and
               minimum total flows for Scenario #1, Area 2, for the 20 year
               study period are shown in Figure 6.2.1.1B.

               6.2.1.1.1.2 Scenario #2

                    For Scenario #2, all areas, the initial land use types were
               taken from the habitat type data in Appendix 10.1. Each was
               depleted at a rate proportional to the initial habitat type
               acreage. Different mining rates were used from those reported in
               section 5.2.3.2.4. In order for the required acreage to be mined
               by year 10 and 20 as given in section 5.2.3.2.1 and assuming
               that it takes 5 years to mine out a block, the acreage mined at
               year ten must be in the active mining state by year 5.
               Similarly, in order to finish mining an area by year 20, all
               acreage must be reclaimed or in active mining state by year 15.
               Thus the following average annual rates of land disturbance were
               used in this analysis:

                                 I - 5      6 - 10      11 - 15      16 - 20
                 Area 1            1500       1800       2700            0
                 Area 2             750        900       1350            0
                 Area 3            1100       1600       2500            0
                 Area 4             680        770       1150            0

                    Using the     above rates and the given existing land use
               types, the acreages for each year of operation were calculated
               and are given in Appendix 10.5. Residential areas in Area 4 were
               modeled as an active peat mine to simulate the high surface
               runoff expected for a residential area. Accurate urban modeling
               is not possible at this stage because of lack of information
               about the nature of the residential areas and because the model
               used in this analysis is not designed to handle urban areas. The
               resulting predicted average, maximum and minimum annual flows
               per unit area for Scenario #2, Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4, for the 20
               year study period are shown in Figures 6.2.1.lC-F, respectively.

                                                 173

                   6.2.1.1.2 Data

                   Table 6.2.1.lA: Annual flow totals per unit area generated from
                                    20 years of simulation. (Average annual
                                    rainfall for the 20 years is 48.4 inches.)

                                         Average         20 Year        20 Year
                   Land Use           Annual Flow        Maximum         minimum
                                         in/year         in/year          in/year

                   Lake                     9.8            17.6             -4.6

                   Pre-mining
                   Disturbed              18.7             29.5             9.1

                   Pre-mining  Shrub      14.5             27.4             4.3

                   Active Mine            24.1             32.2             12.8

                   Agriculture            14.3             25.8             3.4

                   Forestry               12.6             24.3             1.5

                                                    174

                                                             SCENARIO *1, AREA *1

                                                               20 YEAR AVGE                          20 YEAR MAX

                                                               20 YEAR MIN             ----------    NO PROJECT

                                 35-

                        cn
                        W        30-

                        z        2S-

                        cn
                        in
                                 20-:
                                                                               ----------

                                 16-

                        zi

                                  0

                                     0        2        4       6        8      10      12       14       16      18      20

                                                                   YEAR OF OPERATION

                       Figure 6.2.1.1A: Scenario #1, Area 1-- Total annual flow (inches per year)

                                                                                                      FOR SCENARIO *1, AREA #2

                                                                                                                20 YEAR AVGE                                                             20 YEAR MAX
                                                   40-
                                                                                                                   20 YEAR MIN                                                               NO PROJECT

                                                   3S

                                   cn
                                   ,w                        -
                                                   30
                                   0

                                   z               2s-

                                   cn
                                   cn
                                   0               20-

                                                                                                                                                            ------------------------------------

                                                              0               2                4                5               8              10              12               14                                               20

                                                                                                                      YEAR             OF OPERATION

                                    F i (yi i rp   4, 9   1   1 R    qppnqri n iil            Ar@n 9-- Tnt-il              n n,iql       fl r-wv.T ( in @li @ c .
                                                                                                                                                                         Year)

                                                              SCENARIO *2, AREA *1

                                                                20 YEAR AVGE                      - 20 YEAR MAX
                                 40-
                                                                20 YEAR MIN            -----------   NO PROJECT

                                 3s-

                         cn
                         LLJ

                                                                             -----------------

                         z       2s-:
                         (n
                         cn           -
                         0       20-

                         W                        -x ----------------------------------------------

                                      0        2       4        6       8      10       12       14      16       18      20

                                                                   YEAR     OF OPERATION

                        Figure 6.2.1.1C: Scenario #2, Area 1-- Total annual flow (inches per year)

                                                            SCENARIO *2, AREA #2

                                                              20 YEAR AVGE                          20 YEAR MAX
                               40
                                                              20 YEAR MIN             ------------  NO PROJECT

                               3S

                       cn
                       LLJ
                       m       30
                       U
                       z                       ------------------------------------

                       z       2S-

                       V)
                       V)
         00                    20-

                                                                 -----------------------------------------------

                                    0        2        4       6        8      10       12      14       16      18      21a

                                                                  YEAR OF OPERATION

                       Figure 6.2.1.1D: Scenario #2, Area 2-- Total annual flow (inches per year)

                                                          SCENARIO 02, AREA 03

                                                            20 YEAR AVGE                          20 YEAR MAX
                             40-
                                                            20 YEAR MIN              -----------  NO PROJECT

                             3S-

                    Cn
                    W
                             30-
                    0             -

                    z

                    (n
                    0        20-
                    -j

                             is - -------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             10-

                                  0        2       4        6        8      10       12       14      18       18      20
                                                                                                            ----------
                                       ---------------------------------------

                                                                YEAR OF OPERATION

                    Figure 6.2.1.1E: Scenario #2, Area 3-- Total annual flow (inches per year)

                                                          SCENARIO *2, AREA #4

                                                            20 YEAR AVGE                           20 YEAR MAX
                            40-
                                                            20 YEAR MIN                            NO PROJECT

                            3S

                    Cn
                    Ld
                            30-
                    U

                            25-

          00
          0                 20-

                                - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  0        2       4        8        8      10       12       14       18               20

                                                                YEAR    OF OPERATION

                    Figure 6.2.1.1F: Scenario #2, Area 4-- Total annual flow (inches per year)

                                     80-

                                     70@-

                              cn
                              LL.
                              0
                                     40-

                                     30-
                              cr

                              0      20-
                              LL.
                                     10-

                                       0@

                                        0             2            4            6            8            18

                                                           TIME EOUALED OR      EXCEEDED

                                            LEGEND:                    AGRIC.                  MINING
                                                                       PASTURE

                              F i,(-,ure 6,2. 1.. 1 G: Compar!,,on of peak f lows f rom a 320-acre block
                                                  under three different land uses

                                                           181

                  6.2.1.1.3 Conclusions

                  6.2.1.1.3.1 Scenario #1

                       For Scenario #1, Area 1, the average annual total flow will
                  not vary by more than about 5% from the pre-mined condition over
                  the first 20 years of operation (see Figure 6.2.1.1A). The
                  reasons for this small change include: 1) less than 25% of the
                  area will be in the mined condition at one time, 2) reduced
                  flows from the reclaimed area will off-set the increased flows
                  from the actively mined areas and 3) the effect of extra
                  evaporation from the lakes.

                       The slight steady decline in expected total annual water
                  loss    from   Area   1    will continue to the end of mining
                  (approximately year 35). At this point, the average annual flow
                  should stabilize at approximately 14 inches per year (21% less
                  than the pre-mining condition).

                       The abrupt increase in expected flow in years 9 and 10
                  corresponds to the abandonment of the large (8 blocks, 2560
                  acres) temporary lake and the sole use of the smaller (1450
                  acres) permanent lake. This transition need not be as abrupt as
                  depicted; maintaining the larger lake into year 13 would clearly
                  help reduce total annual flows.

                       In Area 2 of Scenario #1, the initial increase in total@
                  annual flows will be greater than for Area 1 because no lake is
                  proposed (see Figure 6.2.1.1B). Once the maximum disturbed area
                  has been reached, total flows will level off as the area of
                  reclaimed land slowly increases. Again, the average flow will
                  drop below pre-mining levels once all the mined areas have been
                  reclaimed.

                       In both areas, the major factor controlling the occurrence
                  of floods will be the capacity of the pumps removing water from
                  the canal system to the lakes (in Area 1) and the Intracoastal
                  Waterway (in Area 2). ESE (1983) predicted (using the SWMM III
                  model) only two breaches of the 1450-acre lake in Area I over 20
                  years of historical climate data from 1960 to 1979. However, if
                  water cannot be pumped into the deep storage available in the
                  lake at a high enough rate during high rainfall events, the
                  canals themselves may be breached, causing flooding. Because of
                  the low lying aspect of the mined land in relation to the
                  surrounding unmined areas, flooding should remain localized for
                  most events. The lowered elevations due to mining will increase
                  the capacity to store water on the surface, therefore, the
                  occurrence of downstream flooding should be reduced from the
                  before mining condition for all scenarios and areas with the
                  following exception. In Area 1, the volume of flow in Canal B
                  will slowly increase throughout the life of the peat mine until
                  all the flow from the 15,000-acre area will be routed through
                  the lake and discharged into Canal B. In year 35, this will

                                                   182

               amount to about 14 inches per year, or an average annual flow
               rate of 25 cubic feet per second (as compared to an average
               annual flow rate of about 31 cubic feet per second from the
               total area at present). Despite the overall drop in total flow,
               the flows in Canal B during and after rainfall events will be
               increased. The increased flow in Canal B will increase the risk
               of downstream flooding as the storage capacity of the canal. is
               reduced. Canal B will have to be considerably deepened and
               maintained free from weeds and sediment to ensure rapid removal
               of water and lessen the risk of flooding.

                     There    are   two possible organizational mechanisms for
               performing the necessary deepening and maintenance of Canal B.
               Responsibility for maintenance of the canal could be placed with
               a local drainage district. Drainage districts in North Carolina
               are usually directed by part time volunteers and have to depend
               on sources of funds that are not always reliable. There is no
               existing drainage district covering Canal B, so one would have
               to be created.

                     The   second     option    would    be   to    place     continuing
               responsibility for canal maintenance with a state agency. The
               work could be funded either out of general state revenues or out
               of the proposed severance tax revenues discussed in section
               4.3.3.3. The responsibile agency would have to obtain permission
               from private landowners whose property is crossed by the canal
               to enter their land to perform the maintenance.

                     There does not appear to be sufficient authority in the
               Mining Act to require canal deepening and maintenance as part of
               the reclamation plan.

               6.2.1.1.3.2 Scenario #2

               For all areas in Scenario #2 the annual flow will be less than
               30% above the pre-mining flow for all 20 years of operation.
               with the exception of Area 1, the flows will increase with
               increased     acreage    in active mining, then hold relatively
               constant until the     size of the mining area starts to decline and
               with it the flows.     in all areas the flow in year 20 will be less
               than or equal to the flow in year 0 as a result of higher
               evapotranspiration     and lower flows land reclaimed to agriculture
               and forestry. Area     I demonstrates the advantages of using a lake
               for water management:        the annual flows will remain closer to
               the pre-mining situation. The jump in flows in year 8 in Area 1
               is due to abandoning a large evaporation area for a smaller
               permanent lake. Maintaining the larger temporary evaporation
               area    until year 15 will keep annual flows close to the
               pre-mining levels. The second main advantage of a lake system is
               the    controlled    release    of    flow.    Storm    peaks will be
               substantially reduced, provided lake or canal over-topping does
               not occur. In Area 4 the residential areas, with their high

                                                  183

                 surface runoff, will counterbalance the flow-reducing effect of
                 the lake and the annual flows will behave similarly to those in
                 Areas 2 and 3.

                 Figure 6.2.1.lG illustrates the differences in peak flows that
                 might be expected from a 320-acre block under three different
                 land use conditions. This flow duration curve is truncated at
                 10% to focus on the high flows. For flows equalled or exceeded
                 more than 10% of the time all three curves are similar. The
                 post-mining agriculture and pre-mining pasturo are also simil.:.ir
                 for flows greater than 5 cubic feet per second. The actively
                 mined site, however, exhibits a definite increase in frequency
                 of high flows. For example, a flow of 10 cubic feet per second
                 will be equalled or exceeded about 1.2% of the time for pasture
                 or agriculture, but will be equalled or exceeded about 2.25% of
                 the time for actively mined sites.

                 6.2.1.1.3.3 Scenario #3

                      For Scenario #3 the flows up to and including year 10 will
                 be the same as for Scenario #1. After year 10 it is assumed that
                 all pumping ceases, that canal dams are broken and all canal and
                 dike maintenance ceases, resulting in the creation (by year 20)
                 of a swamp/lake area covering all mined and reclaimed areas (see
                 sections 5.2.4.5 and 5.2.4.10). The volume and distribution of
                 the runoff from these areas will be dependent on the changing
                 nature of the outlets, how much water storage is available on
                 the surface of the mined areas and the type and density of
                 returning vegetation. Provided that the water levels remain high
                 enough to satisfy potential evapotranspiration at all times,
                 then the water available for runoff will be approximately equal
                 to rainfall minus potential evapotranspiration, or an average of
                 about 10 inches per year.

                                                 184

              6.2.1.2 Nutrient Yields and Surface Water Eutrophication

              6.2.1.2.1 Approach/Assumptions

                   A preliminary assessment was made of the environmental
              consequences of peat harvesting and subsequent conversion of
              some of the peat to methanol, specifically the effects upon
              nutrients in runoff and adverse changes in water quality. The
              approach to the problem and the assumptions made were:

                1. Literature data on nutrient concentrations and yields
                   from various land uses in this area (natural vegetation,
                   cropland, pasture land, and peatland cleared for mining)
                   were assembled.

                2. Land use data used are located in Appendix 10.6
                   (Table 10.6A).

                3. It was assumed that: 1) planted forests, buffers and
                   natural revegetation have the same yields of nutrients
                   as natural vegetation, 2) the whole area was ditched
                   but in natural vegetation at year 0 and 3) open water
                   is a source for nutrients in proportion to its area
                   and the nutrient content of rainwater and a sink for
                   about half of its loading of total nitrogen (TN)
                   and total phosphorus (TP). Removal of nutrients from
                   water passing through wetlands or buffer zones was
                   not assessed for lack of data on hydrology.

                4. The yields (lb/acre.yr) were multiplied by the areas
                   (acres) of each land useage (see Appendix 10.6) and
                   summed to calculate the total nutrient yield for each
                   scenario and each area at years 0, 10 and 20, except
                   Scenario #3 (years 0 and 10 only).

                5. The total nutrient yields which drain into lagoons at
                   years 0 and 20 were summed and divided by the area of
                   each lagoon or lake to obtain the areal loading rate
                   (lb/acre.yr). These loading rates were compared to
                   rates reported to have resulted in eutrophic conditions.

                6. The total nutrient loadings of estuaries contributed by
                   runoff from areas subjected to peat mining and subsequent
                   agricultural development were examined. It was assumed
                   that runoff and other waters having passed through lakes
                   or lagoons had half of the total nitrogen (TN) and total
                   phosphorus (TP) removed. Where runoff was to the IWW, it
                   was assumed that half of the load went to the Pungo River
                   and half to the Alligator River. Area 1 loading rates
                   attributable to the peat mining and associated operations
                   (including agricultural development) were obtained by
                   dividing by the area of each estuary. (Area was determined

                                             185

                        by planimetry.) These loadings WE!re then compared to the
                        anticipated loading from the rest of the watershed and to
                        those which have created eutrophic conditions in similar
                        estuaries.

                  6. 2. 1. 2. 2 Data

                  Table 6.2.1.2A: Concentrations (mg/1) of nutrients in runoff
                                    water from various land uses

                     Land Use                              Nutrient

                                       NH4     NO3      Kjeld-N Total Ortho-P Total
                                                                   N              P

                  Natural vegetation,
                  planted forests,re-
                  generated vegeta-
                  tion (a,b)           0.15    0.06      1.11)  1.25*    0.02    0.06*

                  Cleared peatland
                  before, during,
                  after mining (b)     0.35    0.13      1.85   1.98*    0.05    0.17*

                  Drained cropland     0.91    1.00      2.92   3.73*     -      0.14*
                  (a)

                  Drained pasture-
                  land (c)             0.37    0.21      1.67   1.88*            2.48*

                  Note:
                     Abbreviations may be found in Appendix 10.10
                     * Hypereutrophic (Wetzel, 1975)
                  Sources:
                     (a) Skaggs et al., 1980, mineral soil
                     (b) Gregory et al., 1984
                     (c) Kuenzler et al., 1977

                                                    186

               Table 6.2.1.2.B: Areal yields (lb/acre.yr) of nutrients from
                                 watersheds with various land uses

                 Land Use                            Nutrient
                                    NH 4   NO 3   Kjeld-N Total Ortho-P Total
                                                              N               P

               Natural vegetation
               (as defined in       0.7    0.2       5.2     5.4     0.06    0.26
               Table 6.2.1.2A)

               Cleared for
               mining               1.9    0.7       10.0    10.8    0.27    0.93

               Drained cropland     3.3    3.6       10.0    13.5     -      0.50

               Drained pasture      1.2    0.6       5.4     6.1      -      8.5

               Open water           2.3    2.6       5.3     8.0     0.46    0.59

               Residential           -      -         -      5.3      -      1.1

               Notes:
                 Assumed runoff values:
                     1.  Natural vegetation: 14.6 in/yr
                         (Mean of shrub (16.7 in/yr) and forest vegetation
                         (12.6 in/yr) runoff values from Table A,
                         section 5.2.1.1, Task 2, first draft (10/14/84))
                     2.  Cleared for mining: 24.1 in/yr
                         (Based on active mine runoff value, Table A,
                         section 5.2.1.1, Task 2 first draft)
                     3.  Drained cropland: 14.8 in/yr
                         (Based on page 17, Task 1 final draft (9/83): 6.8 inches
                         subsurface drainage + 8.0 inches surface runoff)
                     4.  Drained pasture: 19.2 in/yr
                         (Based on page 17, Task 1 final draft; 11.2 inches
                         subsurface drainage + 8.0 inches surface runoff)
                     5.  open water: rainwater concentrations (from Kuenzler
                         et al., 1977) x annual precipitation (48.4 in/yr,
                         from page 34, Task 2 final draft)
                     6.  Residential: based on Reckhow et al., 1980
                 Concentrations from Table 6.2.1.2A
                 Abbreviations may be found in Appendix 10.10

                                                187

                     Table 6.2.1.2C: Total annual yields of nutrients from peatlands
                                       under the alternative scenarios

                       .Scenario     Area     Year        Annual Yield (Tons/Yr)
                                                       NH 4-N   NO  3-N  Total N Total   P

                           1           1        0      4.6       1.4        36       1.7
                                               10      7.9     > 3.8      >46       >2.9
                                               20     13.1     >10.5      >62       >3.3

                           1           2        0      2.1       0.6        16       0.7
                                               10      4.1       2.6        23       1.7
                                               20      6.7       6.0        31       1.8

                           2           1        0      8.6       2.5        67       3.2
                                               10     13.8     > 7.9     >  79    >  5.2
                                               20     32.8     >29.0     >135     >10.8

                           2           2        0      4.3       1.3        34       1.6
                                               10      7.2       4.6        43       2.3
                                               20     16.3       15.6       72       4.1

                           2           3        0      7.4       2.2        58       2.7
                                               10     12.0     > 6.7     >  72    >  4.6
                                               20     29.2     >25.9     >123     >  9.3

                           2           4        0      3.7       1.1        29       1.4
                                               10      5.4       3.3        33       2.1
                                               20      5.8       4.3        34       3.8

                      Notes:
                       Abbreviations may be found in Appendix 10.10
                       Scenario #3 same as Scenario #1 for Areas I and 2, years 0
                        and 10.
                       Total annual yields for scenarios cannot be directly compared
                        because total acreages for areas and scenarios are different

                                                      188

                  Table 6.2.1.2D: Nutrient loadings to lakes and lagoons

                  Scenario     Area Year       Water        Water      Nutrient Load
                                               Body         Area       (lb/acre.yr)
                                                           (acres)     TN       TP

                    1,3          1      10    Temp Lake     1,455      36*      1.7*

                      1          1      20    Perm Lake     1,455      80*      4.4*

                      2          1      10     Lagoons      2,907      22*      2.2*

                                        20     Lagoons      2,907     103*      8.6*

                      2          4      10     Lagoons      1,954      12.6     1.2

                                        20     Lagoons      2,895      21*      2.8*

               Procedure:
                  Divide annual TN or TP loading to lagoons (= total yield -
                   yield from forest) by lagoon or lake area.
                Notes:
                  Abbreviations may be found in Appendix 10.10
                    Exceed Vollenweider's (1968) criteria of "dangerous" loading:
                   18 lb TN/acre.yr or 1.2 lb TP/acre.yr

                                                   189

                    Table 6.2.1.2E:     Nutrient loadings to estuaries. Approximate
                                        background loading if entire watershed WE!re
                                        in natural vegetation and predicted loadings
                                        at years 0, 10 and 20, with assumption of'
                                        50% TN and TP removal by lagoons and canals.

                    Scenario Area Year Water         Water              Nutrient Loading
                                          Body        Area                 (lb/acre.yr)
                                                      (acres)      Background     Loading From
                                                                   From Natural Project Area
                                                                     Watershed         Alone
                                                                     TN   TP          TN    TP

                      1     1+2     0 Pungo R.           12,000      19    :94      4.0     .20

                                   10   Pungo R.                                    4.2     .26

                                   20   Pungo R.                                    4.8     .26

                      1     2       0   Alligator R. 11,900          81 4.1          .74    .04

                                   10   Alligator R.                                1.07    .08

                                   20   Alligator R.                                1.47    .08

                      2    1+2      0   Pungo R.         12,000      19   .94       7.7     .37

                                   10   Pungo R.                                    8.1.    .34

                                   20   Pungo R.                                  10.0      .70

                      2    2+3+4    0   Alligator R. 11,900          81 4.1         9.7     .46

                                   10   Alligator R.                              11.2      .66

                                   20   Alligator R.                              16.,8    1.79

                    Note:
                      Abbreviations may be found     in Appendix 10.10

                                                        190

              6.2.1.2.3 Conclusions

                   Nutrient concentrations vary considerably in runoff from
              land in different uses (Table 6.2.1.2A). Compared to natural
              vegetation, planted forests and revegetated areas, disturbance
              by clearing for mining or for agriculture considerably increases
              nutrient concentrations in runoff. For example, disturbance
              considerably increases nutrient concentrations as follows:
                1. NH 4  increased 1.7-6.1-fold by disturbance.
                2. NO increased 2.2-fold by mining, 2.5-fold by pastures,
                   anA 17-fold by crops.

                3. Total N (TN) increased 1.6-fold by mining, 1.5-fold by
                   pastures, and 3.0-fold   by crops.

                4. Total P (TP) increased   3.0-fold by mining, 44-fold by
                   pastures, and 2.3-fold   by crops.

                   Furthermore, nutrient    concentrations in all of these waters
              are relatively high. The TP and TN levels in waters draining
              from   naturally vegetated areas (Table 6.2.1.2A) would, if
              present in a lake, cause them to be classified as hypereutrophic
              (Wetzel, 1975) (see Appendix 10.6); TP levels in waters from
              disturbed tracts are high enough to classify them as eutrophic
              to hypereutrophic even by the less rigorous water quality
              criteria for North Carolina waters suggested by Weiss and
              Kuenzler (1976).

                   The areal nutrient yields (lb/acre.year) from land in
              different uses is a function of both the nutrient content of the
              runoff and the amount of runoff (Table 6.2.1.2B). Lowest yields
              generally came from areas in natural vegetation and highest
              yields from areas used for mining or agriculture. The increased
              yields of N from North Carolina peatlands under various changes
              in   land use are similar to the increases seen in other
              watersheds used for these purposes (see figures from Reckhow, et
              al., 1980 in Appendix 10.6). There is large variability in
              export coefficients for the same land use (Appendix 10.6)
              because   measurements     include tracts with different soils,
              different slopes, different nutrient inputs (fertilizer, manure,
              septic tank drainage) and different amounts of runoff. Data
              gathered by Skaggs et al. (1980) and Gregory et al. (1984)
              showed   areal    yield of P from non-organic cropland (0.55
              kg/ha.yr) below the lower quartile of data gathered by Reckhow
              et al. (1980) (Appendix 10.6) whereas yield from organic soil
              (7.6 kg/ha.yr) was above Reckhow's upper quartile. The lower
              yield estimate (0.55 kg/ha.yr) was used in calculations for this
              report under the assumption that crops will be grown only on a

                                               191

                   highly mineral soil remaining after mining has removed the peat.
                   The much higher yield of P from pasture on North Carolina peat
                   soils than were reported by Reckhow et al. (1980) are consistent
                   with the usually poor retention of P by peat. Nitrogen yields
                   from   North Carolina cropland and pastures were closer to
                   Reckhow's medians (Appendix 10.6), although N yields from the
                   state's forest lands were near the top of his range.

                        Total annual yields (Table 6.2.1.2C) will increase in each
                   scenario and area from year-O to year 20. Comparison of' yields
                   between scenarios, however, must take into account the larger
                   total area considered in Scenario #2 than in Scenarios #1 and
                   #3. Total annual yields of NO        3  increase by the largest
                   percentage (always >4-fold). Increases in TN from disturbed
                   lands result mostly from increases in ammonium and nitrate
                   rather than from organic N; this is important because ammonium
                   and nitrate are readily available for algal growth. The yield of
                   TP also increases substantially, from 2- to 3.4-fold, depending
                   on the.area. This analysis does not include loading of P leached
                   from solid wastes of the methanol plant(s). Conversion of
                   525,000 tons of peat per year at 0.04% P would result in 210
                   tons of P in ash, slag and other forms, at least 20 times more
                   than the annual yields of any one area in any scenario (Table
                   6.2.1.2C). Therefore, if substantial amounts of phosphorus are
                   leached within the watershed from disposal in landfills or on
                   agricultral lands as a soil conditioner and thereby enter
                   surface waters, P-loading to lagoons will greatly increase over
                   the loadings calculated here.

                        Predicted nutrient loadings to lakes and lagoons (Table
                   6.2.1.2D) exceed Vollenweider's criteria of 18 lb N/acre.yr and
                   1.2 lb P/acre.yr at both years 0 and 20 in virtually all
                   scenarios.    The   criteria of Vollenweider are not strictly
                   applicable to North Carolina's surface waters, especially the
                   relatively dystrophic waters of the Outer Coastal Plain, but the
                   fact   that    calculated loadings are several to many times
                   Vollenweider's    criteria    suggests that severe problems are
                   likely.   Eutrophic waters with dense algal growths may be
                   expected, but precise estimation cannot be made without detailed
                   information    on   algal densities which result from various
                   nutrient loadings in similar lagoons in this region of North
                   Carolina.

                        The Pungo and Alligator Rivers have nearly the same surface
                   areas (Table 6.2.1.2E), but the background nutrient loading
                   rates to the Alligator River are about four times higher because
                   its watershed is that much larger. Under natural conditions
                   these loads are probably well distributed spatially and the poor
                   light transmission by the dark and turbid waters prevents high
                   algal productivities. The Alligator River did not show abundant
                   phytoplankton ten years ago (Bowden and Hobbie, 1977). Recent
                   measurements of nutrient concentrations (PMA, 1982c) show that

                                                    192

               the Pungo River is now rich in nutrients. Estuaries act as
               nutrient traps, especially for P, often being substantially
               richer in total P than any of their source waters. This is
               clearly seen in the high P concentrations and algal abundances
               during summer in the middle reaches of the Pamlico River
               (Kuenzler et al., 1979), the      source of salt water for the Pungo
               River. Background P loadings      of 0.94 and 4.1 lb/acre.yr for the
               Pungo and Alligator Rivers, respectively, are at or above the
               Vollenweider criterion, but       they are at least an order of
               magnitude less than present       loadings of the Pamlico and Chowan
               Rivers because these latter rivers have considerably larger
               watersheds. Both Weiss and        Kuenzler (1976) and Craig et al.
               (1977) suggest that Coastal       Plain systems of the Southeast may
               function without noxious algal blooms even with P loadings
               several    fold   higher than the Vollenweider criteria. This
               suggestion is borne out by conditions in the Pamlico River;
               productivity of the phytoplankton is high but noxious algal
               blooms have not occurred in the brackish portions. Dispersion of
               P-rich water from downstream and regeneration of P from the
               sediments or the estuarine fauna constitute additional loadings
               not included in this analysis.

                    The emphasis here has been on phosphorus, in large part
               because this element is more often limiting in lakes. The data
               in Table 6.2.1.2E show TN:TP ratios usually about 20:1 by
               weight; such ratios are close to the proper ratio for algae.
               Furthermore,    any    N   loads resulting from the mining and
               subsequent land development will be in addition to loads which
               are at or far above the Vollenweider criterion of 18 lb
               N/acre.yr.

                    Because of their large areas relative to the developed
               areas in the scenarios, activities associated with and following
               mining will not deliver to the Pungo and Alligator Rivers
               nutrient loads which are large compared to the "background"
               loads (Table 6.2.1.2E). As stated above, leaching of nutrients
               from ash, slag or other solid wastes from a potential methanol
               plant has not been evaluated and could increase loadings several
               fold over the values shown for the mining projects alone. The
               areas proposed for mining, however, are only a portion of each
               estuary's watershed, 40% and 12% for the Pungo and Alligator
               Rivers, respectively. Additional extensive land development, for
               agriculture or other purposes, will impose additional nutrient
               loads on the estuaries, especially if lagoons or wetland buffer
               strips are not used to strip nutrients from land runoff.

                    It appears that the Alligator River is more at risk because
               of its greater natural load and the anticipated greater load due
               to development for any particular scenario. If half of the
               Alligator River watershed undergoes development which yields P
               at the average rate of the mined areas, the anticipated load
               would reach about 7 lb P/acre.yr. The work of Jaworski (1981)

                                                 193

                   suggests that in estuaries with N:P ratios of 7.2:1 (by weight)
                   excessive eutrophication may result. if P loadings exceed 9
                   lb/acre.yr. Thus the whole Alligator River may be at risk with
                   less    than complete development of the watershed; periodic
                   nutrient pulses to the fresher, poorly mixed headwater areas
                   could    result    in   eutrophic    conditions    with    still less
                   development. The fresher waters are considered to be at more
                   risk because certain blue-green algae can form surface blooms in
                   these areas in summer.

                        In view of 1) present water quality of the Pungo and
                   Alligator    Rivers;    2)    their background loadings from the
                   watershed and by dispersion upstream; 3)       the additional loading
                   from   existing     agriculture and other      land development not
                   included in this analysis; and 4) the          intensive agricultural
                   development now being planned on the           eastern shore of the
                   Alligator     River,   additional     loadings   such as have been
                   calculated from these scenarios are a          threat to future water
                   quality. Since mixing is not uniform, excessive loadings of P
                   (and maybe N) to the upper portions of these estuaries will
                   almost    certainly    result    and eutrophic conditions may         be
                   expected. However, there are no accepted criteria specifically
                   for estuarine waters of North Carolina or the Southeast and
                   "dangerous" loadings may not be the same as suggested by
                   Jaworski for other estuaries.

                        Lee and Jones (1979) extended the Vollenweider P-loading
                   relationship to estuarine waters and found that data from the
                   Potomac Estuary fell into the eutrophic sector of the diagram,
                   as expected. The principle behind this relationship is the same
                   for estuaries as for freshwater lakes where it was developed,
                   but larger amounts of P may be assimilated in estuaries without
                   resulting management problems. Although there are considerable
                   uncertainties in the data and the assumptions of this analysis,
                   recent    appearance of severe algal blooms in the slightly
                   brackish portions of the Chowan River and the Neuse River
                   suggests    that    the upper reaches of other North Carolina
                   estuaries are in danger if nutrient loadings are not carefully
                   controlled.

                   6.2.1.2.3.1 Summary

                        Examination of the data on nutrient yields from North
                   Carolina peatlands under various kinds of land use suggest that
                   mining of the peat, production of methanol and placing the land
                   in agricultural production may have an adverse impact on water
                   quality. The natural vegetation yields less N and P per unit
                   area than other land uses, usually by a large factor; therefore,
                   conversion to other uses results in loss of nutrients to
                   downstream aquatic systems. The lagoons and lakes into which
                   runoff and plant effluents may run or be pumped probably will

                                                     194

              become unacceptably eutrophic. Unless these lagoons and buffer
              wetland systems efficiently remove nutrients from the water as
              it passes through, there will also be substantial nutrient
              loading of the Pungo River and the Alligator River and
              consequent eutrophication.

                   This assessment cannot be made more accurately with the
              present data base and time resources, but the indications are
              that serious water quality degradation may result from the
              changes in land use and from associated industrial development
              in this region.'

              6.2.1.2.3.2 Regulatory Implications and options for Controlling
                          Nutrient Loading

                   To the extent that these nutrients are entering "waters of
              the United States" from canals and ditches, i.e., point sources,
              they can be controlled through the NPDES permit. Any nutrients
              entering waters from general runoff, i.e., non-point sources,
              are not subject to any control mechanism; however, the state 208
              plan urges that best management practices be used to control
              this type of runoff.

                   Another possibility is for the Environmental Management
              Commission to classify the affected waters as nutrient sensitive
              under G.S. 143-214.1. once waters have been so classified,
              however, the enforcement mechanism by which standards are
              imposed to meet the classification is uncertain. In some cases,
              the state is able to use a special order under G.S. 143-215.2,
              but agricultural and forestry activities are expressly exempted
              from the reach of special orders. Another enforcement approach
              is to attempt to equate the nutrient sensitive classification
              with water quality limited waters under 33 U.S.C. section 1312,
              thereby authorizing the imposition of more stringent effluent
              limitations through the NPDES process than would be imposed
              under the 33 U.S.C. section 1311 effluent standards. This still
              does not deal with the problem of non-point sources, however.

                   A third possible legal source for controlling nutrients is
              the mining permit itself. Among the grounds for denying a permit
              under G.S. 74-51 are that the operation will have unduly adverse
              effects on freshwater, estuarine or marine fisheries, or that
              the operation will violate water quality standards promulgated
              by NRCD. If the excessive nutrient levels would trigger either
              of these provisions, the permit conditions should reflect
              controls to reduce the nutrients to acceptable levels. The use
              of the mining permit to control nutrients has the advantage of
              imposing enforceable controls on non-point sources.

                                              195

                   6.2.1.3 Trace Element, Pesticide and Coliform Bacteria Yields

                   6.2.1.3.1 Approach/Assumptions

                         The approach followed that employed in section 6.2.1.2 Ten
                   elements were selected for study based on occurrence in peat and
                   environmental concern (dictated largely by relative toxicity):

                     Arsenic (As)         Mercury (Hg)
                     Cadmium (Cd)         Manganese (Mn)
                     Chromium (Cr)        Nickel (Ni)
                     Copper (Cu)          Selenium (Se)
                     Lead (Pb)            Zinc (Zn)

                         A    review   of   the available literature indicated the
                   following:

                     1. For As, Cd, Cr, Ni and Se only "less than detectable"
                         data are available.

                     2.  No data are available for the ten elements (excluding
                         largely "less than detectable" data for Hg) for the
                         land use category "actively mined".

                     3.  Data suitable for predicting changes due to land use
                         changes (i.e., from undeveloped peatlands to croplands
                         or pasture  lands) are available only for Cu, Mn and Zn
                         (Skaggs et  al. 1980).

                         Therefore,    yields for Cu, Mn and Zn were calculated
                   following     the   assumptions and procedures used in section
                   6.2.1.2. Since no data pertaining to yields associated with
                   either active mining or residential development were found, it
                   was assumed that yields from these two sources are equivalent to
                   yields from shallow organic croplands according to Skaggs et al.
                   (1980).    In addition, yields from open water were assumed
                   equivalent to yields from naturally vegetated areas. The use of
                   the relatively low yields reflects the assumption that open
                   water areas will serve as a partial sink for metals from
                   surrounding peat mines and croplands. The following yields from
                   Skaggs et al. (1980) were used:

                     Source                             Yields (lb/acre.yr)
                                                       Cu        Mn        Zn

                     Deep organic, naturally-
                      vegetated peat                  0.062     0.018     0.071
                     Deep organic pasture             0.027     0.089     0.071
                     Shallow organic croplands        0.125     0.107     0.259

                                                     196

                    Land use data used are located in Appendix 10.6 (Table
              10.6A).

                   Yields from the effluent of a peat-to-methanol conversion
              plant were calculated based on data from PMA's NPDES application
              (PMA, 1983f). The assumption was made that the flow rate and
              element concentrations given in this document (0.866 mgd) are
              equivalent to those associated with the processing of 500,000
              dry tons of peat per year, as stated in Scenario #1, Area 1.
              Effluent yields for other areas and/or scenarios were prorated
              according to estimates of peat processed for methanol given in
              the scenarios (see sections 5.2.2.3.3, 5.2.3.3.3 and 5.2.4.3.3).

              6.2.1.3.2 Data

              Table 6.2.1.3A: Total annual yields of three trace elements
                                 in drainage waters from peatlands under
                                 alternative scenarios

              Scenario Area Year            Annual Yield (lb/yr)
                                           CU        Mn        Zn

                 1      1      0           981       285      1123
                              10          1212       611      1811
                              20          1504      1024      2685

                 1      2      0           443       129        507
                              10           609       368      1007
                              20           755       581      1449

                 2      1      0          1860       540      2130
                              10          2050       842      2726
                              20          3136      2491      6067

                 2      2      0           930       270      1065
                              10          1125       552      1652
                              20          1696      1382      3376

                 2      3      0          1612       468      1846
                              10          1890       885      2697
                              20          2883      2389      5747

                 2      4      0           806       234        923
                              10           859       315      1086
                              20          1092       663      1798

              Notes:
                 Scenario #3: same as Scenario #1, Areas     1 and 2, at years 0
                  and 10.
                 Assumed runoff values: same as for Table 6.2.1.2B

                                                  197

                   Table 6.2.1.3B:   Total annual yields of selected trace
                                     elements from wastewater effluent
                                     discharged by methanol plants in the
                                     scenarios (lb/yr)

                   Scenario Area Year                       Element
                                              Se      As     Cd      Mn      Ni      Zn

                   1 & 3        1       0     0        0      0       0      0        0
                                            2.6     7.9    2.6    52.7   184.3    237
                                     20*    2.6     7.9    2.6    52.7   184.3    237

                      2         1      0      0        0      0       0      0        0
                                     10     4.2     12.6   4.2    82.9   290.2   373.3
                                     20     12.6    37.5   12.6   248.9  871   1120.1

                      2         3      0      0        0      0       0      0        0
                                     10     2.4     7.5    2.4    49.8   174     223.8
                                     20     9.3    28      9.3    185.4  648.3   833.5

                   Notes:
                     *Scenario #1 only
                     For other areas in all scenarios no processing of peat on site

                   Table 6.2.1.3C: Average fecal and total coliform bacteria
                                     concentrations measured in drainage water
                                     from the organic soil sites (no./100ml)

                                  Shallow Organic                     Deep Organic
                               Crop          Natural              Pasture         Natural
                          Fecal Total       Fecal Total       Fecal Total     Fecal Total

                   1976*     28      1665     29    441        730    2672     18     132
                   1977     207      1091      9    139       1242    2665       5      71
                   1978     193      2054     28    313       1181    2231     17     117

                   Note:
                     *Only monitored for last six months of the year. The      averages
                      are not weighted averages, but are means of all values
                      obtained, regardless of flow rate.
                   Source:
                     Skaggs et al., 1980

                                                     198

              6.2.1.3.3 Conclusions

              6.2.1.3.3.1 Trace Elements

                   Generally, increases in Cu, Mn and Zn appear to reflect
              conversion of peatlands to croplands, which is not surprising
              given the yield data provided by Skaggs et al. (1980) and
              recalling the equivalence of actively mined areas and croplands.
              Trace elements,    particularly those that occur predominantly as
              divalent cations (e.g., Cd, Hg, Ni, Pb) will probably display
              trends similar to  those suggested here for Cu and Zn.

                   Among     the trace element components of methanol plant
              effluent (Table    6.2.1.3B), the significant quantities of Ni
              anticipated may    merit particular scrutiny. Unfortunately, no
              data concerning    organic constituents of such plant effluent are
              available; such    data are necessary to fully assess potential
              impacts of the effluent.

                   The potential impacts of trace element yields have not yet
              been considered due to severe data limitations and current time
              constraints.

              6.2.1.3.3.2 Pesticides

                   There are far less data available concerning yields of
              pesticides in the region than exist even for trace elements.
              However, runoff containing pesticides from peatlands converted
              to croplands could have impacts on receiving systems. Yields
              have been estimated, to our knowledge, only for Alachlor, the
              most widely used herbicide in the region. According to Skaggs et
              al. (1980), less than 1% of the amount applied will enter
              surface waters, based on field experiments. Using an average
              application rate of 3 lbs/ac (3.4 kg/ha) suggested by Dr. John
              W. Van Duyn (state entomologist, Plymouth, NC), the following
              yields can be estimated:

                      Low                Medium              High

                      (0.1%)             (0.5%)              (1.0%)

                     0.0030 lb/ac.yr      0.0151 lb/ac.yr    0.0303 lb/ac.yr

              At this point, this      is as far as the analysis can go, since we
              have no estimates of     the proportion of peatlands expected to be
              converted to croplands that will be treated with Alachlor. It
              should   be    noted    that   Skaggs    et    al.   (1980) observed
              concentrations of Alachlor in drainage waters on two occasions
              that were within the 95% confidence interval of the LD      50 for
              bluegill (2.33-4.5 4Ag/ml (Johnson and Finley, 1980).

                                               199

                       other pesticides currently in use in the area and the crops
                  on which they are used may be found in Appendix 10.7. Yield
                  estimates provided by Willis and McDonald (1982) may be useful
                  for   predicting    inputs of some of these pesticides where
                  application areas and rates can be predicted.

                  6.2.1.3.3.3 Coliform Bacteria

                       Again, data are quite sparse and appear inadequate for
                  making yield predictions. However, the following concentration
                  data from Skaggs et al. (1980) clearly indicate the potential
                  for   large    increases in inputs of coliform bacteria from
                  peatlands converted to croplands and, particularly, to pasture.
                  The potential impacts of such inputs have not yet been assessed.

                  6. 2. 1. 3. 3. 4 Summary

                       The   limited    data available suggest that peat mining
                  activity and subsequent land use changes will significantly
                  increase effluxes of trace metals, pesticides and coliform
                  bacteria. At this time, little information exists to address the
                  critical question of the impacts of such increases in drainage
                  waters on biota of the receiving estuarine systems. Determining
                 .the potential for impacts is a critical research need. In
                  addressing these issues, the approach should be similar to that
                  employed for assessing impacts of complex effluents. If impacts
                  do occur, they are not likely to be the result of a single
                  material, such as mercury or Alachlor, but rather the result of
                  the cumulative effects of a variety of trace metals, pesticides
                  and other substances.

                                                   200

              6.2.2 Groundwater

              6.2.2.1 Approach/Assumptions

                   Prior to mining, the estimated recharge rate to the Castle
              Hayne Aquifer is between approximately 0.01 and 0.02 inches per
              year in the vicinity of Area 1 in              Scenario    #1     (Foutz,
              1983). Confining clay layers over the Yorktown, Pungo River and
              Castle Hayne Aquifers are responsible for this very low recharge
              rate. These    confining layers t1pically         possess     hydraulic
              conductivities of less than 2xlO_ feet per day. It is assumed
              that similar recharge rates exist for much of the study area
              because    of    these    same   confining     layers. Figure 6.2.2A
              illustrates two approximate hydrogeologic profiles within the
              vicinity of Area 1 of Scenario #1 as reported by two independent
              researchers (PMA, 1983k; Foutz, 1983).

              6.2.2.2 Conclusions

                   As detailed in the alternative scenarios (see sections
              5.2.2.5.13, 5.2.3.5.13 and 5.2.4.5.13) the reduction in recharge
              rate to the Castle Hayne Aquifer with the removal of peat was
              determined to be less than 10%. The study area does not appear
              to be a major recharge area for the primary aquifers and the
              potential effects of peat mining on the recharge and on the
              aquifer yield are considered to be negligible.

                   Foutz (1983) found that, with the removal of peat, the
              overall downward gradient was maintained, although reduced from
              the before mining levels, in the vicinity of the PMA peat mine.
              However, this result may not be applicable to other areas in the
              region.    Leggette,     Brashears and Graham, Inc. (LBG, 1983)
              predicted, using a three-dimensional ground water model, a flow
              of up to 0.6 mgd being released from the shell hash and fine
              sand units into the surface water system. This flow results from
              a predicted gradient reversal between the fine sand and shell
              hash units resulting in an upward rather than downward gradient.
              This result differs from Foutz (1983), reported above. The LBG
              finding of upwelling is dependent upon the assumption that the
              confining clay layers above and below the fine sand unit are
              continuous. In the boring analysis performed by Foutz, these
              layers were not continuous. The upwelling prediction is also
              dependent upon the conductivities of the fine sand and shell
              hash units being high enough to maintain an adequate supply of
              water to those layers. LBG reported conductivities of these
              layers several orders of magnitude higher than those measured by
              Foutz. Based on Foutz's data, the upwelling in the PMA harvest
              area would be overestimated by LBG and the underlying aquifers
              should adjust to a new equilibrium fairly quickly after mining,
              preventing any continuous upwelling effect. The LBG conclusion
              represents     a worst case situation in which heads in the
              surrounding aquifers do not adjust to the changing conditions.

                                                   201

                    Figure 6.2.2A: Generalized hydrogeologic units in Scenario #1, Area 1.
                                     Average thicknesses for each layer (in ft.) as reported by
                                     PMA (1983K) and Foutz (1983). Not to scale.

                                        PMA                                          FOUTZ
                                                                               F
                              8         PEAT                             8.5          PEAT
                              3     UPPER C                              0.5       TRA=r-

                                                                                  SANDY LOAM TO
                                     FINE SAND
                             25                                          24      sic"   SANDY CLAY
                                        UNIT
                                                                                          LOAM

                              2    LOWER CLAY UNIT

                                                                                 SANDY LOAM
                                                                                 TO SANDY CLAY
                                                                                 LOAM WITH SHELLS
                             102  SHELL HASH UNIT                        16    @,S >

                                                                       4J
                         4-1                                           LH
                         %_1                                           @ 20      YORKTOWN CLAY
                         U)                                            U)
                                 --YORKTOWN CLAY-                      U3
                                                                       Q)

                                                                         60         YORKTOWN
                         4                                             4J           FORMATION,
                         w  190      YORKTOWN                          a)
                         cm                                            40
                         co                                            M
                                     FORMATION                         @4
                                                                         30       PUNGO   CLAY

                                 _-PUNG0 -CLAY                          206     PUNGO RIVER
                                                                                   FORMATION

                             20      PUNGO RIVER                         10    -CASTLE HAYNE CLAY--
                                      FORMATION

                                 _U5.jLL!jAYNE CLAY-                 300-400       CASTLE HAYNE
                                       UPPER
                                     CASTLE HAYNE

                                                                              SiCL - Silty Clay Loam Lenses
                                                            202

                   The potential for saltwater intrusion is of concern due to
              the proximity of the study area to the coast. According to Heath
              (1975) the fresh/saltwater interface is moving to the west.
              Within the Upper Castle Hayne Unit the rate of lateral movement
              is estimated to range from about 5 feet per year to about 15
              feet per year for a change in gradient of one foot per mile
              (PMA, 1983k). Declines in the hydraulic head in the Upper Castle
              Hayne Unit project by PMA as a result of peat harvesting will
              result in negligible impact on the rate of interface movement.
              In addition, the methanol plant in Scenario #1, Area 1 will
              withdraw up to 3 million gallons of water per day (mgd) from the
              surficial    aquifers for plant site dewatering during plant
              construction (approximately 2 years) and a maximum of 2.3 mgd
              from high-yielding aquifers for plant processing water during
              normal operation. The effects of these direct withdrawals on the
              fresh/saltwater interface are unknown.

                   A second hazard relating to salt water is the potential of
              upconing.     Heath     (1975)   estimated     the   depth    to    the
              fresh/saltwater interface at between 400 and 600 feet. Because
              of the higher specific gravity of salt water and provided that
              the rate of movement of the fresh/saltwater interface is low,
              then, to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium, about 40 feet of
              fresh water is required below sea level for each foot of fresh
              water above sea level. This is known as the Ghyben-Herzberg
              principle.    However,    because    of the variabilities in the
              formation layers in this area, this simple relationship will not
              be sufficient to determine the depth to the saltwater interface
              or   its    potential intrusion into the freshwater aquifers.
              Theoretically, a one foot decline in the pressure head in the
              Upper Castle Hayne Aquifer could raise the fresh/saltwater
              interface 40 feet. The Castle Hayne Aquifer in Areas 3 and 4 of
              Scenario #2 is known to be brackish and any pumping from deep
              aquifers in those areas may cause an upconing of brackish water
              sufficient to pollute production and local wells.

                   The probability of these problems occurring increases with
              proximity to the shoreline and with decreasing ground elevation.
              Special care should be taken in areas where mining will reduce
              the ground surface close to or below sea level (Scenario #1 and
              #3, Area 2 and Scenario #2, Areas 2, 3 and 4). The salt content
              of the Intracoastal Waterway and Alligator River mouth varies
              between 1 and 4 parts per thousand (J. Reed, Dept. of Zoology,,
              NCSU,   personal    communication).     Fresh    water is generally
              considered to have a salt content of less than 0.36 parts per
              thousand. Thus any encroachment of these waters into local fresh
              water wells would cause contamination.

                   LBG (1983) analyzed the effects of expected alterations in.
              hydraulic heads of various formations with peat mining. These
              analyses indicate that peat mining will have a negligible effect
              on the recharge and yield of the major aquifers and on the
              saltwater interface. However, analysis is lacking on the effects

                                                  203

                  of direct groundwater withdrawals for plant: processing. The
                  exact   magnitude    of   the   effects of plant process water
                  withdrawals of about 2.3 mgd (Scenario #1, Area 1) and the
                  cumulative effects of direct withdrawals and peat mining are
                  unknown. The analysis should also be expanded to the other areas
                  in the study and the potential for saltwater intrusion should be
                  studied more seriously, especially in areas where mining close
                  to and below sea level is being considered.

                       To the extent that saltwater upconing becomes a problem,
                  controls on pumping and drainage could be imposed in those areas
                  through mining permit conditions.

                                                    204

             6.2.3 Hurricane Flooding

                 Maps of the 100-year floodplain for the counties in the
             study area are being prepared for the National Flood Insurance
             Administration, but were not available at the time this report
             was written.

                                            205

                  6.3 Land Use Conversions

                  6.3.1 Approach/Assumptions

                       Wetland development in North Carolina has been concentrated
                  on tracts of land underlain by mineral soils, peaty mineral
                  soils and shallow, high-ash peats. In all of the state's
                  wetlands that contain peat deposits, most disturbance, including
                  ditching,   draining and clearing for either agriculture or
                  silviculture, stops where the peat attains a thickness of about
                  four feet. Once this thickness is reached, the degree of
                  difficulty   in   preparing the land increases significantly.
                  outlined below are the steps typically taken to prepare a site
                  for farming:

                    1. Cut out the marketable timber.

                    2. Dig field ditches to drain the surface and shallow
                       subsurface water.

                    3. Bulldoze the remaining vegetation and root mat into
                       windrows.

                    4. Bulldoze the excessive peat into the windrows.

                    5. If the remaining peat contains abundant "fossil" wood, pull
                       the wood out and add it to the windrows.

                    6. Burn the windrows.

                    7. Deep plow the remaining peat into the underlying mineral
                       soils.

                    8. Grade the ground surface to attain the proper slope for
                       surface and shallow subsurface drainage.

                    9. Fertilize and plant.

                       Numerous   problems    are encountered in developing peat
                  deposits as peat thickness increases. These problems can occur
                  at any point during site preparation, as illustrated in the
                  following examples:

                    1. Virgin timber was removed from most of the peatlands many
                       years ago. The second growth that now covers a large
                       portion of the deep peats in Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington
                       Counties is relatively young, and is thus less attractive
                       for commercial use.

                                                   206

               2. The peat associated with the Alligator River predominantly
                  fills tributary valleys of the river system. The thicker
                  peats are concentrated in the channel areas of the
                  valleys. Surface and subsurface waters, unless cut off
                  by canals, still flow toward these ancestral channels.
                  These areas, therefore, are naturally wetter than the
                  shallow peats around the periphery of the deposits, and
                  are thus more difficult to drain.

               3. It is difficult to run heavy machinery designed for
                  clearing and farming operations over the thick peats,
                  especially after the supportive root mat is removed.

               4. The thicker peats contain greater amounts of large wood
                  fragments, including large stumps and logs, making the
                  peat more difficult to prepare for use.

               5. The thicker peats are typically low in ash (mostly less
                  than 10% and commonly less than 5% ash at dry weight)
                  and are thus nutrient poor.

               6. Even with field ditching and evapotranspiration, the water
                  table in the thicker peats remains close to ground surface,
                  and very rarely drops into the underlying mineral soils
                  during the growing season. The underlying mineral soils,
                  therefore, remain out of reach of most plants.

                  Numerous small scale attempts, and one major attempt within
             the boundaries of Area 1, Scenario #1, have been made to utilize
             the thicker peats, but all attempts have thus far failed. By
             virture of their inaccessibility, these peatlands have remained
             undisturbed. Peat mining may, however, eliminate practically all
             the major obstacles that have thus far prevented development of
             deep peatlands.

                                             207

                  6. 3. 2 Data

                  Table 6.3A: Scenario #1, Areas 1 and 2-- Land use/land cover,
                                pre- and post-mining (% of total acreage)

                  Land use                   Area 1                   Area 2
                                          Pre        Post          Pre     Post
                                         Yr 0      Yr 20          Yr 0    Yr 20

                  Agriculture/
                  Silviculture            18         72            15         88

                  Severely
                  disturbed               56          0            16          0

                  Undisturbed/
                  Minimally               24         10*           69        10*
                  disturbed

                  Open water                2        18             0          0

                  Pasture                   0         0             0          2

                  *Restored native vegetation

                  Table 6.3B: Scenario #2, Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4-- Land use/land cover,
                                pre- and post-mining (% of total acreage)

                  Land use             Area 1        Area 2        Area 3        Area 4
                                     Pre Post      Pre Post      Pre Post      Pre Post
                                   Yr 0 Yr 20 Yr 0 Yr 20 Yr 0 Yr 20 Yr 0 Yr 20

                  Agriculture/
                  Silviculture         9     73      8     88      0     85      2     18

                  Severely
                  disturbed            34    0       3      0      3      0      6       0

                  Undisturbed/
                  Minimally
                  disturbed            57   10*      89   10*      97   10*      92    181k
                  Open water           0     12      0      0      0      0      0     40
                  Pasture              0     5       0      2      0      5      0       2

                  Residential          0     0       0      0      0      0      0     22

                  *Restored native vegetation

                                                     208

             6.3.3 Conclusions

             6.3.3.1 Scenario #1

             6.3.3.1.1 Area 1

                  The peat mines described encompass 15,818 acres. Currently
             76% of this tract is severely disturbed or is in human use
             (Table 6.3A). Only 24% can be considered in a natural to
             near-natural state. Reclamation as outlined in section 5.2.2.10
             will include using 72% of the area for agricultural purposes and
             18% as an open water lake. Only 10% will return to a native
             system.

             6.3.3.1.2 Area 2

                  The peat mine covers 7,142 acres. Currently 31% of this
             tract is severely disturbed or is in human use, whereas 69% can
             still be considered in a natural state, or has undergone only
             minimal disturbance (Table 6.3A). Reclamation as outlined in
             section 5.2.2.10 will convert this tract almost exclusively to
             agriculture   and   pasture (90%). Native vegetation will be
             regenerated on only 10% of the tract.

             6.3.3.2 Scenario #2

             6.3.3.2.1 Area 1

                  The total area covers 30,000 acres. In its present state,
             43% of this land is in agriculture, is planned for agriculture,
             or is severely disturbed by human activity (Table 6.3B). The
             undisturbed   57%   is   dominated    by   pocosin wetlands (low
             pocosin=44%, high pocosin=13%). Reclamation for this tract as
             outlined in section 5.2.3.10 is 78% in pasture, row crops and
             pine plantation. An open water lake will cover 12% of the tract.
             Only 10% will be returned to native vegetation.

             6.3.3.2.2 Area 2

                  Of the 15,000 acres in this tract, only 11% is severely
             disturbed (Table 6.3B). The 89% that is either undisturbed or
             minimally disturbed is covered with evergreen forest (8%), mixed
             swamp forest (3%), high pocosin (18%), low pocosin (48%) and
             partly disturbed land (12%). The reclamation plan outlined in
             section 5.2.3.10 will convert 90% of the land to pasture, row
             crops and pine; 10% will return to native vegetation.

                                             209

                   6.3.3.2.3 Area 3

                        The 26,000 acres in this area are currently 97% undisturbed
                   (Table 6.3B). Only 3% is considered transitional, containing
                   field ditches. The undisturbed portion is dominated by high
                   pocosin (60%). The remaining land is covered with MiXE?d swamp
                   forest (21%) and low pocosin (16%). Post-mining use outlined in
                   section 5.2.3.10 will convert 90% of this land to pasture, pine
                   plantation    and   row   crops, with 10% returning to native
                   vegetation.

                   6.3.3.2.4 Area 4

                        This area contains 13,000 acres, of which 92% is relatively
                   undisturbed (Table 6.3B). Only 8% has been either cleared for
                   farming or field ditched. of the undisturbed land, 5% has been
                   partially ditched. The remaining 88% contains 1% white cedar
                   forest. Area 4 is elevationally lower than the other three areas
                   in Scenario #2. Significant drainage problems could develop if
                   the mined land were reclaimed in row crops. Reclamation assumed
                   for Area 4, however, includes 40% open water, 22% residential or
                   recreational use, 20% pasture and pine plantation and 18%
                   restored native vegetation.

                   6.3.3.3 Summary

                        The major overall change in land use due to the scenarios
                   will   be the   loss of large tracts of natural, relatively
                   undisturbed wetlands. The subsequent post-mining maintenance of
                   this land for agricultural purposes will prevent the land from
                   reverting to a natural system.

                        Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington Count      ies contain a total of
                   876,160 acres of land, of which 205,820 (23.5%) was in active
                   agriculture in 1981 (Lukin and Mauger, 1983). The maximum amount
                   of peat mining, as proposed in Scenario #2 (84,000 acres),
                   constitutes 9.6% of the land in the three county area. If the
                   post-mining reclamation plans outlined in Scenario #2 (see
                   section 5.2.3.10.3) are followed, an additional 40,900 acres of
                   crop land will be developed, bringing the total agricultural
                   land to 28.2% of the total land area in the three counties.

                        Approximately 84,000 acres of peat in Scenario #2 exists in
                   deposits at least four feet thick; the entire state contains
                   about 200,000 acres of wetlands underlain by peat of these
                   thicknesses. The excavation of these 84,000 acres will eliminate
                   41% - of   this   type    of wetland environment. The dominant
                   undisturbed land cover for the total 84,000 acres in Scenario #2
                   is pocosins (54,000 acres or 65%). If the disturbed pocosin land
                   is included (13,780 additional acres), pocosins cover 68,080
                   acres (81%) of the total mining area in Scenario #2. Richardson,

                                                    210

             et al. (1981) state that North Carolina originally contained
             2.24 million acres of pocosins, of which, by 1979, only 695,000
             acres     were  still    undisturbed and 808,000 acres were in
             transition. The 68,080 acres of total pocosin land in Scenario
             #2 constitute 4.5% of the total remaining pocosins in the state;
             the 54,300 acres of undisturbed pocosins include 7.8% of the
             state's undisturbed pocosins. Superficially, this amount does
             not sound like a significant portion of the total pocosin
             ecosystem     in    North     Carolina.    The   pocosins    of    the
             Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula, however, and in fact, the total
             wetland system of the peninsula, constitute the largest and
             least disturbed wetland complex in the state. The elimination of
             84,000 acres from the core of this system will not only destroy
             this portion of the wetlands, but will also aid, indirectly, in
             the conversion of many tens of thousands of additional acres of
             wetland around the periphery of the wetland complex.

             6.3.3.3.1 Legal Aspects of Residential Development

                  Legal controls exist at the federal, state and local levels
             to mitigate environmental harm from large-scale residential
             development as proposed in Area 4, Scenario #2. If the area
             affected is within the Section 404 permit jurisdiction, a dredge
             and fill permit must be obtained from the Corps of Engineers
             before any dredging or filling is done in waters of the United
             States. Land-disturbing activity would be subject to the three
             standards imposed by G.S. 113A-57 for the control of erosion and
             sedimentation, and the counties could adopt local sedimentation
             control programs pursuant to G.S. 113A-60, under which permits
             for land-disturbing activities could be required. The counties
             could     also  regulate    development through the adoption of
             subdivision and zoning ordinances pursuant to Chapter 153A of
             the General Statutes.

             6.3.3.3.2 Legal Aspects of Wet Reclamation and Newly
                        Created Drainage Canals

                  The following paragraphs outline the laws and regulations
             that would affect bodies of water, such as isolated lagoons or
             canals with outlets to rivers or estuaries, created during peat
             mining.

                  Excess  *water from mined areas may in some cases be disposed
             of in isolated storage ponds dredged from land owned by the
             mining operator and having no outlet to a sound, river or
             tributary of a sound or river.

                  If the isolated ponds are dredged in areas subject to the
             Corps of Engineers' Section 404 permit jurisdiction, that is, if
             they are located on "wetlands" within the meaning of Section 404
             of the Clean Water Act, then a dredge and fill permit would have

                                               211

                   to   be    obtained    f rom   the   Corps,    with an accompanying
                   Environmental Impact Statement. Whether or not the ponds are
                   located on "wetlands," the permit and reclamation provisions of
                   the North Carolina Mining Act of 1971, G.S. 74-46 through G.S.
                   74-68, are sufficiently broad to cover the dredging of the ponds
                   in conjunction with surface mining, and their construction could
                   be regulated pursuant to those provisions.

                        The beds and banks of the ponds (whether isolated or having
                   an outlet) would remain in private ownership and would be
                   subject to local ad valorem taxation. However, it is difficult
                   to appraise land lying under water, and it is therefore likely
                   that the ponds would be given a nominal. value for tax purposes.

                        Isolated storage ponds created on "wetlands" within the
                   meaning of Section 404 would remain a part of the wetlands and
                   would continue to be subject to Section 404 dredge and fill
                   permit jurisdiction and Section 402 NPDES jurisdiction after
                   they are filled. Ponds created on land that does not fall within
                   the Section 404 definition of "wetlands" would not be "waters of
                   the United States" under either 33 U.S.C. section 1326(7) or the
                   expansion of that term in 40 C.F.R. section 122.2 because they
                   are artificially created and have no outlets into other waters.
                   As a result, the ponds, once created, would be subject to
                   neither Section 402 nor Section 404 permit jurisdiction under
                   the Clean Water Act. Even though they are not created on
                   wetlands, are artificial, and have no outlets to other waters,
                   the ponds would still come within the broad definition of
                   11waters" in G.S. 143-213(20) and could, therefore, be subject to
                   North Carolina water quality standards and other regulatory
                   controls.

                        In other cases, excess water from mined areas may be
                   disposed of via canals dredged from land owned by the mining
                   operator opening into a sound or river or tributary of a sound
                   or, river (including canals receiving waters from storage ponds
                   with controlled outlets). Canals created in this manner would be
                   subject to Section 404 jurisdiction, and a Corps of Engineers'
                   dredge and fill permit would be required for their creation.
                   Also, a North Carolina dredge and fill permit would be required
                   pursuant to G.S. 113-229.

                        The beds and banks of the carkals would remain in private
                   ownership and would be subject to local ad valorem taxation,
                   with the same difficulty regarding appraisal mentioned above.

                        The canals, once created (and probably ponds connected by
                   an outlet to such canals), would appear to come within the
                   definition of "waters of the United States" as given in 40
                   C.F.R. section 122.2, especially in view of the fact that the
                   courts have given the term an expansive definition (see Leslie.
                   Salt Co. v. Froehlke, 578 F.2d. 742 (9th Cir. 1978) and U.S. V.
                   Earth   Sciences,     Inc.,    599 F.2d. 368 (10th Cir. 1979)).

                                                      212

             Therefore, both Section 402 and Section 404 permit restrictions
             would apply to the canals.

                                             213

                  6.4 Air quality

                  6.4.1 Approach/Assumptions

                       The air quality impacts of peat. mining and utilization are
                  possible to predict only on a site specific basis. Model
                  predictions require quantitative information on the flux of
                  emitted pollutants from each source, the location of each
                  source, the location of all sensitive receiving areas with
                  respect to the sources, comprehensive meteorological data for
                  the region and an appropriate mathematical dispersion model. In
                  addition, the height above ground at which the pollutants are
                  emitted and any ameliorating conditions must be factored into
                  the model calculations. The cost and complexity of both data
                  gathering and computation limit air quality model development to
                  immediate cases of concern; long range, cumulative air quality
                  impacts are rarely undertaken because of the additional costs
                  and the uncertainty that exists in source location. To date, an
                  air quality impact assessment has only been performed for the
                  PMA methanol production site that roughly corresponds to the
                  methanol production site in Scenario #1, Area 1. Predicted
                  impacts of both fugitive dust emissions during mining and
                  pollutant emissions from methanol conversion are reported in PSD
                  permit applications of PMA to the Division of Environmental
                  Management (PMA, 1981). Because these two source types are
                  assumed to be the same as the scaled up peat mining development
                  of Scenario #2, the PMA document could provide the basis for
                  development   of   air   quality    impact models involving the
                  integrated impact of the large-scale peat mining postulated in
                  Scenario #2.

                       Although it   was not possible to build a quantitative
                  integrated model   of air quality impacts of peat mining on the
                  scale of Scenario #2 (or even Scenario #1) without specific
                  siting location and scheduling, a review of the data was
                  conducted. Additional information on the following aspects of
                  air quality are included in Appendix 10.8:          applicable air
                  quality standards; an expanded discussion of pollutant sources
                  and emissions; critical receptors; models and predictions; and
                  monitoring requirements.

                                                 214

              6. 4. 2 Data

              Table 6.4A: Scenario #1, Area 1-- Fugitive dust emissions from
                           peat mining, transport and field pile storage of
                           peat for methanol production

              Source                             Annual release tons/yr

              Harvesting                         159

              On-site transport                  188 (66 tons/yr/round trip
                                                     vehicle mile)

              Field storage piles                34

              Note:
                Assumes 1900 acres are actively being mijed each year with
                 total harvested peat equal to 90.6 x 10 tons at 40%
                 moisture per year.
              Source:
                PMA, 1983a

              Table 6.4B: Scenario #1, Area 1-- Criteria pollutant emissions
                           from the methanol plant processing about 1,600 (dry)
                           tons of peat per day

                                                            minimum        Minimum
                                                            Emission       Emission
                                    Potential Plant-Wide    Levels         Requiring
              Pollutant               Air Emissions         Requiring         BACT
                                        (tons/yr)           PSD Review       Review
                                                              (tons/yr)

              Particulates                  120.4              100            25
              Sulfur Oxides (SO             685.9              100            40
              Nitrogen Oxides (KO           560.0              100            40
              Carbon Monoxide (COI         1032.6              100            100
              Hydrocarbons (HC)              95.0              100            40
              Ozone                          98.8

              Source:
                PMA, 1981

                                                 215

                  Table 6.4C: Scenario #1, Area 1-- Non-criteria pollutant emissions
                                from a methanol plant prOCE?SSing about 1,600 (dry)
                                tons of peat per year

                                                    Potential. Plant-    Minimum Emission
                                                  Wide Air Emissions Levels Requiring
                  Pollutant                           Emissions           PSD Review
                                                      (tons/yr)           (tons/yr)

                  Hydrogen Sulfide (H S)              1.0                   10
                  Carbonyl Sulfide (C8S)              36.                   10
                  Fluorides (HF)                       0.                    3
                  Mercury (Hg)                        0.065                 0.1
                  Beryllium (Be)                       0.                   0.0004

                  Source:
                     PMA, 1981

                  Table 6.4D: Scenario #1, Area 1-- Fugitive particulat        analysis,
                                maximum off-property concentrations (A4g/M
                                from peat for methanol project

                                             Worst Case Mining Location
                                      Class II- Annual           Class 11- 24 Hour

                                            Predicted                   Predicted
                                            Activity                    Activity
                  Activity                 Concentration            Concentration

                  Harvesting                   4.16                      6.65
                  Athey Loader                 0.004                     0.009

                  Storage Piles

                     a) Wind Erosion           6.01                      8.84

                     b) Load In/Load Out       Neg.                      Neg.

                     c) Pile Maintenance       Neg.                      Neg.
                  Roadways                     5.19                      6.52

                  Plant Contribution           3.05                     11.57

                  Baseline Background         40                        40

                  Total Predicted             58.4                      73.58

                  NC Air Quality Standard     75                        150

                                                      216

              Table 6.4E: Scenario #1, Area 1-- Fugitive particulat        analysis,
                           maximum off-property concentrations (Aig/M       from
                           peat for methanol project

                                       Worst Case Mining Location
                                    Class I - Annual        Class I - 24 Hour

                                         Predicted               Predicted
                                         Activity                Activity
               Activity               Concentration            Concentration

               Harvesting                 0.03                    0.082

               Athey Loader               Neg.                    Neg.

               Storage Piles

                    Wind Erosion          0.0092                  0.090

                     Load In/Load   Out   Neg.                    Neg.

                     Pile Maintenance     Neg.                    Neg.

               Roadways                   0.012                   0.097

               Plant Contribution         0.086                   2.14

               Baseline Background       40                      40

               Total Predicted           40.13                   42.40

               NC Air Quality Stand.     75                     150

                                                 217

                   Table 6.4F: Scenario #1, Area 1-- Modeling results: Maximum
                                off-property predicted concentrations* from PE!at
                                for methanol project

                                Averaging      New      Mine      Baseline        Total
                   Pollutant      Period      Site      Plant    Background    Predicted

                   Particu-      Annual      3.24       0.12         40           4:3.36
                   lates        24-Hour     12.40       7.34         40           59.7

                   so2           Annual      0.98        -           20           20.98
                                24-Hour      6.42        -           20           26.42
                                 3-Hour     26.41        -           20           46.41

                   CO            8-Hour     80.12        -        1,000       1,  080.12
                                 1-Hour     230.05       -        1,000       1,230.05
                   NO2           Annual      0.67        -           20           20.67
                   Cos           1-Hour      9.67        -             0            9.67

                   Pollutant        Averaging         Class II          N.C. Air
                                    Period          Increment     Quality Standard

                   Particulates       Annual              19
                                      24-Hour             37                150

                   so2                Annual              20                 80
                                      24-Hour             91                365
                                        3-Hour           512              1,300

                   Co                 8-Hour                -           10,000
                                      1-Hour                -           40,000
                   NO2                Annual                -                60

                   Cos                1-Hour                -                 -

                   *All minimum concentrati  on and stagdards expressed in
                     micrograms per cubic meter (A(g1M ).
                   Subject to revision pending final permit approval.
                   Adapted from: PMA, 1981

                                                      218

              6.4.3 Conclusions

              6.4.3.1 Particulate Emissions During Peat Harvesting and
                        Transport

                   During the mining and transport of peat, fugitive dust
              emissions will result from wind erosion of dried surface peat,
              from peat transport and from peat storage piles. Estimates of
              these sources have been made by PMA (1983a) and should prove
              similar for other areas of the region. Table 6.4A lists the
              estimated source term emissions of fugitive peat dust from these
              activities. Uncertainties in these emission estimates are very
              large and there are reasons to suspect that some of them may be
              biased on the low side (see Appendix 10.8). Direct field
              measurement of realistic emission rates is urgently needed.

                   Tilling during peat harvesting and transportation traffic
              will     contribute   about equally to predicted fugitive dust
              emissions,     with   emissions from field storage piles about
              five-fold lower.

              6.4.3.2 Process Plant Emissions

                   Methanol production is assumed to be the main point source
              of air pollutant emissions. Tables 6.4B and 6.4C are based on
              PMA'S analysis (PMA, 1981) and list predicted emissions from the
              methanol plant in Area 1 of Scenario #1. Subsequent methanol
              plants could have different emission rates depending on control
              technologies employed. Nevertheless, the PMA estimates seem
              reasonable. Because point source emissions such as these are
              more   easily monitored than the dispersed sources of peat
              harvesting and because control technologies can be more readily
              evaluated, regulation of emissions to limit air quality impacts
              can be carried out more effectively and with better assurance
              that control has been achieved.

              6.4.3.3 Fires

                   Uncontrolled forest and peatland fires are a potential, if
              unpredictable, source of particulates to the air. Vandenberg and
              Knoerr (1983) measured particulate deposition in the Lake Phelps
              vicinity that was approximately ten-fold higher than normal
              during a period of extensive forest and peatland fires in the
              same region. If fire management efforts are abandoned during
              years    8-20    of   Scenario #3, an increased probability of
              uncontrolled fires could degrade air quality, especially in the
              very short term before flooding of mined areas reduces the fire
              hazard significantly. Otherwise air quality impacts of Scenario
              #3 will be similar to those of Scenario #1 during years 1-8 and
              negligible thereafter.

                                                219

                   6.4.3.4 Effects on Air Quality

                        Worst case estimates of offsil:e air quality degradation
                   from mining activities for methanol production in Scenario #1,
                   Area I are based*on PMA's analysis and shown in Tables 6.4D and
                   6.4E.   Maximum off-property predicted concentrations from a
                   single methanol conversion plant serving a 15,000-acre mining
                   tract (i.e. Scenario #1, Area 1) are shown in Table 6.4F.

                        A single peat-to-methanol plant in Area 1 of Scenario #1 or
                   plants in Areas 3 and 4 of Scenario #2 will not violate North
                   Carolina Air Quality Standards at either Class I or Class II
                   receptor sites under the assumptions used in the PMA model. The
                   distance and direction of Area 2 from the Swanquarter NWR Class
                   I area might preclude such a plant location, but no onsite
                   conversion of peat to methanol is postulated for Area 2 in
                   either Scenario #1 or #2.

                        An eight-fold increase in methanol production (and SO       2
                   emissions) as assumed for Scenario #2, Areas 1 and 3, will
                   probably not violate North Carolina Air Quality Standards in
                   Class II areas if the plants are not closely spaced near
                   property boundaries. so       emissions will increase from 686
                   tons/year to 5488 tons@year (Texasgulf's facility upwind (in
                   terms of the dominant wind vector) at Aurora produces 21,000
                   tons/year; Weyerhaeuser's facility at Plymouth emits 18,000
                   tons/year).

                        Fugitive dust emissions during peat mining, transport and
                   storage are probably a more serious concern than emissions from
                   methanol   plants.    This    is   a consequence of the greater
                   particulate emission rates, peat harvesting in all four areas in
                   Scenario    #2,  and the possibility of emissions immediately
                   adjacent to the mining area boundary.

                        Estimates   of fugitive dust emission impact on air quality
                   are shown in     Tables 6.4D and E for a mining operation as
                   considered in    Area I of Scenario #1. Although no North Carolina
                   State Air Quality Standards are exceeded in these predictions,
                   state standards could be exceeded in Class II areas if the
                   source emission estimates are seriously underestimated (Appendix
                   10.8) or if harvesting operations are conducted immediately
                   adjacent to property boundaries.

                        The Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Class I area
                   is perhaps less likely to suffer transgressions of particulate
                   air quality standards, but more consideration must be given in
                   Scenario #1 to the impact of the nearby Area 2 peat mining
                   region which lies upwind of dominant wind vector during the fall
                   and to Areas 3 and 4 in Scenario #2, which also lie upwind
                   during this season.

                                                    220

              6.4.3.5 Amelioration of Impacts through Emission Control

                   Point sources of pollutant emissions can be more readily
              controlled than dispersed emissions from in peat mining and
              transport. Known and effective technological methods to control
              point source emissions exist, and their effectiveness can be
              evaluated   readily through specific source monitoring. Many
              pollutant emission reduction technologies have been planned for
              PMA's methanol plant and accepted as adequate by NRCD and could
              be augmented as necessary by further emission controls. These
              methods could be applied to other methanol plants such as those
              described in Scenario #2.

                   Controls to limit fugitive dust emissions during peat
              harvesting and transport are less well tested and more difficult
              to monitor for effectiveness. Rogers, Golden and Halpern, Inc.
              (RGH, 1982) suggest four approaches to mitigate fugitive dust
              emissions during milled peat harvesting operations: 1) planting
              vegetative windbreaks on the prevailing wind side of the peat
              drying fields and/or between the fields; 2) harvesting peatlands
              in narrow strips perpendicular to the prevailing winds; 3)
              roughening the land surface by making a series of ridges in the
              fields which trap windblown particles and reduce the wind speed
              across the fields; and 4) wetting the fields to form a crust on
              the soil resistant to wind erosion.

                   A   similar   set    of recommendations has been made by
              Vandenberg and Knoerr (1983). As yet, neither the effectiveness
              of such measures nor their direct and indirect costs are known.
              Such information should be obtained on test plots utilizing
              local site specific monitoring. Control technologies for dust
              emissions   from roads and storage piles (e.g. wetting and
              screens) should be evaluated.

              6.4.3.6 Effect of Peat Mining in Restricting Future Industrial
                      Growth

                   As new sources of air pollution are added to a region, the
              increments of allowable air quality degradation from subsequent
              sources will be reduced. If allowable increments have been
              exhausted    by    prior    commitments,   additional     industrial
              development would be precluded if such development further
              degraded air quality.

                   Vigorous debate has arisen over the potential impact of
              extensive peat mining and processing in precluding subsequent
              industrial development. Rogers, Golden, and Halpern, Inc. (RGH,
              1982) believe that the Class I Area of Swanquarter NWR would
              seriously limit industrial development, including peat mining
              and  processing.    Representatives of PMA, NRCD and the NC
              Department of Commerce have argued that site selection and
              application of control technologies could allow development near

                                              221

                  the   Class I Area. Both contentions are speculative until
                  specific siting and source emission parameters are modeled. To
                  summarize, the state must ensure through the FISD permit process
                  that the allowable increments for pollutants are not exceeded by
                  peat   mining,   transportation or processing activities. The
                  extensive modeling and planning process that is part of the PSD
                  permit process should, however, enable the state to monitor the
                  expected emissions and to require their control through the
                  permit process.

                                                   222

              6.5 Solid waste

              6.5.1 Approach/Assumptions

                    Solid   wastes    will    be   generated during peat mining
              development as a by-product of onsite conversion of peat to
              secondary products. mining itself will generate no solid wastes.
              In the scenarios evaluated, methanol is the only secondary
              product of onsite conversion. The basis for assessing solid
              waste impacts is found almost entirely in the Solid Waste
              Management Plan prepared by PMA (1983).

                    According    to   this report, non-hazardous and probably
              non-hazardous wastes will be generated at the rate of 0.101
              tons/ton (dry weight) of peat mined. These wastes include
              gasifier slag, pelletized gasifier fly dust, clarifier filter
              cake    solids, bottom and fly ash from the boilers, spent
              catalysts, refuse, dessicants, spent water treatment resins,
              gypsum from sulfur dioxide recovery, dirt, combined sludge
              wastage from water treatment and peat solids. Slag, fly dust,
              ash clarifier solids, gypsum and sludge are the main components.
              All will be disposed of offsite in sanitary landfills.

                    Hazardous    wastes to be disposed of in secure offsite
              landfills will be produced at a rate of 0.0019 cubic feet/ton
              (dry weight) of peat mined. organic bottom sludges from product
              storage and bulk plant stock storage have not as yet been
              characterized     more   specifically.     In addition, potentially
              hazardous    by-product     oils,   produced at a rate of 0.014
              gallons/ton (dry weight) of mined peat, will be disposed of by
              combustion in the plant boiler.

                    At these rates of production, wastes will be produced in
              the amounts shown in Tables 6.5A and B. Because all solid waste
              is to be directed offsite, outputs from all areas have been
              pooled.

                                                223

                   6. 5. 2 Data

                   Table 6.5A: Non-hazardous wastes from peat to methanol
                                  conversion

                   Scen-    Years 1-10           Years 11-20           20-Year
                   ario                                                Cumulative
                                                                          Total
                   #1      53,000 tons/yr       53,000 tons/yr        1.06xlO6  tons
                         (851,000 ft 3/yr)   (851,000 ft   3/yr')      (17xlO6  ft3

                   #2      135,000 tons/yr    436,000 tons/yr          5.7xio6  tons
                         (2.17xlO6 ft3/yr)   (7.OxlO  6ft  3/yr)       (92xlO6  ft3)

                   #3      53,000  tons/yr                     0      0.53xio6  tons
                          (851,000 ft3/yr)                     0       (8.5xlO6 ft3

                   Note:                3
                    All figures   in ft are baied on an assumption of a bulk
                     density of   0.062 tons/ft

                   Table 6.5B: Hazardous wastes from peat to methanol conversion

                   Scen-    Years 1-10         Years 11-20          20-Year
                   ario                                             Cumulative
                                                                       Total
                   #1      1,000 ft 3/yr     1,000 ft 3/yr         20,000 ft 3
                   #2      2,350 ft 3/yr     8,230 ft 3/yr        108,000 ft 3
                   #3      1,000 ft 3/yr        0                  10,000 ft 3

                                                      224

             6.5.3 Conclusions

             6.5.3.1 Potential Toxicity of Wastes

                   Non-hazardous or potentially non-hazardous solid wastes
             will tot present a toxicological threat. They are similar, in
             part, to coal combustion ashes but will generally contain lower
             heavy metal concentrations. Leachates of some ashes and slags
             produced after test gasification of peat did not exceed EPA
             toxicity criteria for all heavy metals analyzed. However, the
             finer sized ashes which would be collected in cyclones and
             electrostatic precipitators were probably not collected in the
             test gasification. Such particles are known to contain higher
             concentrations of many elements (including most heavy metals)
             than slags and coarser ashes, and the elements are generally
             more readily leachable because they are concentrated on the
             particle    surfaces.    Nevertheless, given the relatively low
             concentrations    of    most heavy metals in the source peat,
             leachates from gasification ashes and slags would not be likely
             to exceed EPA toxicity criteria. However, both the leachability
             of    real process ashes under realistic conditions and the
             specific charcteristics of proposed landfill sites will need to
             be evaluated.

                   Wastewater sludge cannot be well characterized as yet, but
             includes    activated sludge from treatment of organic plant
             wastewater    and    alum and lime precipitates from inorganic
             wastewater.    Unless    particular    toxic compounds from plant
             operations enter the organic wastewater stream, these wastes are
             probably correctly categorized as."probably non-hazardous."

                   Hazardous wastes have not been characterized, but if proper
             disposal methods are utilized they can probably be handled at
             secure offsite disposal sites. As pointed out by PMA, the high
             temperature and oxidizing environment of the gasification stream
             is unlikely to produce significant amounts of such substances as
             tars, oils, phenolics and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
             which are the hazardous by-products of most concern in many
             synfuels and gasification facilities. No official toxic waste
             disposal site operates in North Carolina, a limitation to
             offsite hazardous waste plans.

             6.5.3.2 Volume of Solid Waste

                   The ash content of peat is sufficient that very large
             volumes of solid wastes will be generated during conversion to
             methanol. Even if the wastes are not hazardous, disposal offsite
             of    the   large    volumes produced may prove difficult. Low
             topographic    relief    and   porous    sandy    soils   limit site
             availability for sanitary landfills      in the Coastal Plain. Given
             the negative value and large bulk of solid waste material to be
             disposed of, long distance hauling is unlikely, and local

                                               225

                  landfills must be used. The 851,000 cubic feet per year of
                  non-hazardous    waste   predicted    in   Scenario    #1    probably
                  approximates    the   sanitary    landfill    utilization currently
                  committed in the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula area. The solid
                  waste volumes anticipated in Scenario #2 would exceed the
                  Scenario #1 volumes by a factor of nearly ten during years
                  11-20.

                       Washington County has considered expansion of the capacity
                  of its landfill to allow for the accommodation of wastes that
                  could potentially be generated by a methanol plant such as that
                  described in Scenario #1, Area 1 (J. DiSarno, Washington County
                  manager, personal communication). The landfill is on land leased
                  from   a   private owner and is operated by an independent
                  contractor pursuant to a county franchise. Thus, the plans and
                  desires of both the landowner and the landfill operator must be
                  taken into account, in addition to the county's needs.

                       PMA has proposed that much of the non-hazardous waste could
                  be used onsite during reclamation to agriculture and forestry.
                  Ashes and sludges would have some value as soil conditioners,
                  but such use of these materials could affect water quality of
                  runoff and drainage, especially since the relatively low pH of
                  local soils and drainage waters is likely to greatly increase
                  the solubility of many trace elements and metals.

                       Should the industry fail at year 10 as postulated by
                  Scenario #3, no substantial differences should occur as a result
                  of uncompleted reclamation, disposal, or treatment.

                                                   226

             6.6 Fire

             6.6.1 Approach/Assumptions

                  Fire data were obtained from the North Carolina Forest
             Service office in Fairfield, North Carolina. Data were for Hyde,
             Tyrrell and Washington Counties for the years 1970 through 1983.
             This information was used to calculate the frequency of various
             sized fires and the sources of the fires. Fires from earlier
             dates were not used. Relatively large scale changes in land use
             and land cover in these counties have taken place over the past
             20 years. The fire data from before this time would not
             accurately reflect fires controlled by present land use/land
             cover.

             6.6.2 Data

             Table 6.6A: Cause of fire (Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington Counties)

                                            Peat Thickness - in feet
                                                                           % of
             Cause of Fire        0   1   2   3    4   5   6   7   Total Total

             Miscellaneous        1   -   -   -    1   -   -   -     2       2

             Railroad             1   -   -   -    -   -   -   -     1      1

             Machine use          4   2   -   -    1   2   -   -    10     11

             Incendiary          10   -   -   -    -   -   -   -    10     11

             Debris burn         27   6   -   3    -   1   -   1    38     44

             Smoking              -   1   -   -    -   -   -   -     1      1

             Lightning           16   5   -   3    -   2   -   -    26     30

             Total =             59   14  0   6    2   5   0   2

             % of Total          67   16  0   7    2   6   0   2

             Total Number  of Fires   88

             Notes:
             Peat thickness was obtained by plotting the Forest Service fire
              location data on the peat thickness map for the three county
              area.
             Data are based on where the fires started, not necessarily on
              what types of land were ultimately burned.

                                             227

                   Table 6.6B: Size of fire (Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington Counties)

                                           Peat Thickness - in feet
                   Size of Fire                                                         % of
                      (acres)             0    1   2    3    4   5    6   7    Total Total

                   5,000 +                -    2   -    -    -   -    -   -      2      2

                   1,000-4,999            3    2   -    -    1   3    -   -      9      10

                   300-999                3    -   -    -    -   -    -   -      3      3

                   100-299                9    2   -    1    -   -    -   2      14     16

                   10-99                  37   6   -    4    1   2    -   -      50     58

                   0.26-9                 5    2   -    1    -   -    -   -      8      9

                   0.25                   2    -   -    -    -   -    -   -      2      2

                   Total                  59.  14  0    6    2   5    0   2

                   % of Total             67   16  0    7    2   6    0   2

                   Total Numbers of Fires     = 88

                   Note:
                   Data are based on where the fires started, not necessarily on
                    what types of land were ultimately burned.

                   6.6.3 Conclusions

                      1. 67% of the fires started on non-peat soil.

                      2. 83% of the fires started on either non-peat soil or on peat
                         only one foot thick.

                      3. 17% of the fires started on peat three feet or greater in
                         thickness.

                      4. 69% of the   fires were less than 100 acres in size.

                      5. 85% of the   fires were less than 300 acres in size.

                      6. 15% of the   fires were larger than 300 acres in size.

                      7. 70% of the   fires were started by people.

                                                       228

               8. 30% of the fires were caused by lightning strikes.

               9. 44% of the fires were started by debris burns that went out
                  of control.

               10. 66% of the fires were caused by some form of clearing,
                   farming, or logging operation.

                  Fires were concentrated in the non-peat and shallow peat
             soils because human activity is concentrated there. Most of the
             peats with greater than 4-foot thicknesses either have no roads
             into them or have only small canal maintenance roads with
             limited access. Most of the fires were small because they were
             either easy to get to, easy to extinguish, and/or they started
             in areas that were already partially to completely cleared.

                  Most of the large fires (greater than 1,000 acres) burned
             into undeveloped areas, thus hindering control, since these
             areas do not have good fire breaks (roads, large canals, open
             fields).

                  .If peat mining does occur, no matter which scenario is
             followed, numerous tracts of land, each up to several thousand
             acres in size, will be in various stages of site preparation at
             one   time.    Two   major   factors will control each tract's
             susceptibility to fire: 1) the extent to which the vegetation
             has been removed and 2) the intensity of field ditching.

                  If a tract is field ditched, standing surface water will be
             removed more rapidly and the ground surface will stay dry for
             longer periods of time. If such a tract has not been cleared of
             its natural vegetative cover, the associated leaf litter, dead
             wood and other surficial debris will also dry, providing a
             quick-burning fuel source. A fire that starts in such an
             environment will be hard to control. Under such conditions, the
             frequency and size of fires may increase.

                  If  a tract is subjected to intense drainage operations and
             is also cleared so that the underlying peat soil is exposed for
             drying,   the fire situation should be different. With the
             vegetative cover eliminated, the source of a quick-burning fuel
             will also be gone. As the peat dries and is worked by machinery,
             it is possible that small fires may occur more frequently. Peat,
             even when sun-dried, still contains a significant amount of
             water; hence it is more likely to smolder and remain confined to
             a small area than to burn with open flames and spread rapidly.
             The frequency of fires may increase under these conditions,
             because of the increased human activity, but the size of the
             fires should stay relatively small.

                                             229

                        If large tracts of peat are mined and the underlying
                  mineral soils exposed and planted in either row crop or pine
                  plantation:

                    1.  The number of fires per unit time will increase, since
                        these newly exposed areas will be increasingly utilized
                        by man - the major cause of fire.

                    2.  A greater number of.small, more easily controlled fires
                        will occur.

                    3.  The larger, less easily controlled fires will decrease
                        in number, since fewer large blocks of open, undisturbed
                        land will remain.

                        To the extent that deliberately set fires are a substantial
                  risk,    they   can   be    controlled   through the open-burning
                  restrictions imposed by G.S. 113-60.23. All three of the study
                  area counties are classified as high-hazard counties, which
                  means that before any fire is set within 500 feet of a woodland,
                  a permit for the fire must be obtained from NRCD.

                                                   230

             6.7 Local Economics and Employment

             6.7.1 Approach/Assumptions

                  Available information and data on long- and short-run
             economic and fiscal and cumulative impacts of the scenarios were
             collected, relying heavily on data provided by PMA (1983g). (A
             description of each type of impact and means for analyzing them
             may be found in Appendix 10.9.) In cases where data were not
             available, reasonable assumptions were made.

                  Assumptions made for Scenarios #1 and #3, Area 1 were:

               1. The methanol plant will employ 312 persons once it is fully
                  operational.

               2. During plant construction (2.5-3 years) 1,452 different
                  workers will be employed.

               3. Workers will commute up to 1.25 hours driving time to the
                  plant and mining sites.

               4. Approximately 84% of the operation and construction workers
                  will be local (within commuting distance).

               5. Approximately 16% of the workers will migrate into
                  Washington and Chowan Counties.

               6. Family size for operation workers will average 3.4 people,
                  including 100 children.

               7. The number of new residents per 100 construction workers
                  will average 228, including 79 children (many workers do
                  not bring their families with them).

                  Assumptions made for Scenario #2, Areas 1 and 3:
               1. Capacity-employment ratio for the expanded methanol plants
                  is equal to the ratio assumed in Scenario #1.

                  The   status of population, employment, income and the
             availability of public services    in the study area under the no
             change alternative (present condition) has been documented by
             PMA (1983g) and is briefly described in section 4.2.

                                             231

                  6.7.2 Data

                  Table 6.7A: Scenario #1, Area 1-- Long-run direct impacts of
                               525,000 (dry) ton methanol plant

                          Item                               10-County Area

                  Total employment                                  312
                    Local                                           262
                    Migrants                                         50
                  New residents                                     1701

                  New school students                           50-100
                  Increase in retail sales                   $500,000 2

                  Notes:
                    1. Assumes family size of 3.4 (3.4 x 50 = 170)
                    2. Assumes retail sales of $2,900 per year per person
                  Source: PMA, 1983g

                  Table 6.7B: Scenario #1, Area I--- Long-run direct plus indirect
                               impacts of 525,000 (dry) ton methanol plant

                        Item                              10-County Area

                  Mine employment                           312
                  New services employment                   172 1

                  Total new employment                      484
                  Migrants                                   77 2
                  New residents                             262 3
                  New students                               77 4

                  Notes:
                    1. The employment multiplier (1.55) includes base employment
                       (1.0) and new services employment (0.55). Thus new
                       services employment equals 172 (31-2 x (1.55 - 1.00)).
                    2. The PMA study concluded that 16% of the operating labor would
                       not be available locally and would migrat6 into the area
                       (50/312 = .16). If the same ratio is used here, the estimate
                       of migrants is 77. However, more service industry workers
                       than construction workers would probably be available locally.
                    3. Assumes family size of 3.4 (3.4 x 77 =262)
                    4. Assumes 100 students per 100 operations workers

                                                    232

             Table 6.7C: Scenario #1, Area 1- Short-run impacts of 525,000-
                           (dry) ton methanol plant

                     Item                                 10-County Area
                                                    Total          Peak
                                                               Employment
             Total employment                       1,452         1,169
                   Local                            1,054          832
                   Migrants                            398         337
             New residents                              NA1        768 2
             Children                                   NA1        266 3

             Notes:
              1. Not available
              2. From PMA, 1983g (p. 45)-- 228 residents per 100 workers
              3. PMA, 1983g (pp. 45, 46) - 79 children per 100 workers
             Source:
              PMA, 1983g

             Table 6.7D: Scenario #2, Areas 1 & 3-- Long-run direct plus
                          indirect impacts of methanol plants processing
                          4.1 million (dry) tons of peat

                   Item                       10-County Area
             Mine employment                    2,4491
             New services employment            1,3472

             Total new employment               3,796
             Migrants                           3,3893
             New residents                      11,5234

                                                     5
             New students                       3,389

             Notes:
              1. Scenario #2 assumes an expansion of plant capacity to 4.1
                 million tons, an increase of 7.85. If the capacity-
                 employment ratio remains constant, basic employment
                 in Scenario #2 will be 2,449. ((7.85)312 =2,449).
              2. Assumes an employment multiplier of 1.55
              3. In Table 6.7B, new employment of 484 leads to immigration of
                   77, with 407 available locally. Assuming the smaller
                   facility employees are those available locally, the larger
                   facilities must rely solely on migrants. Thus Scenario #2
                   would lead to immigration of 3,389 workers (3,796 - 407)
              4. Assumes family size of 3.4
              5. Assumes 100 children per 100 workers.

                                               233

                   Table 6.7E: Scenarios #1 and #2, Areas 1, 2 and 4-- Estimated
                                  employment for horticultural peat and peat for fuel*

                                                                                  Employment:
                   Scenario       Area     Operation      Capacity (dry)           At Years
                                                                                  10    20

                       #1           1     Horticultural     25,000 tons/yr           6    6
                       #1           2     Peat for fuel 140,000 tons/yr           33    33

                   Total Scenario   #1                                            39    39

                       #2           1     Horticultural       50,000 tons/yr      12    36
                                                                 (at 10)
                                                            151,000  tons/yr
                                                                 (at 20)
                       #2           2     Peat for fuel     368,000  tons/yr      86    258
                                                                 (at 10)
                                                            1.1 million tons/
                                                                yr (at 20)
                       #2           4     Peat for fuel     432,000 tons/yr       101   281
                                                                 (at 10)
                                                            1.2 million tons/
                                                                yr (at 20)
                   Total Scenario #2                                             199 575

                   Notes:
                     Estimates of employment in peat for fuel operations are based
                      on PMA estimates of 117 harvesting employees per 500,000 (dry)
                      tons/year. Assumption was made that employees per ton
                      harvested is constant.
                     Estimates of employment in horticultural operations based on
                      personal communication from Haul Reddick, Peat Fuels, Inc.

                     Assumes no construction or processing on site, except bagging
                     of horticultural peat.

                                                      234

             6.7.3 Conclusions

             6.7.3.1 Peat for Methanol

             6.7.3.1.1 Scenario #1, Area 1

             6.7.3.1.1.1 Long-run Impacts

             6.7.3.1.1.1.1 Economic Impacts

                  Of the 312 employees expected to be employed at the
             methanol plant (Area 1, Scenario #1) when it becomes fully
             operational, approximately 50 will be non-local. Assuming a
             family size of 3.4, a total of 170 people will thus migrate into
             the study area. Of these, 50-100 will be children. Also,
             assuming each generates an average sales volume of $2,900 per
             year (retail sales volume per capita in Washington and Chowan
             Counties,   1980), these new residents will stimulate local
             businesses by $500,000 per year (Table 6.7A). It should be noted
             that use of $2,900 per person per year (PMA, 1983g) assumes
             families will contribute, on average, $9,860 per year to retail
             sales. This may be high considering the current wage levels in
             the area (see Table 4C) and wage levels expected for migrating
             workers.

                  In addition, the migration described above will lead to
             indirect effects, because the $500,000 that new families will
             spend will generate demand for new businesses, services and
             jobs. Assuming an employment multiplier of 1.55, the increase in
             basic employment of 312 would lead to an increase of 172 jobs in
             the service sector, giving total direct plus indirect employment
             of 484 persons in the long run from constructing and operating
             the methanol plant. Assuming the same proportion of workers
             would be migrating as was estimated for direct employment
             (50/312=0.16), the number of migrants needed to fill these
             service sector positions is estimated to be 77. However, this is
             likely   an    overestimate   of   immigration,    because service
             industries are more apt to increase the labor participation rate
             in   the   locality    and also to have less stringent skill
             requirements than does basic employment at the mining facility.
             The number of new residents employed indirectly resulting from
             the methanol plant is therefore estimated to be 262. The number
             of new students is estimated to be 77 (Table 6.7B).

             6.7.3.1.1.1.2 Fiscal Impacts

                  Net revenues to local governments may exceed the costs of
             services and facilities demanded by new residents. on the other
             hand, two types of developmental problems may confront local
             governments    in   the impacted area. First, long-run fiscal
             problems may arise in cases where a local government must
             provide expanded services and facilities but is unable to tax

                                             235

                  the new plant.     This is a spillover problem where new rE!Sidents
                  locate outside the political boundaries of the local gOVE!rnments
                  that have the power to tax the plant. Second, even if long-run
                  benefits were to exceed costs, front-end or short-run fiscal
                  problems may    arise where revenues generated lag cost incidence.
                  For example,    local government may need to increase the local
                  school budget   immediately upon arrival of new residents, whereas
                  tax revenues    generated by those residents or from the plant
                  itself   will   be lagged several years beyond that time. A
                  short-run cash  flow problem will thus arise.

                       Fiscal    impacts will vary by county and city in the
                  10-county   area    surrounding    the   plant. Taxes of several
                  categories will be contributed by        the peat mining facilitiy:
                  business property taxes; unemployment    taxes; intangible property
                  taxes; inventory taxes; corporate franchise taxes; sales and use
                  taxes; and income taxes on wages and proprietary incomes.
                  However, the distribution of these local and state revenues to
                  individuals    and   counties will vary greatly     '  For example,
                  Washington County will receive the bulk of the property taxes,
                  estimated at $900,000 per year (PMA, 1983g). Municipalities and
                  other counties may receive little. Many of the tax categories
                  are paid directly to the state. How and to what extent they are
                  distributed    to   impacted    counties and municipalities will
                  partially determine whether net fiscal impacts are positive or
                  negative.

                       Demands placed on local governments by new residents will
                  vary in similar fashion. Chowan and Washington Counties will
                  receive most of the influx of new residents. Yet, Washington
                  County   will    likely receive the largest share of revenue
                  generated by the facility. Chowan County, and particularly the
                  City of Edenton where many new residents will probably reside,
                  will receive much less.

                       The increased number of students may require an additional
                  school, especially if the influx of students is concentrated in
                  only two areas, Washington and Chowan Counties. Further, even if
                  facilities are adequate, several new teachers will likely need
                  to be hired, and each new pupil will need to be supported. In
                  1980-81, school expenditures per pupil across the state averaged
                  $1,-944.31, including salaries, while in the 10-county impact
                  area, the average expenditure per pupil was $2,103.96 (North
                  Carolina Board of Education, 1982). Based upon these averages,
                  the cost side of the fiscal impact of 50-100 new students is in
                  the order of $105,198- $210,396. of course, not all of these
                  funds must be generated locally through increased taxes since
                  the source of school funds in North Carolina in 1980-81 averaged
                  63% state, 19% federal and 18% local. Nevertheless, the local
                  fiscal impact may be a problem because of the lag before
                  receiving the state and federal portions of the money. The
                  distribution of these impacts will also vary between areas.

                                                   236

                  Finally, new residents immigrating from other areas may be
             accustomed to a higher level of services than currently exists
             in the study area so that, in the long run, costs may be
             incurred to raise the level of services.

                  Unequal distribution may lead to increased taxes in some
             areas while at the same time providing surpluses in others.
             Cities may not fare well fiscally, because they can be expected
             to bear a large proportion of the demand for new services and
             facilities, yet receive little property tax revenue because the
             mine lies outside of their taxing jurisdiction. A more detailed
             statement    concerning    school   costs   and    the   levels and
             distribution of other fiscal impacts requires more data than
             were available for this study. To provide additional assistance
             to the affected counties, the severance tax discussed in section
             4.3.3.3 could be made a state severance tax with some of the
             funds being returned to the counties where the mining is
             conducted and to cities and counties in the area as impacted
             area aid funds, the distribution being made on the basis of
             demonstrated need.

                  There is also a concern that the peat mining facility may
             adversely affect the commercial fishery and recreation/tourism
             industries. As noted in section 4.2.4, the catch from commercial
             fishing in Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington Counties was valued at
             $4.5 million in 1980. In 1982, travel and tourism expenditures
             were estimated at $11,032,000 in Hyde County, $138,000 in
             Tyrrell County, and $748,000 in Washington County (M. Dodd,
             Travel    and Tourism Division, North Carolina Department of
             Commerce, personal communication).

                  To the extent that peat mining damages the fishery and
             reduces commercial catch or the attractiveness of the area for
             recreation and tourism, these economic values will decline.
             Whether, or the extent to which this may occur, however, is
             difficult to estimate without further research.

             6.7.3.1.1.2 Short-run Impacts

             6.7.3.1.1.2.1 Economic Impacts

                  Short-run impacts of the methanol plant may be great,
             because the number of construction workers will exceed permanent
             employment after the plant becomes operational. The number of
             employees will peak during the middle of the construction
             period, while tax revenues will peak after the plant becomes
             operational.

                                              237

                      During the peak construction period, the total number of
                  new residents is estimated at 768, including 266 children (Table
                  6.7C).

                  6.7.3.1.1.2.2 Fiscal Impacts

                      Property taxes will be assessed the facility based upon
                  percent of construction completed on January 1 of each year.
                  Yet, the impact of population increase will be more immediate.
                  For example, upon the arrival of a new worker with a family, new
                  school students will be sent to class if it is during the school
                  year. The taxing jurisdiction, however, will not receive the tax
                  revenues until perhaps one to two years later, depending on the
                  rate at which construction proceeds. For those tax or aid
                  categories where the state or federal government returns a
                  portion of revenue collected to the local area or otherwise
                  shares revenue, the lag may be even greater. Often, the
                  distribution of these funds is based upon census population, and
                  any adjustments require waiting for another census. Although
                  school aid is based upon the current year's enrollment,
                  short-run increases in population are often missed by these
                  formulas and produce the revenue lag described.

                      In the short run, sufficient excess public service capacity
                  probably exists in the area. Thus large, new expenditures for
                  many public services would not appear to be likely. However,
                  operating budgets for some services will increase while capital
                  expenditures may need to be speeded up for others. School
                  budgets will need to be larger even though facilities may be
                  adequate. Improvement and expansion of sewer and solid waste
                  disposal facilities may require added funds in some localities
                  (PMA, 1983g).

                      As with the long-run impact, the distribution of costs and
                  benefits will vary with some areas experiencing revenue
                  shortfalls and others experiencing surpluses.

                  6.7.3.1.2. Scenario #2, Areas 1 and 3

                  6.7.3.1.2.1 Long-run Impacts

                  6.7.3.1.2.1.1 Economic Impacts

                      The larger-scale methanol plants in this scenario were
                  assumed to have the same capacity-employment ratio as the plant
                  in Scenario #1. Thus, since Scenario #2 output is 7.85 times
                  (4,120,721 dry tons/525,000 dry tons = 7.85) larger, basic mine
                  employment is also assumed to be 7.85 times larger, or 2,449
                  persons (Table 6.7D).

                      Assuming the sinaller facility attracts the labor that is

                                                 238

                  Assuming the smaller facility attracts the labor that is
             available locally, additional employment for larger facilities
             must come from immigration. Thus the migrant, new residents and
             new student impacts will be larger both absolutely and
             proportionately under Scenario #2 than under Scenario #1. The
             direct plus indirect employment impact is estimated at 3,796
             compared to 484 under Scenario #1. Immigrants increase from 77
             to 3,389. Although data are not available, income effects will
             likely dwarf the impact of Scenario #1 because of the large
             increase in employment that will provide income to mine workers
             and service industry personnel.

             6.7.3.1.2.1.2 Fiscal Impacts

                  Although no quantitative information is available regarding
             the fiscal impacts upon the 10-county area under Scenario #2,
             potential for the same types of problems exists as for Scenario
             #1. These fiscal impacts may be expected to be magnified in
             Scenario #2. For example, the distribution of local governmental
             costs and revenues will likely be unequal. New residents will
             probably live outside of areas able to tax the facilities,
             leading to long-run fiscal surpluses in some counties and/or
             cities and fiscal deficits in others. The magnitude of each will
             greatly exceed those of Scenario #1 because of the very large
             increase in immigration. Since some of the sources of tax
             revenue are paid to the state, the level of deficit or surplus
             will depend upon whether and to what extent tax revenues are
             distributed to impacted counties. Under Scenario #2, the role of
             state severance taxes could take on increased importance because
             of the magnitude and possibly more widespread nature of the
             fiscal impacts.

                  While an adequate supply of public services and facilites
             will probably be available to meet the needs of migrants under
             Scenario #1, it is unlikely that this will be the case under
             Scenario #2. Table 6.7D shows the large increase in overall
             population that will be generated, and few cities or counties
             could provide needed services and facilites for migrants without
             expanding those capabilities. overall, there will be a need to
             invest more public funds to meet these demands. However, the
             level of demand in a specific county or city will depend upon
             the location decisions of the new residents and, once again,
             points out the distributional aspects of the issue. Even with
             large population increases and increased public investment in
             services and facilities, local governments receiving a large
             proportion of the tax revenues may still have surpluses.

                  On the other hand, the potential for large fiscal deficits
             is greater under Scenario #2. For example, using school
             expenditures data presented earlier, if average expenditure per
             pupil equalled the 1980-81 average in the study area, the
             increased enrollment of 3,389 students will require increased
             school expenditures of $7,130,000. Of this, about 20% must be

                                            239

                  raised locally. New residents will likely concentrate the demand
                  for additional school services in relatively few areas. If those
                  areas are not receiving a large share of the tax revenues
                  generated, deficits may result.

                  6.7.3.1.2.2 Short-run Impacts

                  6.7.3.1.2.2.1 Economic Impacts
                       If methanol production capacity is expanded by a factor of
                  7 or 8, the short-run impact will depend upon how the expansion
                  is accomplished. If the plants are built or expanded in stages,
                  the short-run impact noted for Scenario #1 may merely continue
                  for a longer period of time. In this case, construction workers
                  will finish one stage before moving on to another. Depending
                  upon the number of stages, this may result in a "short-run
                  impact" of 10-15 years duration if each stage were to take 2.5-3
                  years, as for Scenario #1. If plant capacity expansion is not
                  staged, the short-run impact may be large, because the number of
                  construction workers is so great. Since no information is
                  available on how larger plants would be constructed, few
                  quantitative comments can be made on the short-run impacts of
                  Scenario #2.

                  6.7.3.1.2.2.2 Fiscal Impacts

                       If expansion of plant capacity is staged and does not
                  require more construction workers than did Scenario #1, the
                  short-run fiscal impact will resemble that of Scenario #1, as
                  noted in Table 6.7C. If it is not staged, the potential
                  short-run fiscal impact will be greater, because the influx of
                  new residents will be greater. In this case, public service and
                  facility capacity will likely be exceeded, and short-run.impacts
                  will be greater, just as was the case in the long-run.
                       The distribution of costs and revenues among alternative
                  local governments will again be important.

                  6.7.3.1.2.2.3 Cumulative Impacts
                       The expansion of peat mining activity from the level
                  indicated in Scenario #1 to that of Scenario #2 will attract
                  other related industries and enterprises that will magnify the
                  impacts of the mining activity itself. In addition, the
                  potential for related industries locating in the area will be
                  greater than in Scenario #1, because of the greater methanol
                  output and the larger number of people immigrating into the
                  area. In this case, employment and income multipliers will be
                  greater, as will fiscal impacts.

                                                 240

             6.7.3.1.3 Scenario #3, Area 1

                  The socioeconomic impact of industry failure upon cities
             and counties will depend upon the level of development that had
             occurred (i. e., the level of employment and income that had
             been generated) and the extent of excess capacity built by local
             government (schools, waste disposal, etc.). Unemployment will be
             created proportional to the increase in employment generated by
             operation of the peat mining facility. Income will be lost by
             unemployed mine workers (direct effect) and by workers and
             businesses serving the basic mining industry (indirect effect).
             Fixed facilities constructed will be unused unless other
             economic activities replace demand lost with the mining
             facility. This includes housing, businesses and public
             facilities. Social impacts will be similar to effects in other
             areas in recent years, where workers are unemployed and family
             conditions suffer.

                  The extent of the fiscal impact will depend upon the extent
             to which local government has expanded the services it provides.
             Excess capacity and high costs of government may result if
             service construction programs have been accelerated. Other
             services, such as the number of school teachers, can be reduced,
             but this will lead to higher unemployment and related costs. Tax
             revenues will fall, but costs of operating local government will
             also decrease. Since many services of local government cannot be
             proportionally adjusted downward once provided (e. g., a
             wastewater treatment plant or school), and since many are funded
             by long-term debt, the reduction in tax revenues will be greater
             than the reduction in costs of local government. If this does
             occur, the costs of operating local government will rise unless
             offset in some other manner. Property taxes will rise
             accordingly.

             6.7.3.2 Peat for Fuel and Horticultural Peat

                  The fiscal impacts noted earlier in section 6.7.3.1 will be
             magnified to the extent new migrants are employed for harvesting
             and processing horticultural peat and peat for fuel. The earlier
             discussion of these impacts is applicable here. Insufficient
             information is available to estimate short-run and long-run
             economic impacts of horticultural peat and peat for fuel
             operations, as was done for the peat for methanol facility.
             However, direct employment is estimated as shown in Table 6.7E
             for Scenario #1 (Areas 1, 2) and Scenario #2 (Areas 1, 2, 4) at
             years 10 and 20. These numbers are equivalent to long-run
             impacts because of the time frame they cover.

                  For Scenario #1, Areas 1 and 2, total base employment is
             estimated at 39 for each of the years. Assuming an employment
             multiplier of 1.55 as before, new services employment may be
             expected to increase by 22 (0.55 x 39) for a total direct plus
             indirect employment impact of 61 (22 + 39). If 16% migrate.into

                                            241

                 the area, 10 new migrant workers will arrive and, assuming a
                 family size of 3.4, will increase population in the study area
                 by 34. The number of new students will increase by about ten. At
                 $2,900 average retail sales per person, retail sales will
                 increase by about $98,000 per year.

                      Using the same procedures for Scenario #2, Areas 1, 2 and
                 4, new services employment at year 10 is estimated to be 110
                 (199 x 0.55) for a total direct plus indirect employment
                 increase of 309. If 16% of the workers (50) migrate into the
                 area and family size is 3.4, population will increase by 170,
                 and the number of students will increase by about 50. Retail
                 sales will increase by $493,000. At year 20 the increases are:
                 direct employment, 575; direct plus new services employment,
                 892; migration of workers, 143; population, 487; students, 143;
                 and retail sales, $1,400,000.

                                                242

              7. EVALUATION PROCESS

              7.1 Estuarine Impacts

              7.1.1 Statement of the Problem

              7.1.1.1 Introductory Section

                   Large-scale    peat    mining   and related land conversion
              activities (reclamation) as described in the upper boundary
              scenario    (#2)   (see section 5.2.3) have        the potential to
              substantially alter primary nursery areas if mining takes place
              adjacent to estuaries. While this project          has considered the
              cumulative impacts of three alternative peat       mining development
              scenarios, the effects of other forms of           land conversion of
              peatlands (e.g., to agriculture and forestry) on estuarine
              systems are similar in many respects. For this reason, the
              following discussion is focussed on the impacts on estuarine
              systems peripheral to the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula of land
              conversion activities in general. Changes in salinity regimes,
              nutrient   loading,    suspended     solids,   sedimentation, trace
              element,     pesticide    and   coliform    bacteria    levels,     and
              interactions among these factors are believed to be the most
              significant potential estuarine impacts from land conversions.
              The processes by which these impacts are effected and the
              interrelationships among them are poorly understood. Decision
              makers are therefore required to act without an adequate data
              base and with considerable risk.

              7.1.1.2 Land Conversions

                   Drainage    pattern    alteration    on the Albemarle-Pamlico
              Peninsula    for   agricultural     and silvicultural purposes is
              discussed in section 4.1.2.5. According to McMullan (1984),
              approximately 12.4% of the peninsula's land area had been
              cleared prior to the 1940s. By 1963, 1974 and 1981, 18.5%, 26.2%
              and 29.6%, respectively, of the land area had been cleared.
              Large-scale peat mining and related reclamation activities would
              obviously    continue    and   accelerate    this process of land
              conversion on the peninsula (see section 6.3).

              7.1.1.3 Salinity

                   Although overall salinities in Pamlico Sound would probably
              not be significantly affected by runoff from large-scale land
              conversion    on    the   Albemarle-Pamlico     Peninsula    since it
              contributes only about 6-8% of the total freshwater inflow, a
              more dramatic effect may occur in the smaller streams and bays
              linking the peninsula and Pamlico Sound. Many of these small
              tidal creeks have been identified by the North Carolina Division
              of   Marine Fisheries as "primary nursery areas", the most
              productive and sensitive of the state's nursery grounds for
              economically important species of fish and shellfish. These

                                                243

                   primary nursery areas are characterized by soft mud sediments,
                   proximity to regularly or irregularly flooded marshes, and
                   salinities ranging from 5 to 15 parts per thousand (ppt) (Pate
                   and Jones, 1981).
                        Studies conducted by Pate and Jones (1981) of primary
                   nursery areas receiving heavy, moderate and no upland drainage
                   through   man-made    canals indicated that salinities at the
                   unaltered sites were more stable during periods of high runoff
                   than those recorded at two sites receiving drainage waters
                   through ditches. Their research raised the possibility that
                   production of brown shrimp and other commercially important fish
                   may be adversely affected by freshwater "pulsing" via drainage
                   canals into primary nursery areas during and following storm
                   events.

                   7.1.1.4 Nutrient Loading

                        All North Carolina estuaries can support enhanced algal
                   growth in response to accelerated nutrient (both nitrogen and
                   phosphorus) loading (Stanley and Hobbie, 1977; Kuenzler et al.,
                   1979, 1982; Paerl, 1982, 1983; Paerl et al., 1984). The worst
                   manifestations of growth enhancement are blooms of blue-green
                   algae which are restricted to freshwater or oligohaline (less
                   than 2 ppt salinity) habitats. Nutrient loadings projected for
                   .the upper boundary scenario (#2) (see section 6.2.1.2) appear to
                   be sufficient to support blooms in these upper estuarine waters.
                   If so, salinity would limit the areal extent of blue-green algal
                   bloom conditions. The offshore extent of such conditions is
                   currently unknown.
                        Virtually nothing is known about marine bloom 1'anz@log" taxa
                   which could develop in higher salinity (in excess of 2-5 ppt)
                   estuarine waters (Paerl et al., 1984).
                        Recent research has illustrated the negative impacts of
                   blue-green algal biomass on herbivorous consumers (zooplankton).
                   Assimilation and trophic transfer of such biomass are greatly
                   reduced in comparison to non-blue-green algal food sources
                   (Fulton. and Paerl, in prep). In the event of documented bloom
                   potentials and events, food chain alterations may therefore be
                   expected in receiving estuarine waters. This research is of
                   long-term relevance with respect to E?Conomic (fisheries) impacts
                   in the Albemarle-Pamlico Sound systems.

                   7.1.1.5 Physical Stratification Impacts on Water Quality
                        Current research efforts into the causes and proliferation
                   of nuisance blue-green algal blooms in the Chowan and Neuse
                   River   systems have strongly linked vertical stratification
                   characteristics to bloom potentials. The chief reason for this
                   direct relationship is the habitat preferences of nuisance taxa.

                                                    244

              All   nuisance blue-green algal taxa, including Microcystis,
              Anabaena and Aphanizomenon, have the ability to become buoyant
              during stagnant periods when the water column is vertically
              stratified (either due to thermal or salinity stratification).
              Buoyancy is a response which, from an ecological standpoint,
              greatly favors the growth of blue-green taxa over more desirable
              (non-buoyant) algal groups, such as diatoms, green algae and
              flagellates. During stratified periods blue-green algae can
              float to the surface, thereby capturing optimal amounts of
              sunlight for photosynthetic production and net growth, while
              shading underlying algae.

                   It is not presently known whether such stratification
              potentials    exist,    and,    if    so, what their duration and
              seasonality are.

              7.1.1.6 Suspended Solids and Sedimentation

                   Because the peninsula has very little relief, erosion is
              not a significant problem. Development of peatlands causes a
              slight    increase    in   sediment     loads    in drainage waters,
              particularly during land clearing, buried wood removal and field
              shaping. Thus, disturbance caused by peat mining may be expected
              to increase sediment loads in drainage canals unless settling
              ponds or other measures to remove suspended sediment from
              drainage    waters    are    utilized.    Once    initial development
              activities are completed, erosion and turbidity during normal
              agricultural production are not likely to cause water quality
              problems (Skaggs et al., 1980).

                   The normal hydrology of North Carolina estuaries causes
              them to function as sediment and nutrient traps. Increasing
              salinity down the estuary neutralizes the electrical charges on
              colloidal organic and clay particles, resulting in flocculation
              and sedimentation. The sediments are usually soft, organic-rich
              muds which constitute a huge sink for oxygen in the overlying
              water. Most of the sediment is mineral matter, silts and clays
              from the Piedmont as well as from local areas of the Coastal
              Plain.   The    remainder     is organic matter, some relatively
              resistant material of terrestrial origin and some more labile
              material originating from phytoplankton (Matson et al., 1983).
              Microbial activity in the sediments and chemical transformations
              release ammonium and phosphate to the bottom water, some of
              which moves upstream, thus recycling the nutrients to the
              phytoplankton and resulting in high levels of productivity
              (Stanley and Hobbie, 1977; Kuenzler et al., 1979; Kuenzler et
              al.,   1982; Paerl, 1982, 1983). High levels of summertime
              production which occur in the middle reaches of Pamlico River
              (Kuenzler et al., 1979) have not been considered noxious.
              Similar or higher productivities in fresher parts of the Chowan
              and Neuse Rivers, however, have included blooms of blue-green
              algae which are not only noxious but may also adversely affect

                                                245

                   fisheries (Stanley and Hobbie, 1977; Kuenzler et al., 1982;
                   Paerl, 1982, 1983; Copeland et al., 1983).
                        As    a   result of soil disturbance and diversions and
                   alterations    of    surface and subsurface runoff during land
                   conversion activities, changes in the humic and fulvIc acid
                   content of receiving waters may occur. Humic and fulvic acids
                   impact both the transparency and chemical characteristics (pH,
                   metal availability) of receiving waters (Paerl, 1982, 1983).
                   Both   characteristics are known to affect algal production
                   potentials.      Transparency        alterations       can       regulate
                   photosynthesis, and hence primary production, in subsurface
                   depths of the water column. Metals such as iron, manganese,
                   copper and zinc are required for growth among both desirable and
                   nuisance algal species. These metals are strongly chelated or
                   chemically bound by humic and (particularly) fulvic acids.
                   Differential metal binding therefore affects metal availability,
                   which in turn  can affect algal growth potentials.

                   7.1.1.7 Trace  Metals
                        Concern   regarding the possible effects of peat mining on
                   the release    of trace metals was triggered by reports by ESE
                   (1983),      a    consultant    for    PMA,    of    elevated     mercury
                   concentrations (above state and federal standards) in canals
                   draining naturally vegetated peatlands. More recent monitoring
                   by the state Department of Natural Resources and Community
                   Development has generally failed to find mercury concentrations
                   above the EPA recommended criteria (0.2 parts per billion
                   (ppb)). (The current state standard for mercury is 0.05 ppb,
                   however, a standard revision to 0.02 ppb is presently under
                   consideration.)     The bulk of available mercury data, however,
                   reflects    pre-mining     rather    than    during-    or post-mining
                   conditions. Studies from Finland (Simola and Lodenius, 1982) and
                   Minnesota (Clausen et al., 1980) have reported increased mercury
                   fluxes into receiving systems, apparently as a consequence of
                   peatland drainage.
                        Other metals which have higher standards than mercury may
                   be    deleterious      to   nursery    areas.     For    example,     lead
                   concentrations in excess of the state standard (which is 30 ppb
                   VS. 0.05 ppb for mercury) have been reported by PMA (1983f). In
                   terms    of    toxicity to fish larvae, there is very little
                   difference between waterborne lead and mercury. The difference
                   in standards reflects concern for the health of humans, not
                   fish, and is due to the greater ability of mercury to biomagnify
                   in food chains.
                         Skaggs et al. (1980) suggested that peatland disturbances
                   associated with agriculture will significantly increase fluxes
                   into receiving systems of three metals which the researchers
                   measured: copper, manganese and zinc (cadmium concentrations

                                                      246

             were below detection limits). It is likely that other elements,
             particularly those that exist largely as divalent cations, will
             demonstrate similar trends. The cumulative impacts of excessive
             amounts of these trace metals, as well as interactions among
             trace metals and other substances, deserve further study.

             7.1.1.8 Pesticides

                  Potentially of greater concern than trace metals is the
             increased influx of pesticides likely to occur with extensive
             conversion of undeveloped lands on the peninsula to row crop
             agriculture.

                  Skaggs    et   al. (1980) reported concentrations of the
             herbicide Alachlor within the 95% confidence interval of the
             LD    for bluegill (Johnson and Finley, 1980) in field
               20
             di ches draining peatlands. No data are available for other
             pesticides, including numerous insecticides used in the region
             that are far more toxic to aquatic organisms than Alachlor is.
             Data   were    not   collected from main drainage canals       "   and
             concentrations in water reaching the estuaries would be expected
             to be considerably lower than concentrations in field ditches.
             However, the potential for pesticides to reach and impact
             estuarine nursery areas merits consideration.

             7.1.1.9 Coliform Bacteria

                  Research by Skaggs et al. (1980) indicated that the average
             number of fecal and total coliform bacteria in drainage waters
             from developed shallow and deep organic soils was considerably
             higher than from similar undeveloped areas. These coliforms came
             from lands under cultivation as well as in pasture, although
             bacterial concentrations from the latter were higher. Increases
             in bacteria may be due to a generally lower acidity in drainage
             waters from developed lands because of liming.
                  One potential problem with development of organic soils
             adjacent to estuaries for pastures or row crop agriculture is
             the introduction of fecal organisms via drainage waters into
             shellfishing waters. While non-fecal coliform bacteria are not
             harmful, they are used as indicators of human pathogens.

                                              247

                  7.1.2 Data and Information Available

                       Solution    to the problem requires an understanding of
                  estuarine physical, chemical and biological processes, how they
                  impact upon estuarine organisms and how these processes are
                  affected by upland activities. such "understandings" are usually
                  portrayed through a model.

                  7.1.2.1 General Approaches to System Representation

                       The past decade has seen the development of a great range
                  of models of three general types: 1) empirical, regression
                  models, 2) loading vs. trophic state models and 3) numerical
                  models.

                       Empirical,    regression   models have been developed for
                  temperate lakes which show a strong relationship between a
                  limiting nutrient (usually phosphorus) and algal chlorophyll
                  levels (e.g., Dillon and Rigler, 1974). Such models have the
                  appeal of simplicity and, sometimes, high correlations with
                  field conditions, but have not performed reliably in dystrophic
                  fresh waters or estuaries. Lauria and O'Melia (1980) suggested
                  that in the Pamlico Estuary phosphorus is limiting in winter and
                  nitrogen   in    summer. They developed two steady-state, one
                  dimensional (seasonal) models to predict water quality in the
                  estuary   under    different    nutrient   loadings. Thus factors
                  controlling trophic status may vary temporally as well as
                  spatially and a single empirical, regression model may not be
                  adequate to predict conditions over a complete annual cycle.

                       Extension of empirical, regression models produced models
                  relating trophic state to phosphorus loading rate, water depth,
                  water detention time and other variables (Vollenweider, 1968,
                  1975; Dillon, 1975; Larsen and Mercier, 1975). These models have
                  proved useful for many lakes, especially since the ultimate
                  stress (nutrient loading from land runoff) is one of the
                  independent variables. Furthermore, trophic state is preferable
                  to chlorophyll-a content because it may be defined in other
                  terms which are important for a particular water body. This
                  approach has apparently been used by Lee and Jones (1979). They
                  expressed strong support for the Organization for Economic
                  Cooperation and Development (OECD) approach (Seyb and Randolph,
                  1977; Rast and Lee, 1978), extending the use of the nutrient
                  load/eutrophication relationships to estuarine waters. Lee and
                  Jones (1979) inserted data from the Potomac River Estuary into a
                  Vollenweider-type plot, a step which had.not been done before.
                  They argued that the low cost and generality of this approach
                  make it useful for estuaries as well as lakes.

                       A large number of numerical, simulation or dynamic models
                  describing aquatic systems has been developed within the past
                  fifteen years (Chen and Orlob, 1972; Kelly, 1972; O'Connor et

                                                   248

             al., 1973; Johnson, 1974; Johanson et al., 1976; Harleman et
             al., 1977; Vernberg et al., 1977, 1978; Kelly and Spofford,
             1977; Kremer and Nixon, 1978; Roesch et al., 1979; Ambrose et
             al., 1980; Neale et al., 1981; Burns et al., 1981; Clark and
             Feigner, 1982; and many others). Most of these models include
             hydrodynamic, water quality and biological components. They
             encompass a range of model types including one, two and three
             dimensions, laterally and depth-averaged, and a variety of water
             quality parameters, including salinity, temperature, phosphorus,
             nitrogen, DO, BOD, turbidity and toxics.

             7.1.2.2 Prior Modeling Work in North Carolina

                   Several water quality models have been developed for North
             Carolina waters. As mentioned in section 7.1.2.1, Lauria and
             O'Melia (1980) developed a model for predicting water quality in
             the Pamlico Estuary under different nutrient loadings. Amein and
             Galler (1979) generated a water quality management model for the
             lower Chowan River, which consisted of a flow dynamics module
             and a water quality module. The flow dynamics module was based
             on the finite difference representation of the equations for the
             conservation of mass and momentum for water flow in estuaries.
             Variables included water stage, wind direction and wind speed.
             The water quality module included DO, BOD, nitrite plus nitrate
             nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, organic nitrogen and algal biomass.
             The module utilized computations on photosynthesis and nutrient
             uptake by algae. It was a time-dependent or unsteady flow model
             which    also    predicted     nutrient    concentrations     and algal
             abundance. However, neither the Lauria and O'Melia nor the Amein
             and Galler model has been used by the state Division of
             Environmental Management (DEM) to date because of the large
             volume of data (currently unavailable) needed to fit all the
             parameters.

                   In response to recurrence of nuisance surface blooms of
             blue-green algae in the lower Chowan River, DEM has adopted a
             management strategy based on a phosphorus loading/chlorophyll-a
             model. The model was developed by Chapra and Tarapchak (1976,
             cited      by     DEM,     1982)     based     on     the      phosphorus
             concentration/loading relationship and phosphorus/chlorophyll-a
             relationship developed by Dillon and Rigler (1974, cited by DEM,
             1982). This simple model takes into account the effect of
             variations in annual discharge on average total phosphorus
             concentrations, but cannot predict the effects of seasonal
             variability in flushing rates and/or short-term fluctuations in
             phosphorus       concentrations       on      phytoplankton       biomass
             (chlorophyll-a). Neither does the model account for the many
             physical factors that cause the massive surface blooms and peak
             chlorophyll-a levels. It is hoped that the model will provide a
             good indication of how the river responds to increases or
             reductions in phosphorus loading over several years (DEM, 1982).

                                                249

                        A simplified approach to predicting the "suitability" of an
                   area to support a given wildlife species has been developed by
                   the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1980). Their Habitat
                   Evaluation Procedures (HEP) relate-environmental conditions to
                   life requisites for indicator organisms, and may be employed in
                   space, time or both. Many of the details contained in more
                   sophisticated approaches are by-passed or consolidated in HEP
                   (e.g., bottom type may serve as proxy for food), and the models
                   are difficult to validate (they allege to measure "quality" or
                   "suitability",    but    efficient    validators     of   quality and
                   suitability    are    evasive). Even with its limitations, the
                   strengths and practicability of the HEP approach have been
                   recognized and it is becoming widely applied. For example, the
                   HEP approach has been used in terrestrial (Lancia et al., 1982;
                   Noffsinger et al., 1983; Lancia et al., 1984) and estuarine
                   environments in North Carolina (Adams et al., 1982; Adams and
                   Overton, 1983).

                      1 A fini'te element numerical hydrodynamic model was developed
                   by Wei (1983) at NCSU, and has been used in several projects in
                   North Carolina. The model has been linked to simple habitat
                   suitability models to predict impacts of salinity introductions
                   into Currituck Sound (Adams and Overton, 1983) and channel
                   modifications in the White Oak Estuary (Adams et al., 1982).
                   Adaptations of this model and other existing models should
                   provide the foundation of the modeling efforts discussed in
                   section 7.1.3.

                   7.1.2.3 Other Relevant Studies

                        Kremer and Nixon (1978) developed a mechanistic numerical
                   model of a temperate estuary (Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island).
                   Their model used known forcing functions to predict'temperature,
                   solar radiation, tidal circulation, exchange with an adjacent
                   sound   and    river    flow,    and   empirically     derived growth
                   relationships    to    predict     phytopliankton-zooplankton-nutrient
                   dynamics in the estuary.

                        Kremer and Nixon (1978) used temperature as the variable
                   controlling the absolute maximum growth rate of phytoplankton
                   (Eppley, 1972). Nutrient limitation of phytoplankton growth was
                   calculated from the concentrations of phosphate, silicate and
                   inorganic nitrogen relative to the half-saturation coefficient
                   for these nutrients. The third factor affecting growth was
                   light. Annual changes in intensity and day length, cloudiness
                   and water transparency were incorporated. Computations linked
                   the phytoplankton growth model to the physical forcing functions
                   in   the estuary. These factors and their relationships to
                   phytoplankton productivity are not fundamentally different from
                   those of North Carolina estuaries, and a similar model would
                   likely be satisfactory.

                                                     250

                   The zooplankton community of North Carolina estuaries may
             be simulated by the zooplankton model of Kremer and Nixon
             (1978).    This model includes such controlling variables as
             temperature, food availability, filtering rate, reproduction,
             respiration, egestion, predation and cannibalism in order to
             compute    the productivities of several kinds of planktonic
             animals.

                   The  roles of the benthos in the Narragansett Bay model were
             two: 1)    phytoplankton grazing (filtration by bivalves) and 2)
             nutrient   regeneration. Few data were available on the dynamics
             of estuarine benthic communities and, as a result, a program to
             measure feeding, respiration and nutrient regeneration rates in
             situ was initiated. For purposes of the model, a daily clearing
             rate for the bivalve population was determined from pumping rate
             and duration projections as a function of temperature. Nutrient
             regeneration     with    temperature was based on in situ flux
             measurements made in the bay (Kremer and Nixon, 1978).

                   The effects of adult fish and higher trophic levels were
             not included in the model of Narragansett Bay because the
             authors    believed     it   unlikely that this predation exerts
             significant influences on the planktonic system and because
             omitting this level simplified model development.

                   The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Edinger and Buchak, 1981;
             Buchak    and Edinger, 1982) has developed a two-dimensional
             numerical estuarine model laterally averaged in space. The model
             currently includes circulation, salinity and temperature. Water
             quality constituents such as dissolved oxygen and nitrogen will
             eventually be included. Water quality models will then be linked
             to a vertically averaged model. The Corps plans to develop a
             three-dimensional estuarine model within the next several years.
             The objective of the entire study is to develop methods for
             evaluating the impact of changes in circulation on the water
             quality of estuarine systems.

             7.1.2.4 Data Sources

                   The   type    of data currently available and needed in
             developing     a simulation model is reviewed below. Although
             extensive data exist, the data base is currently insufficient to
             address many of the problems discussed in section 7.1.1. For
             example,    the current question on the distribution of the
             vertical salinity profile during freshwater pulsing and the
             possibility of stratification cannot be answered with biweekly
             data at one location in the absence of runoff data or pre-event
             conditions. The system is too complex to be described by spatial
             or temporal averages.

                                                251

                  7.1.2.4 .1 Hydrodynamic/Water Quality Datta

                       Baseline data needed for the development of a hydrodynamic
                  model include a bathymetric survey, current measurements, tidal
                  elevation changes and wind speed and direction. Because of the
                  time dependent nature of the model, values of all the parameters
                  are required at some initial time (to be used as initial
                  conditions). At designated boundaries, time varying values of
                  the parameters are required (to be Used as boundary conditions).
                  For initial model development, the data could be compiled from
                  existing   sources (i.e., from the bulk of literature that
                  describes   previous    estuarine   studies in North Carolina).
                  However? for model refinement and verification, additional field
                  data would be required. The specific form of the data needed can
                  best be described as the model is developed and simulation
                  requirements are defined.

                       Some of the water quality data needed may be available from
                  DEM, which conducts two water quality monitoring programs. In
                  the   Ambient   Water Monitoring Program 300 sites statewide
                  (approximately 25 in the study area) are monitored monthly for
                  temperature,   dissolved    oxygen,   PH,    alkalinity,     specific
                  conductance, biological oxygen demand (BOD5) and fecal coliform
                  and quarterly for turbidity, chemical oxygen demand (COD),
                  arsenic, mercury and general metals. The Basic Water monitoring
                  Program samples monthly for temperature, DO, pH, alkalinity,
                  conductivity, secchi disc, salinity, turbidity, BOD5, COD, fecal
                  coliform, total nitrogen, NO       and NO 3" total Kjeldahl
                  nitrogen,   PO    and total p9osphorus and quarterly for
                  cadmium, totaf chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium,
                  mercury, zinc and arsenic at 37 sites,.including one each in
                  Albemarle Sound and Pamlico Sound (DEM, undated).

                  7.1.2.4.2 Biological Data

                       Sampling for phytoplankton biomass and species composition
                  in the study area is conducted by the'Biological Monitoring
                  Group of the Water Quality Section of DEM.'Sampling stations are
                  located in the Chowan, Alligator, Pungo and Pamlico Rivers and
                  Albemarle Sound. Sampling schedules vary, but nutrient data and
                  chlorophyll-a measurements are taken whenever phytoplankton is
                  sampled.
                       Very   little is known about zooplankton in estuaries.
                  However, sampling for zooplankton is currently underway in the
                  Neuse River Estuary.

                                                  252

                  The state Division of marine Fisheries (DMF) has been
             conducting a monthly survey of fish (March through November) in
             nursery areas since 1974. Data on temperature, salinity (surface
             and bottom) and juvenile catch data are taken. Depth, sediment
             type, % carbon, nitrogen, and organic matter in the sediment and
             sediment size have also been recorded for each station. These
             primary nursery area stations are not located in the same places
             as DEM's sampling stations, however, the two agencies are
             considering joint sampling efforts for the future.

                  As part of an effort to evaluate and update its programs
             for coastal water quality DEM has been compiling scientific
             information on water quality impacts on key species in estuarine
             nursery areas. In addition to reviewing published reports, DEM
             is also conducting an analysis of five years of catch data
             collected in primary nursery areas by DMF. The analysis of the
             DMF catch data focuses on brown, white and pink shrimp; blue
             crab;    croaker;    menhaden; southern flounder and spot. The
             relationship between juvenile catch and bottom salinity is the
             analysis of     primary interest, however, several other factors
             including     water    temperature     and   some    bottom     sediment
             characteristics are also being examined. The literature review
             and data analysis may enable DEM to specify a salinity threshold
             above and below which a particular species is not likely to
             occur. The information will be integrated to develop possible
             water quality criteria for primary nursery areas and water
             quality regulations may be proposed.

             7.1.3 Recommended Approach

             7.1.3.1 General Approach

                  A substantial body of research, conducted over the past 10
             to 15 years, has improved our understanding of the behavior of
             estuarine systems and the land-based activities that affect
             these systems, yet a sufficient informational framework for
             decision making remains elusive. It can be concluded, however,
             that 1) estuarine systems and their relationships to land
             influences are extremely complex, 2) site specific research must
             be undertaken to determine which factors are most important in a
             particular environment, 3) data and information on components of
             the system must fit into an overall system framework, and 4) the
             requisite effort will require large expenditures of resources
             over a long period of time (at least a decade). At least three
             approaches to the problem are possible.

                  The first assumes that we now have an understanding of the
             system sufficient to support development of a comprehensive,
             large-scale simulation. Proponents of this approach argue that
             some parts of the system may be poorly understood, but that
             sensitivity analyses can be used to identify the most important

                                               253

                  sources of uncertainty, which can then be addressed by future
                  research.

                  The second approach presupposes that. sufficient information :is
                  available to begin developing parts of the overall system, but
                  that data and information gaps will preclude completion.. under
                  this approach, model-building would proceed on parts of the
                  system   until stopped by data and information limitations.
                  .Research efforts would then be initiated to correct these
                  deficiencies, while the modeling effort shifted to another
                  sector. The     "model" would thus serve to identify data (    'laps as
                  well as to integrate available data and information into the
                  whole.

                  The   third approach is based on the belief that existing
                  knowledge is so deficient that research efforts must be 'Limited
                  to studies of small areas of the system. Under this approach
                  individual research projects would continue to be supported, but
                  no effort to integrate results into a larger concept would be
                  attempted until a later date.

                  The research team favors the         second alternative. It permits
                  individual research efforts to       continue, 'funded from a variety
                  of   sources,    yet    encourages    efforts toward beginning to
                  understand the larger system.        If the state should pursue this
                  alternative, the team recommends     limiting the initial geographic
                  extent and the number of water quality parameters and biological
                  components of the modeling effort and maximizing the amount of
                  field calibration and validation. As experience and expertise
                  increase, the effort may be expanded in scope and complexity.
                  Regardless of the approach adopted, the data and information
                  required can be organized into three subsystems:           1) the land
                  use-hydrologic subsystem that generates inputs into the estuary
                  (from the Upland Water Management simulation, section 7.3); 2)
                  an estuarine physical-chemical System; and 3) an estuarine
                  biological system.

                  7.1.3.2 Physical-Chemical Aspects

                       The    hydrodynamic    component    derive*s   from    the three
                  dimensional equations of motion which describe the conservation
                  of fluid mass and momentum. Variables in the equations are the
                  three components of velocity, pressure and water elevation.
                  These equations fully depict the hydrodynamics of the system.
                  Forcing    functions are provided by specifying boundary and
                  initial conditions. Factors such as winds, tides, currents
                  bottom topography and bottom materials are included in initial
                  and/or boundary conditions. Therefore, the basis for the model
                  is somewhat independent of the simulation criteria. However, the
                  mathematical model and the numerical technique chosen to solve
                  these equations will depend in part on the form of the input

                                                     254

            provided by the Upland Water Management model (section 7.3) and
            the    output   required by the biological component (section
            7.1.3.3). These interfaces must be compatible. For example, if
            spatial resolution in the vertical dimension is necessary, a
            depth-averaged form of the equations above and a boundary
            integral ma-thod of solution would be inappropriate.

                  The water quality component should be developed for the
            specific    parameters    under   consideration     (i.e., salinity,
            nitrogen,    phosphorus,    suspended solids). For example, the
            balance equations could be written in three dimensions for
            salinity distribution and solved for each time step. The water
            quality    component    would   interface    with the hydrodynamic
            component by using the solutions from the hydrodynamic component
            as input to the water quality component. The temporal and
            spatial resolution provided will be determined in part from the
            requirements of the biological model and these requirements, in
            turn, might influence the development of both the hydrodynamic
            model and the numerical solution technique chosen.

                  Parameters to be considered include:

              1. Physical characteristics of receiving waters
                 a. Surface flow rates, volumes, vertical and stratification
                    characteristics of receiving estuaries.
                 b. Turbidity, light penetration characteristics.
                 c. Yearly temperature fluctuations of entire water column.

              2. Chemical characteristics of receiving waters
                 a. Seasonal and spatial (vertical) distribution of salinity,
                    major nutrients (including NH   4, N031 P04)1 pH
                 in riverine
                    and receiving estuarine habitats.
                 b. Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl) and total phosphorus
                    determinations on seasonal and spatial bases.
                 c. Alkalinity (dissolved inorganic carbon) on a seasonal
                    basis in rivers and oligohaline estuarine habitats.

            7.1.3.3 Biological Aspects of an Estuarine Model

                 The estuarine biological model component relates simulated
            physical-chemical    conditions    to phytoplankton, zooplankton,
            benthos and higher consumers. It may be based on environmental
            limiting    factors affecting indicator organisms or nutrient
            cycling, food chains and energy flow, or more complicated
            relationships,    and   may    consider    short-term or long-term
            conditions.    The   estuarine    biological model is the least
            understood component of the overall modeling efffort and will
            require a considerable investment before meaningful results can
            be expected.

                                             255

                       Parameters to be considered include:

                    1. Physical characteristics of receiving waters
                      a. Surface flow rates, volumes, vertical and stratification
                         characteristics of receiving estuaries.
                      b. Turbidity, light penetration characteristics.
                      c. Yearly temperature fluctuations of entire water column.

                    2. Chemical characteristics of receiving waters
                      a. Seasonal and spatial (vertical) distribution of salinity,
                         major nutrients (including NH  4, NOV P04)1   pH
                      in riverine
                         and receiving estuarine habitats.
                      b. Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl) and total phosphorus
                         determinations on seasonal and spatial bases.
                      c. Alkalinity (dissolved inorganic carbon) on a seasonal
                         basis in rivers and oligohaline estuarine habitats.

                  7.1.3.3 Biological Aspects of an Estuarine Model

                       The estuarine biological model component relates simulated
                  physical-chemical    conditions   to phytoplankton, zooplankton,
                  benthos and higher consumers. It may be based on environmental
                  limiting   factors affecting indicator organisms or nutrient
                  cycling,. food chains and energy flow, or more complicated
                  relationships,    and   may   consider    short-term or long-term
                  conditions.   The    estuarine   biological model is the least
                  understood component of the overall modeling efffort and.will
                  require a considerable investment before meaningful results can
                  be expected.

                       Parameters to be considered include:

                    1. Biological characteristics of receiving waters
                      a. Particulate chlorophyll-a concentrations on a seasonal
                         and spatial (vertical distribution) basis in riverine
                         and estuarine habitats.
                      b. Algal community composition (as major groups -
                         Cyanophyceae, Chlorophyceae, Dinophydeae, etc.) on a
                         seasonal and spatial basis.
                      c. Zooplankton community composition and biomass (again
                         as major groups of cladocerans, copepods, insect larvae,
                         rotifers, microzooplankton and icthyoplankton) on a
                         seasonal basis, using integrated (over depth) water
                         column samples in major rivers and estuarine
                         environments.

                    2. Biophysical processes
                      a. Seasonal growth limitation effects of nutrients on
                         phytoplankton.

                                                  256

                b.  Seasonal primary productivity at selected water column
                    locations, as indicative of actual growth potentials of
                    phytoplankton under natural (ambient) conditions.
                c.  Relationships between salinity, water flow, water column
                    stratification and the potential for algal growth
                    (blooms) (seasonal).
                d.  Relationships between salinity, water flow and dissolved
                    oxygen in the water column (seasonal)
                e.  Nutrient exchange between the sedimen@s and water column
                    on a seasonal basis. Relationship of nutrient inputs
                    and outputs to overall nutrient availability for
                    phytoplankton growth.
                f.  Current food chains utilizing particulate matter
                    generated in and entering the estuary, including major
                    rates of food utilization, preferred food types and
                    preferred herbivorous grazers sustaining commercially
                    and recreationally important finfish and shellfish
                    species. Current rates of food transfer (fluxes)
                    along identifiable links in the estuarine food chain.
                    (The choices of desirable phytoplankton food sources
                    and herbivore grazers depends on the desired finfish
                    or shellfish resources.)
                g.  Interactions of estuarine salinity gradients with
                    qualitative and quantitative aspects of primary and
                    secondary productivity.
                h.  Hydrological and nutrient loading "mass balance"
                    budgets to predict the impacts of altered freshwater
                    nutrient loading on quantitative and qualitative
                    characteristics of estuarine primary productivitiy.
                    In other words, the relationship of nutrient loading
                    to both the amounts and types of algal production
                    desired.

            7.1.3.4 Application

                 An estuarine model could be used as a means of
            understanding the system and identifying significant data gaps.
            In addition, such a model would allow decision makers to assess
            the impacts of existing and proposed coastal land use on the
            state's estuarine resources.

            7.1.3.4.1 Regulatory Implications

                 An estuarine model could also be used as the basis for
            setting effluent limitations to meet water quality standards for
            primary nursery areas, should such standards be established by
            the Environmental Management Commission.

                                           257

                  7.1.3.4.2 Legal Aspects of the Control of Freshwater Drainage
                            into Primary Nursery Areas

                       The assumption has been made here that a major portion of
                  the fresh water drained from the mining activities will enter
                  "Waters of the United States" (rivers, sounds, estuaries) via
                  either man-made or improved canals and ditches.

                       The discharge of fresh water into the brackish waters of
                  the primary nursery areas probably cannot be controlled through
                  the NPDES permit process in the same direct way that BOD or TSS,
                  for example, are controlled. This is because fresh water is not
                  included in the definition of "pollutant" in 33 U.S.C. section
                  1362(6) (Clean Water Act), and the primary basis for control
                  under an NPDES permit is to limit the discharge of "Pollutants,"
                  as defined. Nor do any of the effluent limitations promulgated
                  by EPA for various categories of point sources include fresh
                  water among the standards.

                       In order for the NPDES permit system to be used to control
                  fresh water discharges, the Environmental Management Commission
                  must   create   a classification for the nursery areas with
                  accompanying water quality standards that specify a required
                  range of salinity. The statutory basis for classifying waters of
                  the state and applying standards to the classifications is G.S.
                  143-214.1. Of special interest for present purposes are G.S.
                  143-214.1(d) (3), which requires the Environmental Management
                  Commission to consider the extent to which the waters are being
                  used for "fish and wildlife and their culture," and G.S.
                  143-214.1(d)(4), which requires the Commission, in adopting new
                  classifications or standards, to consider the use and value of
                  the   waters   for the "propagation of fish and wildlife."
                  Statutory definitions that support a classification of the
                  nursery areas are -G.S. 143-213(20), which includes swamps,
                  sounds, tidal estuaries and bays within the definition of
                  "waters", and G.S. 143-213(19), which defines "water pollution"
                  broadly as being the "man-made or man-induced alteration of the
                  chemical, physical, biological, or radiological integrity of the
                  waters of the State, including, but specifically not limited to,
                  alterations resulting from the concentration or increase of
                  natural pollutants caused by man-related activities."

                       once the classification and standards have been adopted,
                  the standard must be submitted to EPA for approval pursuant to
                  33 U.S.C. section 1313(c). Once EPA has approved the standards,
                  then any NPDES permit issued that would affect the classified
                  waters -- whether issued by EPA or the state -- must, pursuant
                  to 40 C.F.R. section 122.44(d)(1), contain conditions that are
                  designed to protect those standards.

                                                  258

                  A  second possible approach, independent of the NPDES
             permit, but still relying on a classification and standards,
             would be to require a state permit for the discharge pursuant to
             G.S. 143-215.1(a)(6). In this regard, the definition of "waste"
             in G.S. 143-213(18)b appears to be comprehensive enough to
             include fresh water drained from mining activities; the water in
             this case is a "waste substance       ...  resulting from ... the
             development of any natural resource."

                  A -third    possible   approach, which could be used in
             conjunction with the adoption of a classification and standards
             or without the adoption of a classification, would be to require
             a permit for the discharge of fresh water into the nursery areas
             pursuant to G.S. 143-215.1(a)(10). This provision was adopted to
             enable the state to assume authority over the discharge of
             pollutants into aquac*ulture projects pursQant to 33 U.S.C.
             section 1328(c). The language of G.S. 143-215.1(a)(10), however,
             appears to be broader than necessary to implement the federal
             statutory requirement. The state statute is phrased in terms of
             a broad prohibition against the discharge of pollutants into one
             of the described areas, whereas the federal statute gives
             authority to EPA to allow the discharge of specific pollutants
             into aquaculture projects under certain conditions. The breadth
             of language in the state statute may allow it to be used in this
             situation, but before it may be used the state must show that
             the primary nursery areas that are of concern are "defined
             .managed area(s) of the State's waters for the maintenance or
             production   of harvestable freshwater, estuarine, or marine
             plants or animals."

                  A fourth possibility, once a classification and standards
             have been adopted, would be to condition the mining permit on
             the taking of actions necessary to protect the salinity or other
             water quality standards for the nursery areas. This may be done
             pursuant to G.S. 74-51(3), which provides that the permit may be
             denied if the activity would violate surface water quality
             standards, and G.S. 74-49(13), which requires the reclamation
             plan to include a plan for compliance with state water pollution
             laws.

                  A   fifth possibility would be a special order issued
             pursuant to G.S. 113-230 to control activities in coastal
             wetlands for the protection of marine fisheries. The use of this
             approach would require the Secretary of Natural Resources and
             Community Developmet to make use of the expanded.definition of
             "coastal wetlands" allowed by G.S. 113-230(a) to include not
             only "marshes," as defined in G.S. 113-229(n)(3), but also "such
             contiguous land as the Secretary reasonably deems necessary to
             affect by any such order in carrying out the purposes of this
             section."

                                            259

                  7.2 Wildlife

                  7.2.1 Statement of the Problem

                        Natural   resource    development on the Albemarle-Pamlico
                  Peninsula inevitably involves conversion of one habitat-land use
                  type    to   another and concommitant faunal changes. In the
                  scenarios evaluated, the most significant conversions were from
                  pocosin vegetation to mining to agriculture, and the most
                  significant adverse wildlife impacts were upon black bear and
                  bobcat.    The   bear, in particular, is intolerant of human
                  disturbance and requires large areas of suitable habitat. The
                  coastal plain population is under considerable stress. Under the
                  most extreme conditions evaluated (Scenario #2, Area 1) (see
                  section 6.1.4.3.2), bear habitat quality in the impacted area
                  would be reduced by 40%; under the most favorable conditions
                  (Scenario #3, Area 2) (see section 6.1.4.3.3), habitat quality
                  would be reduced by 28%. Bobcat habitat quality, under the same
                  circumstances, would be reduced by 30% and 19%.

                        The validity of these conclusions rests on two unproven
                  assumptions. First, habitat quality indices used in modeling
                  impacts were derived from a consensus of wildlife biologists
                  familiar    with the area and were intended to measure the
                  "goodness" of each habitat-land use type from the standpoint of
                  each species considered. No field data were used in developing
                  these models, nor was there any attempt to validate the results.
                  Secondly, indices applied to post-project conditions assumed
                  certain degrees of effectiveness for buffer strips and other
                  mitigation measures, none of which has been field tested.
                        Thus, the results represent state-of-the-art efforts within
                  the time and funding constraints imposed by the project, but
                  their reliability is yet to be tested.

                  7.2.2.Data and Information Available

                  7.2.2.1 Habitat Quality Modeling
                        The procedure dsed in predicting wildlife       habitat impacts
                  was developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife           Service, and is
                  termed    Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP)        (U.S. Fish and
                  Wildlife Service, 1980). It consists of 1) inventorying the land
                  use-habitat types on the study area, 2) selecting evaluation
                  species, 3) determining a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) for
                  each habitat type for each species, 4) estimating the rate of
                  change from one type to another, 5) accruing habitat quality
                  units    for   each species over the project period, and 6)
                  evaluating results in terms of impacts on individual evaluation
                  species and on "wildlife" as a whole as represented by the sum
                  of indicator species (or guilds). Models for numerous species
                  have been developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

                                                    260

                  HEP   are    usually    used in the form described above,
             emphasizing    temporal   changes     at   the expense of spatial
             considerations. Another approach, developed at N. C. State
             University (Adams et al., 1982b), applies HEP principles in a
             spatial context, but is unable to efficiently consider changes
             in   continuous    time    (although   before-    and after-project
             conditions can be evaluated). No means for considering both
             spatial and temporal aspects of habitat conversion currenty
             exist, although both are important in evaluating impacts on
             wildlife.

                  In a temporal context, HEP have been used in North Carolina
             to evaluate effects of the Falls         Reservoir (Hair, 1978) and
             Prulean Farms' Section 404 permit        application (Noffsinger et
             al., 1983). In a spatial context,        they have been employed to
             assess proposals to introduce salt       water into Currituck Sound
             (Adams and Overton, 1983) and to         assess efforts to improve
             circulation in the White Oak River Estuary (Adams et al.,
             1982a). In these examples, no effort was made to validate
             results beyond findings of "reasonableness" and acceptance by
             peers.

                  The concept of validation is itself hazy, and more efforts
             toward validation by field data are needed. Although HSIs are
             alleged to measure "suitability" or "quality", these terms are
             difficult to define and more difficult to measure. Lancia et al.
             (1982) attempted to validate a bobcat model (with reasonably
             good results) and various songbird models (with mixed results).
             Other researchers (Whelan et al., 1979) had similar experiences.
             Common, specialized species with small home ranges are more
             easily modeled; rare, generalized, and far ranging species are
             more difficult. Frequency and intensity of use appear to be
             better validation criteria than population density. Limiting
             factors other than habitat quality (e.g. predation, social
             interactions, accessibility, demographic and behavioral factors)
             frequently confound field validation attempts.
                  Despite these weaknesses, the HEP approach appears to
             possess the potential     for evolving into a useful and credible
             tool for assessing land conversion impacts.           At the present
             time, it has no competition. Efforts must therefore be expended
             toward improving this system as it may be applied to land
             conversions on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula.

             7.2.2.2 mitigation

                 During- and post-project HSIs used in this study considered
             mitigation efforts currently included in mining permits and
             those proposed in draft form (as of March, 1984) within the
             North   Carolina   Wildlife    Resources Commission. The latter
             describes a Regional Peat Mining Reclamation Plan containing

                                             261

                   "interconnecting wildlife habitat corridors" linking state and
                   federal land and proposed Natural Areas, "buffer strips" along
                   natural water bodies, and "buffer strips and filter strips" as
                   part   of    individual    mine    site    reclamation plans. While
                   specifications      (length,     width,     separation,     vegetation,
                   management) are suggested in the draft and must be part of any
                   implementing documents, no data exist by which one could assess
                   animals' reactions to these mitigative efforts or evaluate
                   trade-offs between dedication of land to wildlife mitigation and
                   other more economically rewarding uses.

                        A second approach to mitigation emphasizes modifications of
                   customary land management practices to lessen adverse impacts
                   upon wildlife without changing basic land use patterns. Somewhat
                   analogous to Best Management Practices (BMPs) developed in
                   response to Section 208 of PL 92-500, these measures could
                   include minimum ditch and canal bank disturbance (reducing
                   erosion   and sedimentation and destruction of muskrat food
                   plants), minimal channel maintenance (lessening impact upon fish
                   and other aquatic       biota), encouraging woody vegetation along
                   canal banks (reducing erosion, shading out aquatic weeds),
                   minimum tillage (leaving unharvested grain exposed over the
                   winter, reducing erosion), and many others. The efficacy of this
                   approach,    in   contrast    to    mitigaton based more on land
                   dedication, is untested.

                        In reality, a combination of habitat preservation,       BMPs and
                   monitoring efforts may be the most likely approach.

                   7.2.3 Recommended Approach

                   7.2.3.1 Habitat Quality modeling

                        Two efforts are required. The first would validate HSIs for
                   selected species (particularly black bear and bobcat) using
                   field data from the study area. The second would link spatial
                   and temporal aspects of the modeling concept in a form usable
                   for "real-time" decision making.

                        While the procedure for field validation and improvement of
                   models is relatively straightforward, many more validations need
                   to be completed to document and/or improve the accuracy of the
                   HSIs. Wide ranging and rare species have been particularly
                   evasive, and require extensive study areas and considerable time.
                   and expense. In this instance, the validation project should:

                     1. Consider black bear and bobcat.

                     2. Develop species-babitat models incorporating spatial con-
                        siderations, based on literature and consensus of area
                        biologists.

                                                     262

               3. Predict habitat quality for each species over a large
                  study area (several thousand acres) on the peninsula.

               4. Correlate habitat quality, as determined by the models,
                  with animal presence, use intensity, use frequency, or
                  other validator.

               5. Revise original models to improve correlations.

               6. Test revised models in another, similar, area.

                  Techniques and procedures are reasonably well known,and
             proven; fiscal, personnel, and materiel recluirements should be
             readily estimated; and definitive results shoqld be attained.

                  The   second    element, linkage of spatial and temporal
             considerations, is much less certain. Conceptually, one should
             be able to iterate a spatial model through time, apply it to a
             computer-generated habitat map of the study area, inject types
             and   locations    of   management    decisions, and perform all
             operations on an   easily accessible micro-computer. Such a system
             would permit a     land manager to evaluate alternative land use
             decisions prior    to execution, assessing their wildlife impact
             before commitments were made on the ground.

                  In approaching this element, the following steps would be
             taken:

               1. Enter a land inventory into a computer and obtain graphic
                  output on the monitor.

               2. Load a program containing species-habitat models for
                  species of interest.

               3. Indicate a decision (time,space) to modify part of the
                  study area.

               4. Obtain a computer-generated map of the revised land use
                  distribution.

               5. Obtain an analysis of the impact of the decision upon
                  species of interest.

               6. Advance time by any desired increment, and repeat the
                  procedure.

               7. Continue the process through a reasonable time span,
                  and obtain an analysis of accrued impacts.

                                             263

                    8. Repeat the process until the implications
                        of the decisions are known and the results
                        satisfactory.

                        Development of this procedure will require a considerable,
                  but difficult to quantify, investment. One is never sure of the
                  cost   of developing a computer program until it has been
                  developed. Nevertheless, the evolution of decision oriented
                  models for wildlife habitat impact assessment is moving in this
                  direction, and the process will not be complete until spatial
                  and temporal considerations can be evaluated in real time.

                  7.2.3.2 Mitigation

                        Two   approaches may be employed. The first would use
                  observations of existing situations, similar but not necessarily
                  identical to recommended mitigation, as indications of results
                  to be expected. The second would employ a designed array of
                  potential mitigation measures.

                        Distributed throughout the peninsula are numerous examples
                  of potential mitigation measures, created over time through
                  random and/or fortuitous land use decisions. Buffer strips of
                  various dimensions and character do exist along some fields;
                  relict stands of natural vegetation, of varying area, have
                  survived agricultural development here and there; linkages and
                  corridors among escape cover and refuges can be found; and
                  examples    of   diverse agricultural practices impacting upon
                  wildlife species occur. observations of wildlife use (hence
                  habitat "goodness") under these varying conditions could provide
                  quidance, with no development cost in time or money, for those
                  stipulating mitigation as part of permit conditions. Under this
                  approach, the following steps would be taken:

                    1.  Determine the array (dimensions, age, vegetation,
                        management practices, etc.) of potential mitigation
                        measures of interest.

                    2.  Select a preliminary set of examples through analysis
                        of historic aerial photos.

                    3.  Confirm suitability through ground surveys.

                    4.  Determine abundance and use intensity by species of
                        interest in each site.

                    5.  Relate use intensity to site characteristics; opti-
                        mize for species of concern.

                    6.  Use results as bases for specifying permit conditions.

                                                   264

                7. Monitor results and adjust specifications accordingly.

                   This approach could be implemented immediately, before
             permits are issued, at no development cost. Results could be
             available within a short time, probably before significant
             mining development occurs, and in time to amend outstanding
             permits with minimal trauma-. There would be no opportunity to
             design    a   well-balanced, precise experiment, however. Some
             conditions would be under-represented or missing, while others
             would    be   over-represented.     Replications    and experimental
             intervals between examples would thus be unequal and erratic,
             and statistical analyses may be more complicated and less
             powerful than in the following alternative.
                   Conditions attached to mining permits provide a vehicle
             for: 1) designing an experiment in alternative mitigation and
             implementing it as part of the mining-reclamation operation, or
             2) entering into a cooperative agreement with a permittee under
             which a long-term mitigation program could be conducted and
             evaluated. Under this approach, the following steps would be
             taken:

                1. Design a balanced array of mitigation alternatives,
                   including land dedication and management practices,
                   that would provide a spectrum of conditions signif-
                   icant to the species concerned (particularly bear
                   and bobcat).
                2. Include specifications for the array as part of permit
                   conditions or under a cooperative agreement with a
                   permittee.

                3. Implement the mitigation plan.
                4. Evaluate resulting conditions in terms of animal use or
                   other validator.

                5. Determine the optimum mitigation plan, based on results
                   from above.

                6. Amend existing permits, condition future permits,
                   accordingly.

                   This approach has the advantage of better experimental
             design and simpler and more powerful statistical analysis. It
             incurs significant development costs, in both time and money,
             however.

                                              265

                 7.2.3.3 Application

                       The recommendations outlined above will. provide a firm
                 factual basis for addressing the most critical. wildlife habit-at
                 problems    associated   with   peat mining or other land use
                 conversions on the peninsula. Results can be implemented through
                 permit conditions (mining; Section 10, Section 404; CAMA; etc.),
                 BMPs and general educational programs.

                                                  266

              7.3 Upland Water Management

              7.3.1 Hydrology of Existing Natural Conditions

              7.3.1.1 Statement of the Problem

                    Large sections of the areas potentially available for peat
              mining on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula are covered in natural
              pocosin vegetation (see Appendix 10.1). The rate and variability
              of the runoff from these areas are not well known, either from
              ditched (1.5 mi. blocks) or unditched areas. A specific problem
              is the lack of detailed understanding of the magnitude and
              behavior of bank storage flow, the release of water from the
              banks immediately adjacent to a canal or ditch following an
              infiltration event. Potential runoff from agricultural land can
              be    estimated, but a better understanding of the existing
              conditions      is   needed     for    accurate     assessment     of     the
              environmental impacts of mining or otherwise altering natural
              pocosin areas.

              7.3.1.2 Data and Information Available

                    Pocosin areas are characterized by a 'thick porous mat of
              roots and decaying vegetation overlying the peat. This mat
              restricts evaporation from the peat and is also responsible for
              rapid interflow of rainfall. Because of the large pores in the
              mat, it is rarely saturated. During rainfall it absorbs water
              rapidly. This water then infiltrates the underlying peat at a
              much slower rate or, if the peat is saturated to the surface,
              flows through the porous mat, fairly rapidly, to the nearest
              available      outlet.      Badr      (1978)     determined        hydraulic
              conductivities of this layer at about 26         ft/hr or higher. Runoff
              da  a exist from a previous study of a ditched pocosin area (1/2
              mi    block) (Skaggs et al., 1980). Water table depths at the
              center of the same block are also available for about three
              years.

                    Another distinctive feature of the pocosin areas is the
              magnitude of the effect of the bank storage. Any water that may
              be released into a ditch or canal from the adjacent banks will
              tend to be a fairly significant percentage of the total water
              lost from a field by subsurface flow following a rainfall event.
              This    is    because     of the very low hydraulic conductivity
              (approximately 0.008 in/hr) of the peat which, in general, keeps
              the subsurface drainage very low but also allows the bank
              storage zone to "fill up" more than would occur in a mineral
              soil. This is also complicated by flow through the porous mat
              which tends to "extend the bank storage effects" farther back
              from the ditches than would normally be expected.

                                                  267

                  7.3.1.3 Recommended Approach

                       Various modeling techniques need to be investigated in
                  relation to this problem, which previously has been looked at on
                  a per unit area basis. Water balances at a point have been
                  performed by Purisinsit (1982) using the DRAINMOD computer
                  model. Solutions to the water balance and water flow equations
                  need to be found over an area. A two-dimensional, finite element
                  solution technique would achieve this. The hydrology of the root
                  mat should be examined closely. A technique for routing flow
                  through the root mat and over the ground surface would be
                  desirable. Also, improved, simpler methods of routing flows
                  through the canal systems to the outlets need to be developed
                  for determining the impact of field scale changes on runoff
                  reaching estuaries.

                       In addition to the modeling approach, a number of field
                  experiments are required to improve data for the models as well
                  as   to   gather    information    to improve our knowledge and
                  understanding of the hydrologic processes in these areas: 1) the
                  characteristics of the root mat need to be analyzed; 2) improved
                  descriptions of the root mat's depth, conductivity and effect on
                  infiltration    to   the    peat   layer underneath are required
                  (infiltrometer    experiments    are   suggested, with the rings
                  extending to the peat layer beneath the root mat); 3) average
                  rooting    depths of the vegetation should be determined as
                  valuable inputs to the modeling effort; and 4) additional
                  measurements from large unditched natural areas are also needed.

                  7.3.2 Nutrient Transformation in Canal and River Networks

                  7.3.2.1 Statement of the Problem

                       Good data exist on the nutrient and sediment losses from a
                  mined or agricultural area at the field edge (Skaggs et al.,
                  1980). However, it is necessary to know what transformations
                  take   place    within canal or river networks draining into
                  estuaries. This would enable more accurate predictions to be
                  made of the effects of field level operations on the ultimate
                  receiving waters.

                  7.3.2.2 Data and Information Available!

                       Some data have been collected by Gregory et al. (1984) and
                  PMA (1982c, 1983f).

                                                   268

              7.3.2.3 Recommended Approach

                   A monitoring network along several existing canals being
              fed from a number of different land use types would be required.
              Continuous sampling for nutrients, sediment and possibly metals,
              herbicides and pesticides following rainfall events of varying
              magnitudes as well as under base flow conditions, would help
              answer   many    of   these questions. This question is being
              investigated to a limited extent by Gilliam et al. (1983).

                   Data obtained in these studies would provide input to the
              hydrodynamic/water quality component of the estuarine model
              discussed in section 7.1.

              7.3.3 Improved Field Data and Modeling for Actively Mined Areas

              7.3.3.1 Statement of the Problem

                   Development of better field runoff measuring techniques is
              needed. Existing flow measuring techniques (weirs with stage
              level   recorders)    are    prone to problems (e.g., clogging,
              submergence). The need for improved field data for both model
              input and model testing is particularly great for the actively
              mined and pocosin areas. The present modeling work for these
              habitat-land use types is based on many assumptions which should
              be verified or updated.

              7.3.3.2 Data and Information Available

                   Flows from areas under active mining appear to be much
              higher than flows from unmined fields. The primary reasons are:
              1)   increased compaction from heavy machinery; 2) improved
              surface drainage from land forming and extra ditches; 3) the
              removal   of vegetation, reducing transpiration; and 4) the
              harvesting of the dry surface layer which 'otherwise functions as
              a "storage reservoir" for subsequent rainfall. Current modeling
              predicts that during mining the average annual flow from a field
              will increase by about 35% over the pre-mining condition. All of
              this increase is in the surface runoff component which is
              predicted to increase by up to 130% over the pre-mining surface
              runoff from disturbed (pasture) lands and by a higher percentage
              from natural pocosin areas.

                   Field data collected by ESE (1983) and Gregory et al.
              (1984) illustrate increases in total volume, flow duration and
              flow peaks from the sites opened for mining over the pre-mining
              sites. However, data from all of the largest storms were lost
              due to weir submergence or clogging with debris or silt.

                                               269

                  7.3.3.3 Recommended Approach

                       One or more actively mined field sites should be monitored
                  to record all of the water leaving them. one possible method
                  would require the use of some form of unrestricted outlet from
                  the site with a control structure through which all water
                  leaving the site would be forced to pass. Another approach would
                  be to isolate and pump all of the water leaving the site. An
                  effective series of debris and sediment traps would be required
                  upstream of the control structure in the canal or field ditch to
                  prevent clogging and erroneous results.

                       A detailed soil property analysis of the surface layer of
                  an actively mined site should be made. Infiltration properties
                  of the peat vary with wetting and drying in a more exaggerated
                  manner than is the case for mineral soils. The hydrologic
                  properties of the layer of peat exposed and allowed to dry
                  change during the drying process. Knowledge of the nature and
                  rate of these changes would greatly assist in modeling efforts.
                  The modeling allows "average" conditions to-be approximated by
                  simulating a situation over many years of climatological data.
                  Thus by comparing the long-term average runoff before, during
                  and after mining, realistic conclusions may be drawn regarding
                  the expected hydrologic effects of peat mining. Single event
                  analysis is more difficult to set tip accurately enough to get
                  reliable results.

                       Data    from   these efforts would provide input to the
                  estuarine model (see section 7.1).

                  7.3.4 Wet Reclamation and Perpetual Pumping

                  7.3.4.1 Statement of the Problem

                       Proposed reclamation plans include or are likely to include
                  lakes for flow regulation or areas of "wet reclamation". Many of
                  these areas will require pumping. Models should be developed
                  that are capable of handling areas with outlets controlled by
                  weir structures or pumps.

                  7.3.4.2 Data and Information Available

                       ESE (1983), using the SWMM III model, incorporated the
                  storage lake proposed by PMA into the system modeled. Both
                  available lake storage and the buffering effect of the lake were
                  considered. The    outlet from the lake was controlled by a weir
                  with a maximum     discharge and a minimum depth below which there
                  was zero flow.     The flood routing model used by Gregory et al.
                  (1984) has the     capability of modeling a controlled outlet
                  situation. This    feature, however, has not been tested on the
                  extremely small slopes existing on the peatlands.

                                                  270

             7.3.4.3 Recommended Approach

                   Modifications to existing models may be used to analyze the
             hydrologic effects of pumped outlets on flow rates from mined or
             reclaimed areas. The modifications would be required in the
             flood routing sections of the models. Inputs to these sections
             would come from estimated water losses from fields either on a
             per unit area basis or on an areawide basis as, for example,
             from a two-dimensional, finite element model of the soil and
             water system.

                   For wet reclamation or lake areas, a short time period
             water balance could be used. If inputs to the lake, outlet
             relationships as a function of lake depth, and the lake area are
             known, a water balance can be determined on, for example, an
             hourly basis. This would give the expected outflow from the lake
             area over time. The variation in flow rates, as well as total
             flows on a monthly or annual basis, could be determined.

                   Again, data from these studies would provide input to an
             estuarine model (see section 7.1), enhancing evaluation of the
             effectiveness of storage lakes in reducing negative estuarine
             impacts of land drainage.

             7.3.5 Wetland Filter Areas for Overland Treatment of Runoff

             7.3.5.1 statement of the Problem

                   The use of wetland buffer areas has been proposed as a
             method    for   the    treatment of agricultural drainage water
             (Governor's Coastal Water Management Task Force, 1982). The
             effectiveness of lagoons and wetland filter areas for removing
             nutrients and sediments and reducing fresh water pulsing from
             reclaimed agricultural areas must be determined.

             7.3.5.2 Data and Information Available

                   Work in other states (Florida, Minnesota, Maryland and
             Massachusetts), primarily on municipal wastewater treatment, is
             not very applicable to North Carolina conditions. Previous
             research projects in North Carolina (Kuenzler et al., 1980;
             Brinson et al., 1981) on nutrient removal and cycling in swamp
             ecosystems were conducted on different soil systems and under
             different    conditions    than   exist on the Albemarle-Pamlico
             Peninsula. A number of farms in eastern North Carolina are using
             forested wetlands as treatment areas for agricultural drainage
             water. This technique is highly recommended, especially for
             areas close to the estuarine receiving waters. Wetland filters
             are also an option for mined areas reclaimed to agriculture. At
             this time, no established criteria exist for determining the
             size of buffer areas, although the Governor's Coastal Water
             Management Task Force (1982) has recommended broad guidelines
             for the use of filter areas for pumped drainage pending the

                                              271

                  development of precise design criteria. Further research is
                  needed on the actual effectiveness of wetland buffers for
                  treatment    of   overland runoff. Gilliam et al. (1983) are
                  currently investigating the hydrologic and nutrient removal
                  characteristics of two wetland buffer areas. These two areas are
                  on soil types and in locations considered typical of peatlands
                  reclaimed to agriculture. Preliminary results from this project
                  are exected in July, 1984.

                  7.3.5.3 Recommended Approach

                        The number of locations investigated in the Gilliam et al.
                  (1983) project should be increased to include a greater variety
                  of soil and vegetation types. This project should be expanded to
                  examine vegetative changes in buffer areas over time and the
                  effectiveness of buffer areas for the treatment of drainage
                  water. The relationships between different management practices
                  in    drainage     areas    (e.g.,   crop    rotations,     fertilizer
                  applications) and the required buffer area specifications should
                  be investigated. Filtration capabilities of wetland buffers for
                  other compounds including pesticides and metals (if used) should
                  also be studied.

                        Ongoing and proposed studies outlined in this section would
                  provide    input   to    an estuarine model (see section 7.1),
                  ultimately enabling resource managers to evaluate the effects on
                  estuaries of the use of wetland buffer areas for filtration of
                  drainage waters.

                  7.3.6 Effects of Peat Mining on Groundwater and Saltwater
                         Intrusion

                  7.3.6.1 Statement of the Problem

                        The   effects of drainage systems, peat harvesting and
                  surface water pumping on the location of the fresh/saltwater
                  interface    in very low lying areas and areas adjacent to
                  estuaries is not well understood. Specifically this issue should
                  be investigated in areas where mining could extend close to or
                  below sea level.
                        If groundwater pumping is to be required for construction
                  dewatering or for plant process water, the effect on the
                  aquifers should be investigated more thoroughly. Particular
                  concerns include effects of groundwater withdrawals on local
                  wells and the potential for saltwater intrusion into aquifers.

                                                    272

              7.3.6.2 Data and Information Available

                   Theoretically, for every foot of fresh water above sea
              level, 40 feet of fresh water is stored below sea level (if
              steady state conditions are attained). Therefore, any action
              that results in lowering the fresh water table by even a small
              amount could be amplified by a factor as high as 40 in its
              effect on the groundwater storage. However, the fresh/saltwater
              interface is not distinct on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula.
              The estuarine water varies in salinity up to almost fresh in the
              river mouths (Alligator, Pungo). In addition, the different
              hydraulic conductivities of the various geologic layers tend to
              obscure the exact location of the interface.
                   The peninsula is not considered an area of significant
              groundwater    recharge,    based on work by Foutz (1983). He
              determined the recharge rate to be less than 0.04 in/year. Foutz
              did not, however, consider the lowering of the piezometric head
              in the deep aquifers by operations such as phosphate mining in
              the region. While such operations would clearly increase the
              recharge to the groundwater, the magnitude of the effects would
              probably be small. This could be investigated in the modeling
              approach suggested below.

                   Recent groundwater studies by Heath (1975), LBG (1983) and
              Foutz (1983), as well as ongoing studies by the U.S. Geological
              Survey, have been inconsistent in their estimates of aquifer
              depths and properties, specifically, aquifer transmissivities. A
              number of studies have been performed, including those mentioned
              above, on which improved modeling investigations of the effects
              of peat mining operations on the fresh/saltwater interface could
              be based (Henry, 1964; Collins, 1971; Shamir and Dugan, 1971).

              7.3.6.3 Recommended Approach
                  The    development of a comprehensive three dimensional,
              finite element model     is proposed. All available data from
              pumping   and   drill    logs    should    be accumulated for the
              Albemarle-Pamlico area. Extra drilling should be planned to fill
              in any gaps in the data to adequately describe the geologic
              profile   as well as to resolve any contradictions in the
              available data. The model should be flexible enough to address
              both small areas of development (less than 10,000 acres) and the
              peninsula as a whole.

                  The U.S. Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.), in addition to
              conducting   a   monitoring    program,     is in the process of
              calibrating a groundwater model to known well data on a regional
              scale. There appears to be a good potential for the U.S.G.S.
              work to answer many of the regional groundwater questions raised
              by this project.

                                              273

                   7.4 Hurricane Flooding

                   7.4.1 Statement of the Problem/Data and Information Available

                        The low relief terrain along the North Carolina coast and
                   surrounding the state's major estuaries is subject to periodic
                   inundation by high water associated with onshore wind tides.
                   onshore winds associated with hurricanes can drive massive
                   quantities of saline waters into the estuaries, up coastal
                   rivers and over adjacent low-lying lands. Similar flooding can
                   occur if floodwaters feeding into the estuaries from upstream
                   drainage systems are met by onshore winds and are prevented from
                   draining into the open ocean. The following statements regarding
                   the effects of such flooding are based on Wilder, Robison and
                   Lindskov's 1978 study of the water resources of northeastern
                   North   Carolina    (Wilder et al., 1978), with only minimal
                   modification to include peat mining as a possible land use.

                        The possibility of flooding is an important consideration
                   in planning land use on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula. As the
                   low-lying areas are cleared and drained for agriculture, or if
                   peat is removed, further lowering the ground surface, the
                   likelihood    of major economic losses caused by wind-driven
                   floodwaters increases. Freshwater flooding would cause immediate
                   damage to crops and to other land uses, and delays in drainage
                   would impede recovery. wind tides associated with hurricanes or
                   other major onshore storms are likely to transport salt water
                   that will destroy growing crops and may create an undesirable
                   soil environment for long periods of time after floodwaters have
                   receded. Under natural conditions the deleterious effects of
                   inundation by saline waters are minimized because the high fresh
                   water table impedes the percolation of these floodwaters into
                   the soil zone. Man-made drainage systems, however, can directly
                   or indirectly effectively lower this water table. As a result,
                   during    storms   floodwaters   may    infiltrate   the    enlarged
                   unsaturated zone (where evaporation and ion-exchange processes
                   can concentrate the salts in the soil zones) in larger portions
                   of the land.

                        In addition, removing peat from large tracts of land will
                   create extensive depressional landscapes.        These depressional
                   features   may    hold floodwaters for long periods of time,
                   depending on pump capacity. Concentrations of salts in soils can
                   be removed by leaching with fresh water and surficial treatment
                   with lime and gypsum, but the loss of the use of the land for
                   agriculturefor one or more years is possible.

                        Prediction of the frequency with which a given location is
                   likely to be flooded with water from the estuaries or sounds is
                   inexact because of the almost infinite number of possible
                   combinations    of   wind   direction    and   velocity, shoreline
                   configuration and fetch, as well as the effects of vegetation
                   and man-made    structures in impeding free advancement of a wave.
                   Some idea of the severity of the problem can be obtained from
                   Figure 7.4A,    on which are delineated approximate boundaries of

                                                   274

             wind-tide floods likely to be equalled or exceeded 50% and 1% of
             the years. By "exceeded" is meant that inundation of an area at
             least as great as that shown is likely every other year on the
             average at the 50% probability, and once every hundred years on
             the average at 1% probability. These are average frequencies
             over long periods of time, and no specific interval between two
             consecutive events is implied. A flood with a 1% chance of
             occurring in any year will cover a large part of the study area.
             However, all of the area with an equal chance of being flooded
             at a given frequency will seldom, if ever, be flooded by the
             same storm. For example, strong southerly winds may cause
             inundation along the northern shorelines of a body of water,
             while   actually    lowering    water levels along the southern
             shorelines.

                  It is important also to qualify the accuracy of Figure
             7.4A. The boundary outlining the area inundated by a flood with
             a   1%   chance of exceedance was transferred directly from
             flood-prone area maps available from the U.S. Geological Survey.
             The lines on the maps are general and are not as detailed as
             those   appearing on the large-scale flood-prone maps. More
             accurate data are available from the Geological Survey and from
             floodplain information studies completed by the U. S. Army Corps
             of Engineers. The flood with a 50% chance of exceedance was
             sketched on the large-scale flood-prone area maps using a flood
             stage from 2.5 to 3.5 feet below the flood outlined as having a
             1% chance of exceedance. These maps are based only on wave
             heights and land elevation, with no consideration of the damping
             effect of dense vegetation or man-made structures, and thus the
             maps tend to overestimate the extent of inundation.
                  The National Flood Insurance Administration is currently
             working on a series of detailed elevation maps for a large
             portion of the North Carolina Coastal Plain. These maps will
             include flood boundary lines for numerous intensities of storms.

             7.4.2 Recommended Approach
                  To determine the extent of this problem, the following
             steps should be taken:

               1. Develop a new series of detailed large scale flood-prone
                  area maps, based on new land elevations, as determined by
                  the amount of peat that potentially could be removed from
                  peat deposits in the region.
              2.  If the hypothetical removal of peat from a given deposit
                  increases the susceptibility to flooding, the underlying
                  sediments should be examined to determine their potential
                  for floodwater infiltration.

                                              275

                    3. If certain areas are found to be underlain with highly porous
                       and permeable sediments that would allow rapid infiltration,
                       this factor would have to be taken into consideration, either
                       in the decision to allow mining in the area, or in the
                       proposed post-mining reclamation plans.

                                                   276

                                                                                                                                                                   0 C.
                                                                :A   \

                                                                                                                       164

                                                                                                                                                                               to 0:
                                                                                                                                     41
                                                                                                                                                                 J)
                              \-1                          its
                                                                                                                                                                        to

                                             it
                                       A,  /

                                 Vote bole                                                            0
                                                                                                              coot
                                                                                                            Not/0'es
                                                                                                                                  <1
                                                                                                                                                                                   00,
                                                                                                                                                   to

                                                                                                                                 Z     Ott                                                           16
                                        W-J

                                                                               tt

                                                                          It

                                                                            20       30 MIL9S                                                                   M        0               to       30 NIL

                                                      .0    a    #0   20    50  *0    50 dIL0109TINS                                                               10                    10 40    50 NIL
                   Figure 7.4A: Area                    subject         to    flood inundation caused by wind tides having A, 50%                                                   chance of
                                              equalled or exceeded in any one year; B, 1% chance of being equalled or exceed
                      it Fii/ ."I

                                              in any one year
                                                                                                                           (from Wilder, Robison and Lindskov, 197

                    7.5 Natural Area Inventory

                    7.5.1 Statement of the Problem/Data and Information Available

                         The North Carolina Coastal Plain contains about one million
                    acres of wetland. Over the years many aspects of this eCOSYStem
                    have  been    studied   by    the scientific community, yet no
                    comprehensive   picture    of a single wetland has ever been
                    developed. Little is truly known of the biotic and abiotic
                    components of these wetlands. In addition, the processes that
                    brought about their origin and development and which now control
                    their maintenance are poorly understood. Where and how the
                    wetlands fit into the overall natural scheme of the Coastal
                    Plain is not known (Richardson, 1981; Ash et al., 1983).

                         Many of the large wetland tracts in the state, including
                    the Green Swamp, Holly Shelter, Angola Bay, Hofmann Forest,
                    Croatan   National Forest, Alligator River National Wildlife
                    Refuge and the Dismal Swamp are either partially or entirely
                    under state, federal or private conservational ownership. These
                    areas are at least partially protected, and are generally
                    readily available for scientific research. The series of wetland
                    tracts associated with the Alligator River drainage basin in
                    Dare, Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington Counties is the largest and
                    most unique, in terms of its origin and complex nature, in the
                    state. This system, because of its overall size and remoteness,
                    has been relatively inaccessible for research and, consequently,
                    is the least understood of the North Carolina wetlands.

                         Despite the March, 1984, gift of 120,000 acres in Dare and
                    Tyrrell   Counties to the federal government to create the
                    Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, much of the land in
                    the Alligator River drainage basin is still in private ownership
                    and has been exploited to a much greater extent than the other
                    large wetlands in the state. In a Sense, it is the exploitation,
                    and especially the recent development of. extensive drainage
                    systems and clearing of the land, that has opened the area for
                    research. In the past ten years, this four-county area has been
                    the focus of several large-scale overview studies, including
                    Heath's 1975 work on the hydrology of the region; Daniel's 1978
                    work on the land use, land Cover and drainage of the area;
                    Ingram and Otte's 1982 report on the peat deposits located in
                    the drainage basin; a series of county natural area reports by
                    McDonald and Ash (1981) for Tyrrell County, Peacock and Lynch
                    (1982a) for Dare County, and Lynch and Peacock (1982a and 1982b)
                    for Hyde and Washington Counties; and Lukin and Mauger's 1983
                    environmental geologic atlas of the four-county area, which
                    includes maps of the soils, drainage systems, land use and land
                    cover, based on previous studies and on analyses of aerial
                    photographs.
                         The development of this region has been proceeding at such
                    a rapid pace that the scientific community rarely has the time
                    or   funding   to    achieve   an understanding of the natural
                    significance   of an area before it has been substantially

                                                     278

             altered. Many questions concerning these wetlands should be
             answered before they are irreparably disturbed. The majority of
             the wetlands associated with the Alligator River drainage basin
             has already been altered to varying degrees. Most, if not all,
             of the forested tracts have been cut at least once. Large
             portions have been ditched and are being drained in an attempt
             to prepare the land for agriculture, silviculture or peat
             mining. Roads and drainage canals cross the paths of natural
             surface and subsurface water flow and have effectively altered
             the water regime in numerous areas.

                  Large portions of the Alligator River drainage basin now
             support either second growth swamp forest or shrub-dominated
             pocosin systems. No attempt has ever been made to reconstruct
             the original vegetational systems to determine how the wetlands
             have responded to alterations by man. It is not known how the
             present swamp forests resemble the original forests. If any last
             vestiges of virgin forests do exist, they have not been located.
             The pocosins are either primary natural systems or secondary
             systems that developed on cut-over land. No study, however, has
             attempted to differentiate the two. No comprehensive survey has
             been undertaken to determine the presence, location or size of
             populations of threatened or endangered plant or animal species,
             unique habitats, communities or disjunct systems.

                  The Alligator River drainage basin covers hundreds of
             square miles of land. This system contains tracts of wetland, up
             to tens of thousands of acres in size, that respond to different
             environmental factors. The physical, chemical and biological
             parameters of these tracts are poorly understood. It is not
             known how attempts at draining, clearing and developing portions
             of a single tract will influence the dynamics of the remaining
             undisturbed portions. The boundaries of these tracts are not
             even accurately delineated.

             7.5.2 Recommended Approach

                  Before an area such as the Alligator River drainage basin
             is developed so extensively that it can no longer be considered
             natural, an attempt should be made to determine if the basin
             contains areas that are in some way unique, in terms of
             biological, hydrological, geological, pedological, chemical or
             other natural aspects of the system.

                  A tremendous amount of work would be required    to develop a
             comprehensive understanding of the natural qualities of the
             Alligator River drainage system and, in particular, the regions
             that are prime candidates for development. Thus far, essentially
             all research has been restricted to areas of easy access,
             meaning   areas that have already undergone some degree of
             disturbance. The areas that are least disturbed and, thus, least
             accessible, have been ignored. These undisturbed areas, however,
             are the locatio,is in which discovery of natural features worthy
             of preservation is most likely.

                                             279

                         A broad data base, including maps and several series of top
                    quality,   recent    aerial photographs that cover the entire
                    four-county region, is available. PL comprehensive survey should
                    be undertaken using these maps and photographs to locate areas
                    of possible interest. Once these areas are differentiated, they
                    must   be   analyzed    first hand to determine their overall
                    significance. The following steps should be taken:

                      1. A team of multidisciplined field scientists with a good
                         working knowledge of ecology, botany, zoology, pedoiogy,
                         hydrology and basic geology, and capable of getting
                         into theseareas, must be assembled.

                      2. A standardized field inventory and classification system
                         must be adopted. This would assure that all work is
                         comprehensive, such that no natural process or feature
                         is overlooked, and that all work is comparable.

                      3. A standardized set of criteria for determining the
                         significance of each area investigated must be
                         established. These criteria could then be used to
                         determine the best of what is found.

                      4. A priority rating system must be developed, including
                         significance priority, protection priority and
                         management priorities, in order that sites deemed of
                         some importance can be fitted not only into the
                         natural realm, but also into the human realm.

                         The large size and natural quality of the Alligator River
                    drainage   basin    almost    guarantees    that   sites worthy of
                    preservation will be found. It is possible that all of these
                    sites will be on land that is either already preserved or on
                    land, such as peat mining buffer strips, that would be somehow
                    legally protected. It is probable, however, that numerous sites
                    will be found on land slated for PE!at mining, timber production
                    or   agriculture.    In   such    cases, the private landowners,
                    representatives of the scientific community, local, state and
                    federal agencies, and conservation groups will have to negotiate
                    the ultimate use of these lands.

                                                      280

              7.6 Air Quality

              7.6.1 Statement of the Problem/Data and Information Available

                   Expansion of peat mining and processing from the scale of
              Scenario #1 (see sections 5.2.2 and 6.4) to that of Scenario #2
              (see sections 5.2.3 and 6.4) has @the potential to increase
              associated air pollutant emissions by about a factor of eight.
              This could lead to transgressions of air quality standards that
              are not jeopardized by the lower scale of development of
              Scenario #1. The pollutants of greatest concern are particulates
              and SO 2'
                   The initial PMA analysis of air quality impacts of a
              peat-to-methanol plant processing approximately 500,000 dry tons
              of peat annually (equivalent to the methanol production assumed
              in Scenario #1,' Area 1) indicated that there should be no
              significant air quality degradation with such an operation (RGH,
              1982). However, the potential impact of an eight-fold or greater
              expansion (as described in Scenario #2, Areas 1 and 3) has not
              been   evaluated,    largely    because    of   the    site specific
              requirements of any air quality modeling efforts. Such complex
              and expensive modeling is not required by state permitting
              procedures nor is it in an operator's self interest, given the
              hypothetical nature of such models not tied to specifically
              planned developments. Yet without such modeling it is very
              difficult to project the air quality impacts of large-scale peat
              mining   and conversion. Model validation is also currently
              lacking.

              7.6.2 Recommended Approach

                   Figure 7.6A shows isopleths of incremental additions to
              particulate concentrations (annual averages) in air resulting
              from a peat-to-methanol conversion plant processing 500,000 dry
              tons of peat per year (Scenario #1, Area 1). The data were
              provided by Koppers Company and were used in PMA's air quality
              permit application. Fugitive dust emissions from peat mining,
              transportation and away from plant storage are not included in
              these predictions. Contours for so      2 are similar but about
              half the predicted particulate concentrations. In Figure 7.6B,
              the incremental particulate concentrations are estimated for an
              eight-fold increase in methanol production. The assumption was
              made   that   each of four facilities would emit twice the
              particulates of the Scenario #1 plant and that the four plants
              were widely   spaced as shown. For comparison, the allowable PSD
              (Prevention   of    Significant    Deteriorition)    increment     for
              particulates in Class II areas is 19,ag/M .
                   This cursory analysis suggests that an eight-fold expansion
              of  peat-to-methanol     conversion    plants    would   keep added
              particulate    increments     (and   so2   increments)    within
              permissible levels. The short term (e   .g., 24-hour) average added
              increments   is not, so easily estimated and might approach

                                               281

                    permissible limits.    It would be of value to model air quality
                    impacts at this level of time resolution if long-term peat
                    mining impacts are to be assessed. However, because of the
                    sequential incremental development of peat processing plants and.
                    the individual separate permitting process for each, no single!
                    plant would transgress air quality standards because each has art
                    individually applied PSD increment within a higher absolute air
                    quality standard. If, however, peat mining in the region is
                    considered   to   be a single air pollutant: source (or the
                    developments of a single owner/operator are so considered), then
                    allowable increments should not be applied to each single
                    facility as it comes on line (i.e., a bubble approach is
                    required). This would require that state regulatory agencies
                    change   the way they evaluate the air quality impacts of'
                    .facilities that develop sequentially.
                        More important from an air quality perspective is the
                    problem of mining itself as a source of particulates. The air
                    quality model calculations from mining operations on the scale
                    of Scenario #1 do not predict transgressions of particulate
                    standards at offsite -locations. However, the emission rates on
                    which the model calculations are based are highly uncertain and
                    possibly   unrealistically low. There is an urgent need to
                    determine   fugitive    dust   emission rates under the actual.
                    conditions proposed for milled peat mining as well as the impact
                    of any control and amelioration methods. The studies required to
                    better define these emission rates need not wait for actual
                    mining   to   begin.    The   state    Division    of Environmental
                    Management's (DEM) permitting process might require such studies
                    of the already permitted mining companies without waiting for
                    post hoc monitoring results after commencement of mining. Test:
                    plots on First Colony Farms (PMA) permitted property have
                    already been of use in evaluating the impacts of mining on water
                    quality. An analogous test system. to evaluate dust emission
                    rates and mitigative measures would seem to be feasible, at a
                    reasonable cost, borne by one or more of the already permitted
                    mining companies.
                         Because air quality permits are renewable yearly, such
                    requirements could be readily incorporated in the near future.
                    DEM's Air Quality Section seems cognizant of these problems and
                    is encouraging a local monitoring network to evaluate fugitive
                    dust emissions.
                         Because of the low height (as contrasted with a processing
                    plant smoke stack) at which fugitive dust emissions will occur,
                    their impact is likely to be very local and limited to areas
                    immediately   adjacent    to    mined   lands. As a result, the
                    contributions to air quality degradation of individual mining
                    operations will be largely indePE!ndent and non-additive. The
                    need   for multiple source modeling which exists for stack
                    emission point sources is probably absent.

                                                     282

                                    Oes.                                V
                                                                                                                    14
                                                                                                                    0
                           Lake
                                                                                                                    4J
                                                                                                                    ca
                               -Phe pj-

                 Y--e
                                                             &

                                                       Lake
             00

                                             71

                                                                        J@h..
                                                                         re

                                                                                 -A

                                                                          Lake   Mattamuskeet

                  Figure 7-6A: Isopleths   of  annual average  particulate concentrations   (ug/m3)          Area I
                                 predicted to  be added by peat-to-methanol conversion at a plant
                                 the size of that postulated in Scenario #1.                                 Area 2

                   -7-
                                                                                                                            IN

                                                               :/'W70"iL

                                                             @Z
                                                               AMN
                         Lake
                                                   4q
                              helps                                                                             Cal

                                                                                                                 -j
                                                   VWAFL
                                                L

                                                   N-e
                                                   --ake
        00
                                                   7

                                                                      x
                                                            IS

                                                                     ye,

                                                   PP

                                                                   Lake        Mattamuskeet

                                                                                              a            30,000 acres
            Figure 7.6Bdsoplethr, of annual Overalle    particulate concentrations         Are
                      .,-.-1jn4nA fn tip nolded by rinat.-tri-methAnol facilities of the           ff-En
                                                                                                           1%-non arres
             tlic: tilze of ScenorloV2. Four plonts,    each twice the size of the         Area  3         26,000 acres
             L!ccnPrIo#l plant are postulated to exist at the %Adcly spoced
             G'IL(,B chovn.                                                                Area  4         13.000 acres

              7.7 Solid Wastes

              7.7.1 Statement of the Problem/Data and Information Available

                   Peat on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula contains on a dry
              weight basis approximately 6-10% ash. If oxidized completely, as
              in direct combustion or in conversion to methanol, peat produces
              very   large   quantities of ash or slag residues requiring
              disposal. Peat thus shares many properties with coal in terms of
              the volume and composition of its combustion wastes. The output
              from a methanol plant producing 60 million gallons of methanol
              per year has been estimated at approximately one million cubic
              feet of non-hazardous waste per year (PMA, 1983h). Greatly
              expanded peat to methanol conversion as described in Scenario #2
              (see section 5.2.3) would produce up to seven million cubic feet
              of non-hazardous solid waste per year. Such volumes, if disposed
              of offsite as planned, would require great expansion of existing
              solid waste disposal capabilities on the peninsula.
                   In order to accommodate the solid wastes generated by a
              plant producing 60 million gallons of methanol annually in
              Washington County, the county's sanitary landfill would need to
              be expanded. Because the landfill is currently located on leased
              property and operated by an independent operator, the capacity
              for expansion on the larger scale of Scenario #2 is not certain
              and must be determined.

                   Preliminary    tests of ash produced during pilot scale!
              simulations of peat-to-methanol conversion have shown them to be
              rightly characterized as non-hazardous. However, these tests did
              not collect the smallest ash particles which are likely to
              contain the highest concentrations of some toxic trace elements.
              As a consequence, leachates from ash by-products have not been
              accurately   characterized, with a probable underestimate of
              leachable toxic metal concentrations. In addition, most of the
              leachate tests were performed at pH levels higher than would be
              expected in percolating groundwater or local surface waters in
              which disposed ash is likely to be in contact. As a consequencel,
              predicted    leachable     metal   concentrations    were     further
              underestimated. Finally, the leachability of phosphorus from
              simulated ash was not determined.

                  The question of leachability is important because leached
              metals (or other elements) could enter groundwaters flowing from
              the disposal site. In addition, surface water contamination
              could result if onsite ash disposal by land application (as a
              soil amendment) or as roadfill is utilized as an alternative
              disposal    approach.   Leachable    phosphorus    in    appreciable
              quantities would add to nutrient loads in runoff, increasing the
              potential for eutrophication of receiving waters. However, based
              on evidence derived from coal ashes, the ash contribution to
              phosphorus concentrations in runoff is not likely to be large.

                                              285

                    7.7.2 Recommended Approach

                        There are thus two potential problems in solid waste
                    disposal which will need solution beEore large scale utilization
                    of  peat    in   combustion    processes can occur: 1) further
                    characterization of the properties of leachates of real peat
                    combustion ashes and 2) selection and evaluation of disposal
                    sites.

                        Further characterizations of joeat combustion ashes should.
                    include analysis of the very finest -ash particles which were not,
                    collected in PMA's study (1983h) but which will be collected.
                    (e.g.,,  by   electrostatic    precipitators) in an operational
                    peat-to-methanol plant. These fine ashes are likely to contain
                    higher concentrations of   many trace elements and toxic metals in
                    a  more    soluble form    than those sampled by PMA (1983h).
                    Phosphorus in leachates of these ashes should be measured.
                    Leaching studies should be conducted at the low pH (3.5 to 5)
                    occurring naturally in     surface drainage and perhaps with the
                    associated high concentrations of humic and fulvic acids which
                    can  readily complex many trace metals and increase their
                    leachability from ashes. Leachability under anoxic, low redox
                    potential conditions characteristic of groundwaters contacting
                    landfills would also be useful.

                        These tests could be performed before actual operation of a
                    peat-to-methanol conversion plant 'began. Once such a plant has
                    begun operating, real ash and other solid waste could then be
                    evaluated, providing information needed to assess larger scale
                    peat mining for methanol production as hypothesized in Scenario
                    #2.

                        if    direct    combustion    of   peat    for thermal/electric!
                    generation is planned as another end use of mined peat, separate
                    evaluation of resultant ashes and other solid wastes will be
                    required, as the ashes produced will likely differ somewhat front
                    those resulting from the peat-to-methanol conversion process.

                        Most of these solid waste characterization studies could be
                    carried out as part of the normal pre-operational permitting
                    process, without the need for special research programs. They
                    require, however, an understanding of the chemical environments;
                    (e.g., low pH and redox potential and high dissolved organic:
                    content) of probable disposal sites in eastern North Carolina.
                    Such characterization studies could be incorporated in future
                    permitting requirements.

                        Site selection and evaluation for solid waste disposal.
                    should   be given more consideration by both the operatinq
                    companies and the state regulatory agendies. The ash materials
                    resulting from peat combustion differ greatly from the usual.
                    materials disposed of in municipal sanitary landfills. methods
                    of disposal applied to the latter will not be appropriate for
                    peat ashes. Coal ash disposal methods would provide a better
                    model.   The    potential   for    groundwater and surface water:

                                                     286

              contamination by trace elements leaching from buried ashes can
              not be evaluated until the ash leachates have been better
              characterized, as previously discussed.

                   The limited vertical topographic relief of the Coastal
              Plain, in association with the highly porous sandy soils and
              shallow water tables, limits the availability of good landfill
              sites.   This    may   create    problems    if ash leachates are
              significantly more hazardous than initially predicted. Certainly
              the disposal sites selected should be well characterized in
              terms of their appropriateness for this class of solid waste.
              Utilization    of the Washington County landfill could prove
              complicated if leachate problems develop as the liable party
              responsible for remedial action is not clearly defined. Is it
              the waste producer, Washington County, the private property
              owner of the site or the private waste disposal contractor?

                   Disposal of non-hazardous wastes onsite would clarify this
              responsibility issue. The use of solid waste for agricultural
              land treatment or roadfill as an alternative to offsite disposal
              should be encouraged, along with the necessary studies of the
              safety and feasibility of such an approach. This could readily
              be   incorporated    as    a   requirement    in the normal state
              pre-operational permitting process.

                   Moreover, onsite disposal would obviate the problem of the
              large volumes of solid waste. It is unlikely that the Washington
              County landfill or other municipal landfills in the region have
              the capacity to accept the seven million cubic feet per year of
              waste that is estimated for the methanol production rate by year
              20 described in Scenario #2 (see section 5.2.3.7).

                                               287

                    7.8 Local Economics

                    7.8.1 Statement of the Problem

                         The analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of the scenarios
                    (section 6.7) must be considered a     'preliminary estimate because
                    it is based on 1) secondary data currently available for the
                    area or 2) data developed in studies of mining in other parts of
                    the country.
                         In addition, it was not possible within the time and
                    resource   limitations    of this project to examine possible
                    economic losses in the recreation, tourism and commercial and
                    sport fishing sectors of the economy due to peat mining. In the
                    section    on  estuarine    impacts,    approaches for estimatinq
                    hydrodynamic   and    biological    impacts    are   described.     if:
                    harvestable finfish and shellfish stocks and flows are found to
                    be   impacted by peat mining, net economic returns of the
                    commercial fishing sector may be affected. Economic returns
                    generated by sports fishermen may also be affected if the
                    probability of catch affects their expenditures. Recreation and
                    tourism may be impacted for similar reasons and, in addition,
                    are tied to the overall level of environmental quality in the
                    region. Research is also needed on the economic impact of!
                    wildlife habitat changes on activities such as hunting and bird
                    watching.
                         Another concern is the potential adverse fiscal effect of'
                    peat mining    upon some county and city governments in the area
                    surrounding the peat mining facility. Two basic concerns are:
                    1) that the benefits of peat mining will not be distributed to
                    city and county governments in proportion to the costs incurred
                    (the distribution issue) and 2) that revenues accruing to local
                    governments from peat mining will lag cost incidence, thus
                    leading to short-run cash flow problems (the revenue-lag issue).
                    The   demand for governmental services (e.g., water supply,
                    wastewater   disposal,    solid    waste disposal and education)
                    generated by the immigration of individuals and families into
                    the area to work at the peat mining facility (or to serve people
                    who do) may result in governmental deficits that lead to
                    increased tax rates or reduced quality of services for current
                    residents.

                         The distribution issue arises because new residents may
                    move into areas that do not benefit from tax revenues generated
                    by the mining facility. The reve-nue-lag issue arises because
                    governmental costs incurred while providing additional services
                    to the increased number of residents must typically be incurred
                    one or more years in advance of' the receipt of local tax
                    revenues or state aid designed to pay those costs.. Research
                    information is needed for city and county governments concerning
                    (1) revenues that will be generated and (2) expenditures that
                    will be incurred as a result of the peat mining activity.

                                                     288

             7.8.2 Data and Information Available

                  PMA (1983g) has analyzed the socioeconomic impacts of a
             peat-to-methanol plant processing approximately 500,000 (dry)
             tons of peat per year.

                  Information    in   sufficient    quantity is not currently
             available to model the cost and revenue impacts of peat mining
             at different scales on city and county governments. PMA (1983g)
             assessed in a general way the adequacy of services and the
             availability of excess capacity to serve larger populations in
             affected areas. However, cost estimates for services were not
             developed. Further, a more detailed analysis is required to
             estimate the fiscal impact upon all affected individual cities
             and individual counties. This level of detail is essential since
             each such level of government must tax residents to obtain
             revenues for operation. Any revenue shortfalls or lags will thus
             adversely affect current residents. Modeling of these impacts is
             possible, however, using data that can be obtained from state,
             city, county and industry sources.

                  Research    concerning    the   potential    impacts upon the
             recreation, tourism and commercial and sport fisheries sectors.
             can utilize existing data as a base case, but will be dependent
             upon     physical   and   biological    impact    information     from
             hydrodynamic and hydrological modeling efforts (see sections 7.1
             and 7.3) and from impact studies of participation in rereation,
             tourism and sport fishing. most of the data required are not
             currently available.

             7.8.3 Recommended Approach

                  Research required for a more complete analysis of the
             socioeconomic impacts of peat mining would include: 1) an
             independent evaluation of the socioeconomic data upon which
             PMA's (1983g) analyses of impacts were based; 2) an analysis of
             the economic feasibility of the peat-to-methanol conversion
             process; 3) generation of more detailed data for horticultural
             peat and peat for fuel operations; 4) a more detailed analysis
             of the effects of plant scale; and 5) the studies of impacts
             upon recreation, tourism and sport fisheries that are dependent
             upon    responses   of   users to changes in the fishery and
             environmental quality. As noted earlier, these impacts are
             related to the physical and biological changes that occur but
             are dependent upon how users preceive these changes, how they
             adjust their expenditures on those activities accordingly or
             what they are willing to pay to maintain the "without project"
             level of environmental quality and fishery populations.

                                              289

                        An estimate of the fiscal impact of peat mining upon
                   city and county governments is also needed. (Estimates of the
                   overall economic impacts would require a much more comprehensive
                   model of the regional economy than would be provided by the
                   fiscal impacts analysis proposed here.)

                        Two simulation models are necessary. One would simulate the
                   taxes paid by the peat mining facility (for example, corporate
                   property, sales and income taxes, and the unemployment tax).
                   This model would allow for assessing the impact of changes in
                   these tax rates and for simulating alternative plant production
                   levels that enter the equation determining local tax revenues.
                   The model would also be capable of simulating the impact of new,
                   taxes that might be considered to help generate local funds
                   needed to serve new residents (e.g., severance taxes on peat.
                   mined or a tax on the final products of the plant). The focus of
                   the model would be on the impact of various tax laws on the peat.
                   mining facility.

                        The second simulation model would examine the overall.
                   fiscal impact of peat mining upon various levels of state and
                   local government in the study area. Revenues to these levels of
                   government will be a function of their tax rates, their share of'
                   state revenues determined by state aid formulas and the manner
                   in which they are impacted by the peat mining facilities'
                   activities   (for example, the increase in their tax base,
                   population, new students, etc.). This revenue information would
                   be used as input in the analysis of the net benefits (revenues
                   less service costs) resulting from peat mining activities. A key,
                   element in this portion of the analysis would be the need for,
                   new or expanded services. The focus of this model would thus be
                   each city and county government in the effected area. The model.
                   would also allow for estimating the level of tax revenues paid
                   by employees (e.g., income, sales, property and excise taxes).
                        Throughout the analysis, assumptions must be made for
                   certain   parameters,   for example, the distribution of new
                   residents attracted by the facility. The models would allow for
                   easy sensitivity analysis of these factors to estimate the
                   impact of alternative scenarios.

                                                   290

              8. LIST OF PREPARERS

              David A. Adams, Project Coordinator, CEIP Cumulative Impacts of
              Peat   Mining Project, and Associate Professor, Division of
              University Studies and Department of Forestry, North Carolina
              State University, Raleigh (Wildlife, estuarine impacts).

              Richard     G.  Broadhead,    Research    Assistant, Department of
              Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State
              University, Raleigh (Surface water hydrology).

              William     A.  Campbell,    Professor, Institute of Government,
              University    of   North    Carolina    at   Chapel Hill (Law and
              government).

              Leon E. Danielson, Associate Professor and Extension Economist,
              Department of Economics and Business, North Carolina State
              University, Raleigh (Natural resource economics).

              Richard T. DiGiulio, Assistant Professor, School of Forestry and
              Environmental Studies, Duke University, Durham (Environmental
              toxicology).

              David W. Evans, Analytical Chemist, Duke University Marine
              Laboratory, Beaufort (Environmental chemistry).

              Judith A. Gale, Editor/Staff, CEIP Cumulative Impacts of Peat
              Mining Project, Department of Forestry, North Carolina State
              University, Raleigh (Coastal resources management and ecology).

              Melvin Huish, Professor, Department of Zoology, and Leader,
              North Carolina Cooperative Fisheries Unit, North Carolina State
              University, Raleigh (Fisheries biology).

              Edward    J. Kuenzler, Professor, Department of Environmental
              Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel
              Hill (Estuarine productivity and water quality).

              Lee J., Otte, Assistant Professor, Department of Geology, East
              Carolina     University,    Greenville    (Wetland    ecology,     peat
              resources).

              Margery F. Overton, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil
              Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh (Numerical
              modeling of estuarine hydrodynamics).

              Hans W. Paerl, Associate Professor, Institute of Marine Sciences
              of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Morehead
              City (Marine and freshwater biology, limnology).

              Joseph    A.   Phillips,    Professor    and   Assistant     Director,
              Agricultural Extension Service, North Carolina State University,
              Raleigh (Soils, agricultural economics).

                                               291

                Curtis J. Richardson, Associate Professor, School of Forestry
                and Environmental Studies, Duke University, Durham (Resource
                ecology, wetland ecology with emphasis, on water quality).
                R.   Wayne   Skaggs, Professor, Department of Biological and
                Agricultural  Engineering,  North Carolina State University,
                Raleigh (Hydrology of soils with shallow water tables).

                James F. Smith, Coordinator, Coastal Energy Impact Program,
                Office of Coastal Management, North Carolina Department of
                Natural   Resources and Community Development, Raleigh (Peat
                mining, coastal zone management, mathE!matical ecology).

                                              292

             9. REFERENCES

             Abbas, L. E. 1982. The 1980 commercial fishery: North Carolina.
                In T. P. Smith (ed), The North Atlantic Striped Bass Fishery:
                Production and Marketing. Natl. Sea Grant Program Publ. In
                prep.

             Adams, D. A., L. K. Benninger, P. E. Hosier, M. F. Overton and
                J. P. Reed. 1982a. Final Report: White Oak River Management
                Project. Office of Water Resources, North Carolina
                Department of Natural Resources and Community Development,
                Raleigh, NC.

             Adams, D. A., M. F. Overton, T. C. Gopalkrishnan, J. S. Wei and
                G. M. Cressman. 1982b. Solving species-habitat functions with
                georeferenced environmental data; a new tool for
                environmental impact assessment, In W. K. Lauenroth, G. V.
                Skogerboe and M. Flug (eds), Analysis of Ecological Systems:
                State-of-the-Art in Ecological Modelling, Elsevier Scientific
                Publishing Company.

             Adams, D. A. and M. F. Overton. 1983. The Impact of Salinity
                Introductions upon Fish Habitat in Currituck Sound: Results
                of Species-Habitat Modeling. Office of Water Resources, North
                Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
                Development, Raleigh, NC.

             Ambrose, R.B. Jr., Roesch, S.E. and Clark, L.J. 1980. User's
                Manual for the Dynamic Estuary Model. EPA Report
                903/9-80-001, April 1980.

             Amein, M. and W. S. Galler. 1979. Water quality management model
                for the lower Chowan River. Report No. 130, Water Resources
                Research Institute of The University of North Carolina,
                Raleigh, NC, 159 pp.

             Armstrong, N. E. and G. H. Ward, Jr. 1981. Alterations of
                freshwater inflows, In Proceedings of a National Symposium on
                Freshwater Inflows to Estuaries. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                Service, FWS/OBS-81/04, Vol. II, pp. 179-196.

             Ash, A. N., C. B. McDonald, E. S. Kane and C. A. Pories. 1983.
                Natural and Modified Pocosins: Literature Synthesis and
                Management Options. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
                FWS/OBS-83/04.

             Badr, A. W. 1978. Physical Properties of Some North Carolina
                Soils and the Effect of Land Development on these Properties.
                M.S. Thesis, Department of Biological and Agricultural
                Engineering, NCSU, Raleigh, NC.

             Birkhead, W. S., C. R. Bennett, E. C. Pendleton and B. J.
                Copeland. 1977. Nursery Utilization of the Dutchman Creek
                Estuary, N. C., 1971-1976. Carolina Power and Light Company,
                Rep. 77-2, Raleigh, NC.

                                            293

                  Bond, S., G. Cook and D. H. Howells. 1978, The Chowan River
                     Project: Summary Report. Water Resources Research Institute
                     of The University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, 36 pp.

                  Bowden, W. B. and J. E. Hobbie. 1977. Nutrients in Albemarle
                     Sound, North Carolina. Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-75-25,
                     187 pp.

                  Brinson, M. M., H. D. Bradshaw and E. S. Kane. 1981. Nitrogen
                     Cycling and Assimilation Capacity of Nitrogen and Phosphorus
                     by Riverine Wetland Forests. Report No. 167, Water resources
                     Research Institute of The University of North Carolina,
                     Raleigh, NC.

                  Browder, J.A. and Moore, D. 1981. A new approach to
                     determining the quantitative relationship between fishery
                     production and the flow of freshwater to estuaries, In Proc.
                     of the National Symposium on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries,
                     San Antonio, TX, Sept. 9-11, 1980. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                     Service, FWS/OBS-81/04, Vol 1, pp. 403-430.

                  Brower, D. J. et al. 1983. Mining Policy: An Amendment to the
                     Land Use Plan of Pamlico County, North Carolina. Available
                     from Office of Coastal Management, North Carolina Department
                     of Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh, NC.

                  Buchak, E. M. and J. E. Edinger. 1982. User Guide for
                     CE-QUAL-ELV2: A Longitudinal-Vertical, Time-Varying Estuarine
                     Water Quality model. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
                     Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

                  Burns, L. A., D. M. Cline and R. R. Lassiter. 1981. Exposure
                     Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS): User Manual and System
                     Documentation. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory,
                     Athens, Ga.

                  Chapman, R. S. 1983. Two-Equation, Depth-Integrated Turbulence
                     Closure for Modeling Geometry-Dominated Flows. U.S. Army
                     Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
                     MS.

                  Chen, C.W. and Orlob, G.T. 1972. Ecological simulation for
                     aquatic environments, In B. C. Patten (ed), Analysis and
                     Simulation in Ecology, Academic Press, NY, Vol 3, pp.
                     475-588.

                  Chestnut, A. F. and H. S. Davis. 1975. Synopsis of marine
                     fisheries. University of NC Sea Grant College Program Publ.
                     75-12:1-425, Raleigh, NC.
                  Clark, J. R. 1981. Land Clearing in the Coastal Plain. Prepared
                     for office of Coastal Management, North Carolina Department
                     of Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh, NC.

                                                   294

             Clark, L.J. and Feigner, K.D. '1972. Mathematical Model Studies
                of Water Quality in the Potomac Estuary. EPA, Annapolis
                Field office, Technical Report 33.

             Clausen, J. L., J. R. Lewis, K. N. Brooks and D. P. Guertin.
                1980. The quality of waters discharged from Minnesota
                peatlands, In Proc. 6th Internat. Peat Congress, August,
                1980, Duluth, MN, pp. 533-537.

             Coastal Zone Resources Corporation. 1976. Environmental
                Assessment of First Colony Farms Agricultural Development in
                Dare, Tyrrell, Hyde and Washington Counties, North Carolina.
                Unpublished document, prepared for First Colony Farms.

             Collins, M. A. and L. W. Geldar. 1971. Seawater intrusion in
                layered aquifer. Water Resource Res., Vol. 8(5).

             Copeland, B. J., R. G. Hodson, S. R. Riggs and J. E. Easley, Jr.
                1983. The Ecology of Albemarle Sound, North Carolina: An
                Estuarine Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
                FWS/OBS-83/01.

             Craig, N. J., J. W. Day, Jr., A. Seaton, P. Kemp and W. G.
                Smith. 1977. Eutrophication, In N. J. Craig and J. W. Day,
                Jr. (eds), Cumulative Impact Studies in the Louisiana Coastal
                Zone, Part I. Louisiana State University Center for Wetland
                Resources, Baton Rouge, LA.

             Cribbins, P. D. 1983. Regional Transportation Impacts of Peat
                Production on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula, Coastal Energy
                Transportation Study, Phase IV, Volume 1. CEIP Report # 38.
                UNC Institute for Transportation Research.and Education,
                Research Triangle Park, NC.

             Daniel, C. C., 111, 19 77. Digital Flow Model of the Chowan River
                Estuary, North Carolina. U.S. Geol. Survey Water Resources
                invests. 77-63, 84 pp.

             ---- 1978. Land Use, Land Cover, and Drainage on the
                Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula, Eastern North Carolina, 1974.
                U.S. Geol. Survey Water Resources Invests. 78-134 (open file
                report); prepared in cooperation with North Carolina Dept.
                Natural Resources Community Development, Raleigh, NC (2 maps
                and accompanying text).

             Danielson, L. 1982. Economic and social importance of Albemarle
                Sound, In Albemarle Sound Trends and Management. University
                of NC Sea Grant College Program Publ. 82-02:9-20, Raleigh,
                NC.

             Dillon, P. J. and F. H. Rigler. 1974. A test of a simple
                nutrient budget model predicting the phosphorous
                concentration in lake water, J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can.
                31:1711-1778.

                                             295

                   ---- 1975. A simple method for predicting the capacity of a lake
                       for development based on lake trophic status, J. Fish. Res.
                       Bd. Can. 31:1519-1531.

                   Division of Environmental Management. 1982. Chowan River Water
                       Quality Management Plan. Water Quality Section, Division of
                       Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of
                       Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh, NC.

                   ----  undated. State of North Carolina Amb    ient Water Quality
                       Monitoring Program. Water Quality Section, Division of
                       Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of
                       Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh, NC.

                   Edinger, J. E. and E. M. Buchak. 1981. Estuarine Laterally
                       Averaged Numerical Dynamics: The Development and Testing of
                       Estuarine Boundary Conditions in the LARM Code. U.S. Army
                       Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
                       MS.

                   EPA. 1983. Prediction of Ecological Effects of Toxic Chemicals:
                       Overall Strategy and Theoretical Basis for the Ecosystem
                       Model, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
                       VA (PB 83-261685).

                   ESE (Environmental Science and Engineering). 1983. Runoff
                       Assessment Report. Prepared for Peat Methanol Associates. ESE
                       No. 83-600-601, Gainesville, FLA.

                   Eppley, R. W. 1972. Temperature and phytoplankton in the sea.
                       Fish. Bull. 70:1063-1085.

                   Foutz, T. L. 1983. The Effects of Peat Mining on Ground Water
                       Processes. M. S. Thesis, Dept. of Biological and Agricultural
                       Engineering, NCSU, unpublished manuscript.
                   Giese, G. L., Wilder, H. B., and Parker, G. C., Jr., 1979.
                       Hydrology of Major Estuaries and Sounds of North Carolina.
                       U.S. Geol. Survey Water Resources Invests. 79-46, 175 p.

                   Gilliam, G. W., R. W. Skaggs and R. G. Broadhead. 1983.
                       Pollutant Removal Effectiveness and the Hydraulics of Wetland
                       Filter Areas for Pumped Agricultural Drainage Water. A
                       proposal to the Water Resources Research Institute of The
                       University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
                   Governor's Coastal Water Management Task-Force. 1982. Final
                       Report. Available from Division of Soil and Water
                       Conservation, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
                       and Community Development, Raleigh, NC.
                   ----  1984. Status Report. Available from Division of Soil and
                       Water Conservation, North Carolina Department of Natural
                       Resources and Community Development, Raleigh, NC.

                                                      296

             Gregory, J. D., R. W. Skaggs, R. G. Broadhead, R. H. Culbreath,
                 J. R. Bailey and T. L. Foutz. 1984. Hydrologic and Water
                 Quality Impacts of Peat Mining in the Coastal Zone of North
                 Carolina. Report No. 201, Water Resources Research Institute
                 of The University of North Carolina, Raleigh, N.C. In press.

             Hair, J. 1978. Evaluation of Wildlife Resources, Falls Lake,
                 North Carolina. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
                 District, Wilmington, NC. 51 pp. (mimeo).

             Harwood, H. J., and P. S. McMullan, Jr. 1981. Peat energy for
                 North Carolina: an economic analysis, In Richardson, C., J.
                 (ed.), Pocosin Wetlands: An Integrated Analysis of Coastal
                 Plain Freshwater Bogs in North Carolina. Hutchinson Ross Pub.
                 Co., Stroudsburg, PA, pp. 255-269.

             Hassler, W. W., N. L. Hill and J. T. Brown. 1981. The Status and
                 Abundance of Striped Bags, Morone saxatilis, in the
                 Roanoke River and Albemarle Sound, North Carolina, 1956-1980.

             Hayter, E. J. and A. J. Mehta. 1983. modeling Fine Sediment
                 Transport in Estuaries. EPA, Atlanta, GA, (EPA-600/3-83-045).

             Heath, R. C. 1975. Hydrology of the Albemarle-Pamlico Region,
                 North Carolina, a Preliminary Report on the Impact of
                 Agricultural Developments. U.S. Geological Survey Water
                 Resources Investigations 9-75, Raleigh, NC.

             Henry, H. R. 1964. Interfaces between salt water and fresh water
                 in coastal aquifers, In Sea Water in Coastal Aquifers. U.S.
                 Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1613C, p. 4569.

             Hester, J. M., Jr. and B. J. Copeland. 1975. Nekton Population
                 Dynamics in the Albemarle Sound and Neuse River Estuaries.
                 University of NC. Sea Grant College Program Publ.
                 75-02:1-129, Raleigh, NC.

             Ingram, R. L. and L. J. Otte. 1981. Peat in North Carolina
                 wetlands, In C. J. Richardson (ed), Pocosin Wetlands: An
                 Integrated Analysis of Coastal Plain Freshwater Bogs in North
                 Carolina. Hutchinson Ross Publishing.Company, Stroudsburg,
                 PA, pp. 125-134.

             ----  1982. Peat deposits of Pamlimarle Peninsula: Dare, Hyde,
                 Tyrrell, and Washington Counties, North Carolina. Prepared
                 for U.S. Department of Energy and the North Carolina Energy
                 Institute, Raleigh, NC.

             Jaworski, N. A. 1981. Sources of nutrients and the scale of
                 eutrophication problems in estuaries, In B. J. Neilson and
                 L. E. Cronin (eds), Estuaries and Nutrients. Humana Press,
                 Clifton, NJ.

                                               297

                  Johanson, P. A., M. W. Lorenzen and W. W. Waddel. 1976. A
                     multi-parameter estuary model, In 'Proc. of the Conf. on
                     Environmental Modeling and Simulation. April 19-22, 1976,
                     Cincinnati, OH. EPA Office of Monitoring and Technical
                     Support. EPA Report 600/9-76-016, July 1976. pp. 111-114.

                  Johnson, H. 1982. Fisheries production in Albemarle Sound, In
                     Albemarle Sound Trends and Management. University of NC. Sea
                     Grant College Program Publ. 82-02, Raleigh, NC.

                  Johnson, H. B., B. F. Holland, Jr. and S. G. Keefe. 1977.
                     Anadromous Fisheries Research Program, Northern coastal Area.
                     N. C. Div. Mar. Fish. Rep., Project AFCS-11:1-97 +
                     appendices.

                  Johnson, H. B., S. E. Winslow, D. W. Crocker, B. F. Holland,
                     Jr., J. W. Gillikin and D. L. Taylor. 1979. Biology and
                     Management of Mid-Atlantic Anadromous Fishes under Extended
                     Jurisdiction. N. C. Div. Mar. Fish. Spec. Sci. Rep. 36:1-191.

                  Johnson, R. W. 1974. A Simulation Model for Studying Effects of
                     Pollution and Freshwater Inflow on Secondary Productivity in
                     an Ecosystem. PhD Thesis, Department of Marine Sciences,
                     NCSU, Raleigh, NC.

                  Johnson, W. W. and M. T. Finley. 1980. Handbook of Acute
                     Toxicity of Chemicals to Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates. USDI
                     Resource Publication 137.

                  Jones, R. A., and T. M. Sholar. 1981. The Effects of Freshwater
                     Discharge on Estuarine Nursery Areas of Pamlico Sound. CEIP
                     Rept. submitted to Dept. Natural Resources and Community
                     Development, Raleigh, NC, 60 pp.

                  Kelly, R.A. 1972. Conceptual ecological model of the Delaware
                     Estuary. In B.C. Patten (ed), Analysis and Simulation in
                     Ecology. Academic Press, NY, Vol. 4, pp. 3-45.
                  Kelly, R. A. and W. 0. Spofford, Jr. 1977. Application of an
                     ecosystem model to water quality management: The Delaware
                     Estuary. In C. A. S. Hall and J. W. Day, Jr. (eds), Ecosystem
                     Modeling in Theory and Practice: An Introduction with Case
                     Histories. Wiley, New York, pp. 419-443;

                  Klimek, A. 1982. Chowan-Albemarle study plan, In Albemarle Sound
                     Trends and Management. University of NC Sea Grant College
                     Program Publ. 82-02, Raleigh, NC.

                  Kremer, J. N. and S. W. Nixon. 1978. A Coastal Marine Ecosystem:
                     Simulation and Analysis. Springer-Verlag, NY.

                                                   298

             Kuenzler, E. J., P. J. Mulholland, L. A. Ruley, and R. P.
                Sniffen. 1977. Water Quality in North Carolina Coastal Plain
                Streams and Effects of Channelization. Report No. 127, Water
                Resources Research Institute of The University of North
                Carolina, Raleigh, NC, 160 pp.

             Kuenzler, E. J., D. W. Stanley and J. P. Koenings. 1979.
                Nutrient kinetics of phytoplankton in the Pamlico River,
                North Carolina. Report No. 139, Water Resources Research
                Institute of The University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC,
                163 pp.

             Kuenzler, E. J., P. J. Mulholland, L. A. Yarbro and L. A. Smock.
                1980. Distributions and Budgets of Carbon and Phosphorus,
                Iron and Manganese in a Flood Plain Swamp Ecosystem. Report
                No. 157. Water resoures Research Institute of The University
                of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.

             Kuenzler, E. J., K. L. Stone and D. B. Albert. 1982.
                Phytoplankton Uptake and Sediment Release of Nitrogen and
                Phosphorus in the Chowan River, North Carolina. Report No.
                186, Water Resources Research Institute of The University of
                North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, 148 pp.

             Lancia, R. A., S. D. Miller, D. A. Adams and D. W. Hazel. 1982.
                Validating habitat quality assessment: An example,
                Transactions of the 47th North American Wildlife and Natural
                Resources Conference, pp. 96-110.

             Lancia, R. A., D. A. Adams, R. C. Mead and R. Strait. 1984.
                Development and Validation of Habitat Capability Models for
                National Forest Wildlife Management Indicator Species: Final
                Report for USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest
                Experiment Station.

             Larsen, D. P. and H. T. Mercier. 1975. Lake Phosphorus Loading
                Graphs: An Alternative. National Eutrophication Survey,
                Working Paper No. 174.

             Lauria, D. T. and C. R. O'Melia. 1980. Nutrient Models for
                Engineering Management of Pamlico River, NC. Report No. 146,
                Water Resources Research Institute of The University of North
                Carolina, Raleigh, NC.

             Lee, G. F. and R. A. Jones. 1979. Application of the OECD
                eutrophication modeling approach to estuaries, In B. J.
                Neilson and L. E. Cronin (eds), Estuaries and Nutrients.
                Humana Press, Clifton, NJ, pp. 549-568.

             LBG (Leggette, Brashears and Graham, Inc.). 1983. Water Use
                Permit Application for the Phelps Peat Mine. Prepared for
                Peat Methanol Associates, Creswell, N.C.

                                             299

                   Lilly, J. P. 1981. A history of swamp land development in North
                       Carolina, In C. J. Richardson (ed),, Pocosin Wetlands: An
                       Integrated Analysis of Coastal Plain Freshwater Bogs in North
                       Carolina. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, Stroudsburg,
                       PA, pp. 20-39.
                   Livingston, R. J. and J. L. Duncan. 1979. Climatological control
                       of a north Florida coastal system and impact due to upland
                       forestry management, In Proceedings of a National Symposium
                       on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                       Service, FWS/OBS-81/04, Vol. I, p. 426.
                   Lukin, C. G. and L. L. Mauger. 1983. Environmental Geologic
                       Atlas of the North Carolina Coastal Zone: Dare, Hyde,
                       Tyrrell, and Washington Counties. Prepared for the Coastal
                       Energy Impact Program, Office of Coastal Management, North
                       Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
                       Development, Raleigh, NC.
                   Lynch, J. M. and S. L. Peacock. 1982a. Natural Areas Inventory
                       of Hyde County, North Carolina. CEIP Report #28. Prepared for
                       the North Carolina Coastal Energy Impact Program, Office of
                       Coastal Management, North Carolina Department of Natural
                       Resources and Community Development, Raleigh, NC.

                   ---- 1982b. Natural Areas Inventory of Washington County, North
                       Carolina. CEIP Report #30. Prepared for the North Carolina
                       Coastal Energy Impact Program, Office of Coastal Management,
                       North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
                       Development, Raleigh, NC.
                   Manooch, C. S., 111. 1973. Food habits of yearling and adult
                       striped bass, Morone saxatilis (Walbaum), from
                       Albemarle Sound, North Carolina, Chesapeake Science 14:73-86.
                   Matson, E. A., M. M. Brinson, D. D. Cahoon and G. J. Davis.
                       1983. Biochemistry of the sediments of the Pamlico and Neuse
                       River Estuaries, North Carolina. Report No. 191, Water
                       Resources Research Institute of The University of North
                       Carolina, Raleigh, NC, 103 pp.
                   McDonald, C. B. and A. N. Ash. 1981. Natural Areas Inventory of
                       Tyrrell County, North Carolina. CEIP Report #8. Prepared for
                       the North Carolina Coastal Energy Impact Program, Office of
                       Coastal Management, North Carolina Department of Natural
                       Resources and Community Development, Raleigh, NC.
                   McHugh, J. L. 1966. Management of estuarine fisheries, In R. F.
                       Smith, A. H. Schwartz and W. H. Massman (eds), A Symposium of
                       Estuarine Fisheries, Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 3, pp.
                       133-154.

                                                     300

             McMullan, P. S., Jr. 1984. Land-clearing Trends on the
                 Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula: 300 years of Development in a
                 Wetlands Region. McMullan Consulting, Durham, NC, 132 pp.

             Neale, P.J., Malone, T.C. and Boardman, D.C. 1981. Effects of
                 freshwater flow on salinity and phytoplankton biomass in the
                 lower Hudson Estuary, In Proc. of the National Symposium on
                 Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries, San Antonio, TX, Sept. 9-11,
                 1980. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-81/04, Vol 1,
                 p. 168-184.

             .Nelson, P. F. 1964. Geology and Ground-water Resources of the
                 Swanquarter Area, North Carolina. North Carolina Dept. Water
                 Resources, Groundwater Bull. 4. 79 p.
             Nicholson, W. R. 1964. Growth compensation in four year classes
                 of striped bass, Roccus      saxatilis from Albemarle Sound,
                 North Carolina, Chesapeake Science 5:145-149.

             Noffsinger, R. E., R. W. Laney, A. M. Nichols, D. L. Stewart and
                 D. W. Steffeck. 1983. Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination
                 Act Report for Prulean Farms, Inc. Section 404 Permit
                 Application, Dare County, North Carolina. U.S. Fish and
                 Wildlife Service, Raleigh, NC, 190 pp. + appendices.

             North Carolina Board of Education. 1982. North Carolina Public
                 Schools: Statistical Profile, 1982. Division of Statistical
                 Services, North Carolina Board of Education, Raleigh, NC.
             North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
                 Development. mining, air quality, NPDES, and water use
                 permits issued to mining operations on the Albemarle-Pamlico
                 Peninsula.

             O'Connor, D. J., R. V. Thomann, and D. M. DiToro. 1973. Dynamic
                 Water Quality Forecasting and Management. EPA Ecological
                 Research Series, EPA-660/3-73-009.

             Otte, L. J. 1981. Origin, Development and Maintenance of Pocosin
                 Wetlands of North Carolina. Unpublished report of the North
                 Carolina Natural Heritage Program, North Carolina Department
                 of Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh, NC.
             Paerl, H. W. 1982. Environmental Factors Promoting and
                 Regulating N2 Fixing Blue-green Algal Blooms in the Chowan
                 River, North Carolina. Report No. 176. Water Resources
                 Research Institute of The University of North Carolina,
                 Raleigh, NC, 65 pp.
             ---- 1983. Factors Regulating Nuisance Blue-green Algal Bloom
                 Potentials in the Lower Neuse River. Water Resources Research
                 Institute of The University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC,
                 48 pp.

                                               301

                   Paerl, H. W., P. T. Bland, J. H. Blackwell and N. D. Bowles.
                       1984. The Effects of Salinity on Blue-green Algal
                       (Microcystis aeruginosa) Bloom Potential in the Neuse River
                       Estuary, North Carolina. Sea Grant Publication, 19 pp. In
                       press.

                   Pate, P. P., Jr. 1972. Life History Aspects of the Hickory Shad,
                       Alosa   mediocris (Mitchell), in the Neuse River, North
                       Z@a`rolina. M.S. Thesis. North Carolina State University,
                       Raleigh, NC, 66 pp.

                   Pate, P. P., Jr. and R. Jones. 1981. Effects of upland drainage
                       on estuarine nursery areas of Pamlico Sound, NC, In
                       Proceedings of a National Symposiu@m on Freshwater Inflow to
                       Estuaries. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-81/04,
                       Vol. II, pp. 402-418.

                   Peacock, S. L. and J. M. Lynch. 1982a. Natural Areas Inventory
                       of Mainland Dare County, North Carolina. CEIP Report # 27.
                       Prepared for the North Carolina Coastal Energy Program,
                       Office of Coastal Management, North Carolina Department of
                       Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh, NC.

                   ----  1982b. Natural Areas Inventory of Pamlico County, North
                       Carolina. CEIP Report #29. Prepared for the North Carolina
                       Coastal Energy Impact Program, Office of Coastal Management,
                       North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
                       Development, Raleigh, NC.

                   PMA (Peat Methanol Associates). 1981. PSD Permit Application,
                       Volume 1. PMA, Creswell, NC.

                   ----- 1982a. NPDES permit application (Methanol Plant) -
                       Executive summary and permit application. PMA, Creswell, NC.

                   ----  1982b. NPDES permit application (Methanol Plant) - Volume
                       I: Engineering report. PMA, Creswell, NC.

                         1982c. NPDES permit application (Methanol Plant) - Volume
                       II: Wastewater discharge assessment. PMA, Creswell, NC.

                   ----  1983a. Addendum to the air quality permit application, May
                       25, 1983. PMA, Creswell, NC.

                   ----  1983b. Addendum to mining permit transfer. PMA, Creswell,
                       NC.

                   ----  1983c. Mining permit transfer: Phelps Peat Mine- Executive
                       summary and transfer application. PMA, Creswell, NC.

                   ----  1983d. Mining permit transfer: Phelps Peat Mine- Supporting
                       documentation. PMA, Creswell, NC.

                   ----  1983e. NPDES permit application: Phelps Peat Mine-
                       Executive summary and permit application. PMA, Creswell, NC.

                                                     302

              ---- 1983f. NPDES (Harvesting) permit application: Phelps Peat
                 Mine- Engineering report and discharge assessment. PMA,
                 Creswell, NC.

              ---- 1983g. Socioeconomic Analysis. PMA, Creswell, NC.

              ---- 1983h. Solid waste management plan. PMA, Creswell, NC.

              ---- 1983i. Summary environmental analysis. PMA, Creswell, NC.

              ---- 1983j. Traffic impact analysis. PMA, Creswell, NC.

              ---- 1983k. Water use permit application (Harvesting): Phelps
                 Peat Mine - Permit application and supporting documentation.
                 PMA, Creswell, NC.

              Peat Mining Task Force. 1983. Peat Mining and Natural Resources.
                 North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
                 Development, Raleigh, NC.

              Pels, R. J. 1967. Sediments of Albemarle Sound North Carolina.
                 M.S. Thesis, Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC,
                 unpublished manuscript, 72 pp.

              Postel, S. L. 1981. The economic benefits of pocosin
                 preservation, In C. J. Richardson (ed), Pocosin Wetlands: An
                 Integrated Analysis of Coastal Plain Freshwater Bogs in North
                 Carolina. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., Stroudsburg, PA,
                 pp. 283-302.

              Purisinsit, P. 1982. Evaluation of Two Hydrologic Models for the
                 North Carolina Blacklands. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of
                 Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State
                 University, Raleigh, N.C.

              Rast W. and G. F. Lee. 1978. Summary Analysis of North American
                 (U.S. Portion) OECD Eutrophication Project: Nutrient
                 Loading-Lake Response Relationships and Trophic State
                 Indices. EPA, Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory,
                 Corvallis, OR, EPA-600/3-78-008, 454 pp.

              Reckhow K. H., M. N. Beaulac, and J.T. Simpson. 1980. Modeling
                 Phosphorus Loading and Lake Response Under Uncertainty: A
                 manual and Compilation of Export Coefficients.
                 EPA-440/5-80-011, 214 pp.

              Richardson, C. J. (ed). 1981. Pocosin Wetlands: An Integrated
                 Analysis of Coastal Plain Freshwater Bogs in North Carolina.
                 Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, Stroudsburg, PA, 364 pp.

                                                303

                   Richardson, C. J., R. Evans, and D. Carr. 1981. Pocosins:: An
                      ecosystem in transition, In C. J. Richardson (ed), Pocosin
                      Wetlands: An Integrated Analysis cf Coastal Plain Freshwater
                      Bogs in North Carolina, Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company,,
                      Stroudsburg, PA, pp. 3-19.

                   Richardson, C. J. 1983. Pocosins: Vanishing wastelands ox:
                      valuable wetlands?, Bioscience 33(10):626-6:33.

                   Roelofs, E. W., and D. F. Bumpus. 1953. The hydrography of
                      Pamlico Sound, Bull. Marine Sci., Gulf and Caribbean, v. 3,
                      no. 3. p. 181-205.

                   Roesch, S.E., Clark, L.J., and Bray, M.M. 1979. User's Manual
                      for the Dynamic (Potomac) Estuary Model. EPA Report
                      903/9-79-001.

                   RGH (Rogers, Golden and Halpern, Inc. and Engineers for Energy
                      and the Environment). 1982. The Design of a Planning Program
                      to Help Mitigate Energy Facility-related Air Quality Impacts
                      in the Washington County, North Carolina Area. CEIP Report
                      14. Prepared for the North Carolina Coastal Energy Impact
                      Program, Office of Coastal Management, North Carolina
                      Department of Natural Resources and Community Development,
                      Raleigh, NC.

                   Rote, J. R. and K. Roberts. 1981. Role of the National Marine
                      Fisheries Service in the protection of freshwater inflow to
                      estuaries, In Proceedings of A National Symposium on
                      Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                      Service, FWS/OBS-81/04, Vol. I, pp. 18-22.

                   Seyb, L. and K. Randolph. 1977. North American Project - A Study
                      of U.S. Water Bodies. EPA-600/3-77-086.

                   Shamir, U. and G. Dugan. 1971. Motion of sea water interface in
                      coastal aquifers: A numerical solution, Water Resources Res.
                      7(3):644-657.

                  .Simola, H. and M. Lodenius. 1982. Recent i6crease in mercury
                      sedimentation in a forest lake attributable to peatland
                      drainage, Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 29:298-305.

                   Skaggs, R. W., J. W. Gilliam, T. J. Sheets, and J. S. Barnes.
                      1980. Effect of Agricultural Land Development on Drainage
                      Waters in the North Carolina Tidewater Region. Report No.
                      159, Water Resources Research Institute of The University of
                      North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.

                   Smith, H. M. 1907. The fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina
                      Geological and Economic Survey, Raleigh, NC, Vol. 2, 453 pp.

                                                   304

             Sorrell, F. Y. et al. 1982. Oil and Gas Pipelines in Coastal
                North Carolina: Impacts and Routing Considerations. CEIP
                Report #33. Prepared for the North Carolina Coastal Energy
                Impact Program, Office of Coastal Management, North Carolina
                Department of Natural Resources and Community Development,
                Raleigh, NC.

             Spear, M. 1981. Freshwater inflows and Fish and Wildlife Service
                operations, In Proceedings of a National Symposium on
                Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                Service, FWS/OBS-81/04, Vol. I, pp. 23-30.

             Stanley, D. W. and J. E. Hobbie. 1977. Nitrogen Recycling in the
                Chowan River. Report No. 121, Water Resources Research
                Institute of The University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.

             Stegman, J. L. 1981. Welcoming address, In Proceedings of a
                National Symposium on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries. U.S.
                Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-81/04, Vol. I, pp. 3-4.

             Stick, D. 1982. Historical perspective of Albemarle Sound, In
                Albemarle Sound Trends and Management. University of NC Sea
                Grant College Program Publ., 82-02:3-7, Raleigh, NC.

             Stinson, Thomas F., Lloyd D. Bender and Stanley W. Voelker.
                1982. Northern Great Plains Coal Mining: Regional Impacts.
                Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 452, Economic
                Development Division, Economic Research Service, U.S.
                Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

             Street, M. W. 1982. Fisheries resources and trends of the
                Albemarle Sound area, In Albemarle Sound Trends and
                Management. University of NC Sea Grant College Program Publ.
                82-02:57-60, Raleigh, NC.

             Street, M. W., P. P. Pate, B. F. Holland, Jr. and A. B. Powell.
                1975. Anadromous Fisheries Research Program, Northern Coastal
                Region. N. C. Div. Mar. Fish. Rep., Project AFCS-8:1-173 +
                appendix.

             Stuckey, J. L. 1965. North Carolina: Its Geology and Mineral
                Resources. North Carolina Dept. of Conserv. Devel., Raleigh,
                NC, 550 p.

             Talbot, G. B. and J. E. Sykes. 1958. Atlantic coast migrations
                of American shad, U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull.
                58:473-490.

             Trent, L. and W. W. Hassler. 1966. Feeding behavior of adult
                striped bass, Roccus    saxatilis , in relation to stages of
                sexual maturity, Chesapeake Science 7:189-192.

                                             305

                ---- 1968. Gill net selection, migration, size and age composition,
                   sex ratio, harvest efficiency, and management of striped bass in
                   the Roanoke River, North Carolina, Chesapeake Science 9:217-232.

                Tschetter, P. D. et al. 1981. Coastal Energy Transportation Study,
                   Phase II, Volume 2: An Assessment of Potential Impacts of
                   Energy-related Transportation Developments on North Carolina's
                   Coastal Zone. CEIP Report #3. Prepared for the North Carolina
                   Coastal Energy Impact Program, Office of Coastal management, North
                   Carolina Department of Natural Resources ahd Community Development,
                   Raleigh, NC.

                U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1982. Draft Environmental Impact
                   Statement, Prulean Farms, Inc., Dare County. U.S. Army Corps of
                   Engineers, Wilmington District, Wilmington, NC.

                U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat Evaluation Procedures
                   (HEP). ESM 102. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
                   Service, Washington, DC.

                Vandenberg, J. J. and K. R. Knoerr. 1983. The Deposition of Airborne
                   Materials in the Lake Phelps, NC Region. CEIP Report # 37. Prepared
                   for the North Carolina Coastal Energy Impact Program, office of
                   Coastal Management, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
                   and Community Development, Raleigh, NC.

                Vernberg, F.J., W. Kitchens, H. McKellar, K. Summers, and R. Bonnell.
                   1977. The Dynamics of an Estuary as a Natural Ecosystem. EPA
                   Reports 600/3-77-016 (1 and II).

                ---- 1978. The Dynamics of an Estuary as a Natural System, II. EPA
                   Ecological Research Series, EPA-600/3-78-092, 76 pp.

                Vollenweider, R. A. 1968. The Scientific Basis of Lake and Stream
                   Eutrophication, with Particular Reference to Phosphorus and
                   Nitrogen as Eutrophication Factors. OECD Tech. Report, Paris,
                   DAS/CSI/68.21.

                Vollenweider, R. A. 1975. Input-output models with special reference.
                   to the phosphorus loading concept in limnology, Schweiz. Z. Hydrol.
                   3 7: 53-8 4 .

                Walburg, C. H. and P. R. Nichols. 1967. Biology and management of the
                   American shad and status of the fisheries, Atlantic coast of the
                   United States, 1960, U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish.
                   550:1-105.

                Walton, R. 1983. Computer modeling of Hydrodynamics and Solute
                   Transport in Canals and Marinas; A Literature Review and Guidelines
                   for Future Development. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
                   Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

                Wei, Jing Song. 1983. Finite Element Analysis of Coastal
                   Hydrodynamics, PhD Dissertation, North Carolina State University,
                   Raleigh, NC, unpublished manuscript.

                                                     306

           Weiss, C. M. and E. J. Kuenzler. 1976. The Trophic State of North
              Carolina Lakes. Report No. 119, Water Resources Research Institute
              of The University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, 224 pp.

           Wetzel, R. G. 1975. Limnology. Saunders, Philadelphia.

           Whelan, J. B., A. R. Tipton, J. F. Williamson, P. R. Johansen, J. P.
              McClure and.N. D. Cost. 1979. A comparison of three systems for
              evaluating forest wildlife habitat, Transactions of the North
              American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 44:392-403.

           Wilder, H. B., T. M. Robison, and K. L. Lindskov. 1978. Water
              resources of Northeast North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey,
              Water Resources Investigations 77-81, Raleigh, NC.

           Willis, G. H. and L. L. McDonald. 1982. Pesticides in agricultural
              runoff and their effects on downstream water quality, Environmental
              Chemistry, Vol I, pp. 267-279.

           Woods, W. J. 1967. Hydrographic studies in Pamlico Sound, In
              Proceedings: Symposium on Hydrology of the Coastal Waters of North
              Carolina. May 16, 1967. Report No. 5, Water Resources Research
              Institute of The University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, pp.
              104-114.

                                             307

                 10. APPENDICES

                 10.1 Habitat Type/Land Use Data
                        (based on Lukin and Mauger, 1983)

                 Table  10.1A: Scenarios #1 and #3-- Approximate acreages of
                               peatland by habitat type/land use category
                               at year 0

                                                       Area 1             Area 2
                 Land Use Category                  Acres       %       Acres      %

                 Residential development               0        0           0      0

                 Roads and rights-of-way               0        0           0      0

                 Other developed areas                 0        0           0      0

                 Agricultural land                 2,848*      18      1,071      15

                 Deciduous forest                      0        0           0      0

                 Evergreen forest                      0        0         929     12.5

                 Mixed forest                          0        0           0      0

                 White cedar swamp                     0        0           0      0

                 Mixed swamp forest                    0        0           71     1

                 Disturbed land:
                  a)Transitional/field ditched 8,700           54      1,071      15
                  b)Ditched pocosin, not
                    otherwise disturbed                0        0      1,857      26

                 High pocosin                         633       4      1,214      17

                 Low pocosin                        3,005      20         929     12.5

                 Bay forest                            0        0           0      0

                 Water (incl. canals), marsh          316       2           0      0

                 Active peat mine                      0        0           0      0

                 Inactive peat mine                   316       2           0      0

                 Total Acres                       15,818              7,142

                 * Not currently in production, but soon to be put into
                 agricultural production (S. Barnes, First Colony Farms, personal.
                 communication, 1983).

                                                   308

            Table 10.1B: Scenario #2-- Approximate acreages of peatland by
                          land use category at year 0

                                        Area 1      Area 2      Area 3      Area 4
            Land Use Category          Acres %     Acres %     Acres %     Acres %

            Residential development      0    0      0   0       0   0       0   0

            Roads and rights-of-way      0    0      0   0       0   0       0   0

            Other developed areas        0    0      0   0       0   0       0   0

            Agricultural land*       2,700    9  1,200   8       0   0     260   2

            Deciduous forest             0    0      0   0       0   0       0   0

            Evergreen forest             0    0  1,200   8       0   0       0   0

            Mixed forest                 0    0      0   0       0   0       0   0

            White cedar swamp            0    0      0   0       0   0     130   1

            Mixed swamp forest           0    0    450   3    5,460  21   3,640 28

            Disturbed land:
             a)Transitional
                field ditched        9,600    32   300   2      780  3     650   5
             b)Ditched pocosin,
               not otherwise
                disturbed                0    0  1,800   12      0   0     650   5

            High pocosin             3,900    13 2,700   18  15,600  60   2,990 23
            Low pocosin              13,200  44  7,200   48   41160  16   3,640 28

            Bay forest                   0    0      0   0       0   0     910   7

            Water (incl.
            canals)/marsh               300   1    150   1       0   0     130   1

            Active peat mine             0    0      0   0       0   0       0   0

            Inactive peat mine          300   1      0   0       0   0       0   0

            Total Acres              30,000      15,000      260,000    13,000
              Difference between acres in agricultural production in Scenarios
            #1 and #2 (Areas 1 and 2) is due to the fact that acreage outside
            the 4-foot peat thickness contour included in Scenario #1 (Areas 1
            and 2) was not necessarily included in Scenario #2 (Areas 1 and
            2).

                                              309

                WHEAT/SOYBNS.0                                                                                                    BUDGET 74-1
                                                                                                                                           1/83
                WHEAT ANn SOYBEANS, DOUHLE-r-ROPPEO: Estimated             revenue. operating qKponses, ennual ownership
                                                              costs and    not revemuo per acre

                Category                                             Units      Price           Quantity        Value           Your Value

                F4-oduct ion,:
                    itheat                                            au.       S 3,60            50.000        S180.00
                    Soybean                                           su.          5.85           25.000          146.25
                Total Receipts                                                                                  $326.25

                Operating Inputs:
                    Lime applied                                      Tons       $26.00            0.333        S 8.66
                    Seed 'wheat                                       Bu.          8.00            1.500          12.00
                    5-15-30, bulk                                     Cwt.         9.33            4.000.         37.32
                    Dry fertilizer spreading          a               Acre         5.50            2.000          11.00
                    33.5% Amonlum nitrate, bulk                       CW11.       10.50            1.791          18.81
                    Post-emerge herbicide                             Acre         2.59            1.000           2.59
                    Soybean seed                                      Su.         10.50            0.800           8.40
                    Soybean-Inoculant                                 Bu.          1.85            0.800           1.48
                    Pro-emerge    bherbicide                          Acre        17.02            1.000          17.02
                    Nomatlcld*    b                                   Acre        34.05            1.000          34.05
                    Insecticide.                       b              Acre         3.47            1.000           3.47
                    Insecticide- applied     by plane                 Acre         4.50            1.000           4.50

                    Tractor fuel and lube cost                        Acre                                         6.69
                    Tractor repair cost                               Acre.                                        2.59
                    Machinery fuel and lube cost                      Acre                                         6.36
                    Mach'nery repair cost                             Acre                                         9.57
                Total -perating cost                                                                            S184.91

                Returns to land. labor, capital,
                    machinery, overhead, and management                                                         $141.34

                Capital cost:
                    Annual operating capital                                    S 0.14         S 55.143         S 7,72
                    Tractor Investment                                             0.14            39.026          5.46
                    Machinery Investment                                           0.14           189.571         26.54
                Total Interest charge                                                                           S 39.72

                Returns to land, labor, machinery,
                    overhead, and management                                                                    $101.62

                Ownership cost: (Deprociatlow, taxes. Insurance)
                    Tractor                                           001.                                      S 4.42
                    Machinery                                         001.                                        29.18
                Total ownership cost                                                                            $ 33.60

                Returns to land, labor, overhead, and
                    management                                                                                  S 68.02

                Labor cost-
                    Machinery labor                                   W .       S 4.25             2.972        S 12.63
                Total labor cost                                                                                  12.63

                Returns to land, overhead, and
                    management                                                                                  S 55.39

                Prepared by R. E. Jarrett, E. J. Dunphy, Crop Science Extension Soecialls                   #i. in! D.   F. Neu-nan, Ex-enslon
                    Economist.
                aincrease n1trocisn application by 20 pounds in Coastal Plain.
                bAn i-secticija and nematIcide              I not I I ke I y I)e , ee lm@,! i 1 fne

                                                                             311

                                                    OVEAT AND SOISCANS, DOVOL                                  I-C40PO13,          sstimatod 01*.onus.                                Oroorefing                                                              Costs fad lict 010.44vo
                                                                                                                                   ,a, Ac,*.
                                                    L I fit                                                    JAN                 FES                WAR                             APR                      MAI'                                    JUL                     AUG                  w
                                                    PROOJC?11@11                                                                      "webor w                Units
                                                    I      "%*a-                                               0.0                 0.0                0.0                             0.0                      0.0        53.0                         0.0                     0.0                  0.0
                                                    2      soyhes"s                                            0.0                 C . C              0.0                             0.0                      0.0                                0.0  0.0                     0.0                  0.0
                                                                                                               OCT                 Nov                DEC                             PRICE                    WE I       UNIT CODE               ITEM CODE                    TO                   C"
                                                                                                                                      koob*r a#               Units
                                                    I      Wheat                                               0.0                 0.0                0.0                             3.60                     a. C1                              2.00 64.00                   2.00                 0.4
                                                    2      sovile4"s                                           0.0                 25.00              0.0                             5.05                     0. C                               2.0@ $6.00                   2.00                 0.0
                                                                                                               JAN                 -to                MAN                             APR                      14A T                              JUN  JUL                     AUG                  sa;
                                                    Ogereti-g Imouls                                                                                          Rato/11"IT
                                                    I      time. Apollo#                                       0.0                 0.0                0.0                             0.0                      0.0                                @.C  0.0                     0.0                  0.0
                                                    4      load on**#                                          0.0                 0.0                0.0                             0.0                      0.0                                @.a  0.0                     0.0                  0.*
                                                    5      5-15-30. setit                                      0.0                 0.0                0.0                             0_7                      0.0                                1: . Z0.0                    0.0                  0.0
                                                    I      Dry                                                 0, : 0,             11 -30             0.0                             0.0                      0.0                                0.0  0.0                     0.0                  0.0
                                                    1      33.,                                                a                   .79                0.0                             0.0                      0.0                                0.3  0.0                     0.0                  0.*
                                                    a      Post E-O'Se Herb                                    0.0                 1.00               0.0                             0.0                      0.0                                3.0  0.0                     0.0                  0.0
                                                    9      Soybean loud                                        0.0                 0.0                0.0                             0.0                      0.0                                0.0  0.60                    0.0                  0.0
                                                    10     SoIrbooft laocwl                                    0.9                 0.0                0.0                             0 0                      0.0                                *.a  0.40                    0.0                  0.0
                                                    It     Pro-jeorge Herb                                     0.0                 0.0                0.0                             0:0                      0.0                                0.0  1.00                    0.0                  0.0
                                                    12     monsticife                                          0.0                 0.0                0.0                             0                        0                                  0 0                                               0 0
                                                    13     I.SeCTIC149                                         0.0                 0.0                0.0                             0:00                     ON                                 0:0  0,10                    OU0.                 0:0
                                                    14     Insecticide                                         Allot 0.0           0.0                0.0                             0.0                      0.0                                0.0  0.0                     1.00                 0.0
                                                                                                               OCT,                Now                DEC                             P.M I                    WE I GoT   U41T CODE               ITEM CODE                    To                   C111
                                                    O;Oroti-g Inputs                                                                                          mote/Umit
                                                           Lim.       4,011*4                                  0.33                0.0                0.0                             26.00                    0.0                                3.03 229.00                                       0.0
                                                    4      is*: Wheat                                          1.50                0.0                0.0                             4.00                     0.0                                2.50 174.00                  3.00                 0.0
                                                    5      S-I'-30. Built                                      2.00                0.0                0.0                             9.)3                     0.0                                16.00 209.00                 3.00                 0.0
                                                    6      Dry Fort Sor*od                                     1.00                0.0                0.0                             5.50                     0.0                                7.00 230.00                  3.00                 0.0
                                                    7      33.'                                                101 0.0             0.0                0.0                             10.50                    0.0                                16.00 225.00                 .1.00                0.0
                                                    a      Post :merge 4606                                    0.0                 0.0                0.0                             2.59                     0.0                                7.00 236.00                  3.00                 0.0
                                                    I      $*wood* sago                                        0.0                 0.0                0.0                             10.50                    0.0                                171.00                       5.00                 0.0
                                                    10     Sov*eo- 1.0401                                      0.0                 0.0                0.0                             1.65                     0.0                                Z.00 275.00                  3.00                 0.0
                                                    11     Pro-tworge Herb.                                    0.0                 0.0                0.0                             17.02                    0.0                                1.00 256.00                  ).So                 0.0
                                                    It     10004ticide                                         0.0                 0.0                0.0                             34.05                    0.0                                7.00 266.00                  3.00                 0.8
                                                    13.    $msettl:140                                         0.0                 0.0                0.*
                                                    If     fa%.C-                                              0.0                                                                    3.47                     0.0                                7.00 240.00                  3.00                 0.0
                                                                                                                                   0.0                0.0                             4.50                     O.D                                7.00 269.00                  3.00                 0.0
                                                                                                                                              Monthly swommory ot                         nocelpto and topit*$*$
                                                    "114mv                                                     #M4tj1.' JAR, or CIS *A*               APR         "T                  Jun                      J UL AUG                           SEP OLT             Now            DEC       TOTAL
                                                    Tevet mocelpts,                                            AGOw G.'*  0.0      0.0                0.0         0.0                 16*.66                   0.0 0 0                            .0          146.29                 0.0       126.25
                                                    ?**a$ 1&VOAs*O.                                            Agen, 0.0  29.00    0.0                0.4         0.0                 7.40                     67.55 ):9,                         X601.               9.09           0.0       194.9t
                                                    44111tvi'"S to Load.                                       Lobar. Capital. Mitefitiory, Ov*rhooo. Risk. *ad                             "&*4q&amxt                                                                                         141.34
                                                    ANOUAL CAPITAL                                             001. 0.0  21.92     0.0                0.0         0.0                 3.04                     22.63 1.91                         0.0. 5.62           0.0            0.0            55.14
                                                                                                                                                              Labor                                            Monte
                                                                                                                                                                  0.0
                                                    MACHIMIRT LASOR                                            He 0.0  0.32        0.0                0.0                             0.4                      0. 00.0                            0.0 0.59            0.48           0.0            7.97
                                                                                                                                           mockinory Flood and variable costs Per                                                                 Near        TOTAL
                                                    MACHINE                                                    con 01PR            INSUR              TAX         TOTAL FIRED                                  REPAIR     FUEL                    L US VARIAGLI                INV             011IM"It
                                                    ,rector (5)                                                52.44               0.25               0.13                            3.19                     1.87       4.19                    0.63        6.69             3.9&                 1.00
                                                    PIC%up True%                                               17 2.42             0.10               0.05                            2.58                     t . 30     3.44                    0 12        5.26             1.80                 1.00
                                                    TP vCft                                                    16 4.7)             0.24               0.15                            5.11                     S. 30      3.04                    0.46        0.79             4. 1&                1.00
                                                    Groin Console SO                                           20 34.60            1.96               1.16                            37.74                    7. 25      6.67                    1.00        14.93            34.61                0.25
                                                    Tmodoe Disc                                                39 3.67             0.23               0.14                            4.25                     1.01       0.0                     0.0         1.01             4.05                 0.17
                                                    $OCT. Korea.                                               as 0.49             0.03               0.02                            0.53                     0.12       0.0                     0.0         0.12             0.90                 0.17
                                                    Grain Drill                                                so 7.40             0.44               0.20                            8.12                     1.91       2.0                     0.0         1.91             7.71                 0.22
                                                    SlItever Td 1104A                                          to 0.69             0.03               0.02                            0.70                     0. 61'     0.0                     0.0         0.67             0.5?                 0. 1 a,
                                                    Coro Plo.tor/ATT                                           6.11                0.36               0.23                            6.70                     a. 241     0.0                     0.0         4.20             6.36                 0.32
                                                    ftrover Tic 116                                            71 0.65.            0.03               0.02                            0.70                     0.61,      0.0                     0.0         0.67             0.37                 0.32
                                                    Roll Culti.ator                                            63 5.06             0.10               0.tl                            3.35                     0.331      0.0                     0.0         0.35             3.20                 0.22
                                                    Soro*ttp To 110                                            71 0.611            0.03               0.02                            0.70                     1.44       0.0                     0.0         1.80             0.37                 0.22
                                                                                                               ITEM                             Times                                 LA1100k                  MAC"INS    FUCL-OIL-LVW@                       FIX90 COSTS
                                                                                                               80.                 MAT6         W1111                                 HOURS                    HOURS 41PA&A PER                   ACINS       1111111 ",111s
                                                    Sprayer To ItI524-                                         9.70                Orell        1.00                                  0.190                    0.164                              31                  1.49
                                                    Tend%                                                      I*                  Fee          0.10                                  0.120                    0.100                                                  0.22
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  1.:4
                                                    Toodom also                                                5.30                Jun          1.06                                  0.204                    0.162,                             1                   7.11
                                                    SOOT "*"*a                                                 Is                  Jun*         1.00                                  0.0                      0.109                              0.01
                                                    Grillm C408166                                             211`_               Jun          1.00                                  0.303                    0.293                              3.77
                                                    True*                                                      to                  JIM          0.23                                  0.300                    0.294                              2.20.               2.31
                                                    Coe* Ptestior                                              2.46                JUL          1.00                                  0.595                    0.329                              3.78                6
                                                    loroyor TO 110"@                                           71                  JUL          1.00                                  0.0                      0.325                              0.22                0:..
                                                    sell CVITI.otdf@,.                                         S.                  JUL          1.00                                  0.262                    0.217                              1.67                3.12
                                                    Stealer TO 1111                                            ?2,                 JUL          t.00                                  0.0                      0.217                              0.40                0.29
                                                                                                               to                  JUL          0.10                                  O.Izo                    0.100                              13.80               O.S?
                                                    T#-Aoo Disc                                                2.3V                OCT          1.00                                  0.204                    0.169                              1.41                2.72
                                                    $act we,,**                                                49,                 OCT          1.00                                  0.0                      0.169                              0.5Z                0.11
                                                    i;,ralft Drill                                             5.90                OCT          1.00                                  0.264                    0.218                              2.02                5.17
                                                    Pickup T,.cm                                               11                  OCT          0.10                                  0. 120                   0.100                              :.93                0.44
                                                    Gee$. Cousins so                                           20                  Nov          t.00                                  0.301                    0.213                              3.77                10.29
                                                    truck                                                      to                  toy          0.15                                  0.1so                    0.150                              1.112               -1.39
                                                    TOTAu                                                                                                                             2.972                    3-4 4                              25.61               65.56

                                                    VHtAT 414D SOYSIANS. VOUSLE-CROPPED:                                           Ittect of 'er,109 4-04 Of Production 01 has*
                                                                                                               and soybeans a. -*I                            to lend. o.er"ood a.d
                                                                                                               (-Ifft -%sot 91;C6 At 13.60 00, 606hal old lo.boe- 014C.                                                   a'
                                                                                                               ll.&$ per bushol)

                                                    Rat* ot prodmiatieft                                                                                      Rate of Production of ."*S,
                                                           ot soybean*                                         Total cost for sees I                                                  -
                                                                                                                                              11      40 Ov.                          10-b..                   50 D..
                                                           ZO                                                  $270.86                                S -9.66                         1 .6.14                  1 62.14
                                                           25                                                  .270,66                                        19.39                   55.!o
                                                           )0                                                                                                                         84,6A                    1-1.44

                                                                                                                                                                                      312

                    CORN. I I                                                                                                                                                   5@'DGZr 70-1
                                                                                                                                                                                             '/83

                    CORN (COASTAL                                                                -nz @;v! revenue, ooerat I nq expen-Fe-,                                                 costs
                                                                                                        -t-@,enue per scre

                    Category                                                                     I-%        Pr;ce              '-uart I ty            Va. J@'

                    Production:
                        Corn                                                                                         a
                                                                                                           S 2.26                  115.000            S2
                    Total Receipts

                    Operating Inputs:
                        Lima applied                                                                        S26.00                   C.333            1 i@'45
                        SOW corn                                                                              1.26                 16. 0111c@
                        0-0-60, bulk                                                       c6t.               8.75                   2000                  7, 5,0
                        Dry fertilizer soreacinc                                                              5. 5G.                 !.coo
                        30S nitrogen solution                                                                 7.16                   4.,57C
                        Pro-emorge herbicide
                        Post-emergo herbiciae                                                                                                              12.
                        Insecticide and nematicide                                         A,:-e                                                           0
                        Liquid nitrogen, custom apof;ed                                    Acre               5.25                   2.00                  "O."j-
                        Tractor       fuel and lube cost                                   kcre                                                            C.64
                        Tra&or repair cost                                                 Acre                                                            2.12
                        Machinery fuel and lube cost                                       Acre                                                            4.06
                        Machinery repair oost                                              Acre                                                            6.72
                    Total operating cost                                                                                                              $150.05

                    Returns to land, labor, capital,
                        machinery. overhead, and ffenacement                                                                                          S109.85

                    Capital cost:
                        Annual operating capital                                                          S 0.14              $ 64.641                S 9.04
                        Tractor Investment                                                                    0.14                 31.890                  4'e'c
                        Machinery Investment                                                                  0.14               123.338                   17.2-1
                    Total interest charge                                                                                                                  Z0.77

                    Returns to land, labor,                mach;rerv,
                        overhead, and management                                                                                                      S

                    Ownership cost: (Depreciation, taxes,
                        Insurance)
                        Tractor                                                            Doi.                                                       S    3.@'
                        Machinery                                                          Doi.                                                            19.03
                    Total ownw-shlp cost                                                                                                              S    22. 1-54

                    Returns to land, labor, overhead, and
                        management                                                                                                                    S    56.44

                    Labor cost:
                        Machinery labor
                                                                                                         S 4.25                    2.188              S f". K
                    Total labor cost                                                                                               2.188              1

                    Returns to land, overhead, -n,@
                        management

                    Prepared by J. R. Andersc@r-,                                                   --ir s I on Speci a I I st anL' D,
                    aBased on $2.55 orice, 2.1%                                                          2.5% orice dlsccvn't i-o-
                    over 75.5%.
                    bNitrogen level is

                                                                                                      313

                                                coos. 12
                                                CORM (COASTAL                                           Aft[ASI:                       &&Ifoasted as ... us. Operating E.00-sox. Annual 0.00rahop Costs See age A9.1.0*0
                                                                                                                                       For ACro.

                                                L INS                                    JAN                 fee                       MAa                   APR       WAY                   JUN               JUL                        A us        S a I,
                                                PRODUCTION                                                                             Number Of Units
                                                I Care                                   0.4                 0.0                       0.0                   0.0       0.0                   0.0               0.0                        0.0         115.00,
                                                                                         OCT                 NOV                       DEC                   PRICE     WE ! GAT       UNIT coal                ITEM coot                  TIO         C"
                                                                                                                                       Number at Unit&
                                                I COP&                                   0.0                 0.0                       0'0                   2.26      0.0                   2.00              62.00                      2.00        0.0
                                                                                         JAN                 Fee                       WAR                   APR       MA                    JUN               JUL                        Aloe        SEP
                                                00*rstlag loomts                                                                       RAT*/U.11
                                                I   Lima. Applied                        0.0                 0.0                       0.0                   0.0       0.0                   0.0               0.0                        0.10        0.0
                                                3   flood Car.                           0.0                 0.0                       0.0                   16.00     .0.0                  0.0               0.0                        0.0         0.0
                                                4   0-0-60. Sets                         0.0                 0.0                       2.00                  0.0       0.0                   O.C               0.0                        0.0         0.0
                                                I   Ory Fort Spread                      0.0                 0.0                       1.00                  0.0       0.0                   0.0               0.0                        0.0         0.0
                                                4   309 US? Solut                        0.0                 0.0                       0.0                   2.7%      1.97                  0.3               0.0                        0.0         0.0
                                                ?   Cell ADS LIS Rog                     0.0                 0.0                       0.0                   1.00      1.00                  0.0               0.0                        0.0         0.0
                                                a   pro-1.0'a Herb                       0.0                 6.0                       0.0                   1.00      0.0                   0.0               0.0                        0.0         0.0
                                                9   post 1**r0mkerb                      0.0                 0.0                       0.0                   C.0       1.00                  0.0               0.0                        0.0         0.0
                                                to  lasoct a asset                       0.0                 0.0                       0.0                   1.00      0.0                   0.0               10.0                       0.0         0.0
                                                                                         OCT                 Nov                       DEC                   PRICE     lot I 614T     UNIT coot                ITEM CODE                  To          a
                                                overatial Inputs                                                                       Naf*/UftIt
                                                2   Liao. A091110411                     0.33                0.0                       0.0                   26.00     0.0                   3.00              229.60                     3.00        0.0
                                                I   Small Cars                           0.0                 0.0                       0.0                   1.26      0.0                   12.00             171.00                     5.00        0.0
                                                4   0-0-60. sulk                         0.0                 0.0                       0.0                   8.79      0.0                   16.00             204.00                     3.00        0.4
                                                I   Dry Fort Spread                      0.0                 0.0                       0.0                   1.50      0.0                   7.0*              230.00                     1.00        0.0
                                                6   301 414 $*out                        0.0                 0.0                       0.0                   7.16      0.0                   16.00             226.00                     3.00        0.0
                                                I   Cut Apo L14 Olt                      8.0                 0.0                       0.0                   5.25      0.0                   7.00              23?.00                     3.00        0.0
                                                6   pro-Clsere War&                      0.0                 0.0                       0.0                   14.48     C.0                   7.00              234.00                     3.00        0.0
                                                I   Pegg [more* Herb                     0.0                 0.0                       0.0                   12.07     0.0                   7.00              216.00                     3.00        0.0
                                                I*  lasgat a Mae&?                       0.0                 0.0                       0.10                  9.20      0.0                   7.00              250.00                     3.00        6.0

                                                                                                                                       Neetitly summary of   Receipt# and twoosses
                                                CATIOMI                          UNIT    Jan       ?1111        SlAn                   APR MAY               JUN       JUL      AUG          SEP               OCT     001                DEC   TOTAL
                                                Uget 404010*0                    Acre    0.0       0.0          0.0                    0.0 0.0               0.0       0.0 - 0.0             Aq.,10            0.0     0.0                0.0   299.90
                                                Total Into***$                   Acre    0.0       0.0          26.94                  71.53 .31.07          0.0       0.0      0.0          8.6.7             12.21   0.0                0.4   150.05
                                                1111011fores. to Load,           Labor.  Ceallifel. nesslaerl, Overhead. 111!sk. $ad 1184020meat                                                                                                109.69
                                                ANNUAL CAPITAL                   001.    0.0       0.0          13.29 29.61 10.36                            0.0       0.0      0.0          0.0               11.19   0.0                0.0         $*.&a

                                                                                                                                       Labor Requirowoots by meAth
                                                11111ACNIOCAT LA4OR              Me      0.6       0.6          0.33                   0.36 0.0              0.0       0.0      0.0          0.90              0.51    0.0                0.0         1.19

                                                                                                                                       Mockl4ory Fired *ad Variable Costs Fee                "out                    YOTAL
                                                MACM101                            coal        DCPQ             lnsun                  TAX TOTAL FIXED                 REPAIR         FUEL         LUS         VARIABLE                   INT   maPTINE
                                                Tractor 44)                              4     1.33             0.19                   0.10                  2.62      I.S4           3.67         0.55              9.76                 3.24        1.00
                                                Treetop (#1                              9     4.90             0.3#                   0.20                  5.12      3.02           $.1111       1.02              10.80                6.35        1.00
                                                Pleksig Track                            17    2.42             0.10                   0.06                  2.94      1.30           3.44         0.92              5.26                 1.60        1.00
                                                Truck                                    Is    4.73             0.24                   0.15                  $.If      9.30           3.04         0.46              8.79                 4.14        1.00
                                                Coralsess cooblao                        21    39.04            2.01                   1.17   34.21                    T.'jS          1.24         0.79              13.41                35.11       0.32
                                                Teades also                              at    7.60             O.dS                   0.28                  0.21      1"92           0.0          0.0               t.92                 7.79        0.10
                                                olpoor-eed#or                            33    2.S4             0.17                   0.11                  !1.12     0"72           0.0          0.0               O.?z                 2.99        0.10
                                                Care Pf W/Now $Roper                     46    6.99             0.41                   0.26                  7.59      4.81           0.0          0.0               4.81                 7.14        0.20
                                                $Iran was                                Is    1.11             0.06                   0.04                  1.22      0"40           0.0          0.0               0.40                 1.15        0.33
                                                                                         Iyals                                         TIMES  LAIION            MACHINE               FUEL-OiL-LUG.                  FIXCO COSTS
                                                OPERATION                                NO.            OAT9                           OVER   HOURS                    HOURS      REPAIR PER                   ACRE  PER ACRE

                                                Tenses Oltle                             9.41           OCT                            1.00   0.117                    0.091                 1.35                        2.74
                                                seek Was                                 4.93           OCT                            1.00   0.396                    O_sz?                 2.21                        2.86
                                                Tangos of$*                              9.41           SAN                            1.00   0.117                    0.097                 1.35                        2.76
                                                11111pper-solloldor                      9.33           111111111                      1.00   0.213                    0.176                 2.23                        3.29
                                                Core Pi W/Relp Sasser                    4.46           APR                            1.00   O.Z4Z                    0.200                 2.23                        4.23
                                                plesep Treat                             17             APR                            0.10   0.120                    0.100                 0.53                        0.44
                                                Coroolsowe Casiblow                      21             sap                            1.00   0.362                    0.316                 4.27                      23,35
                                                Treat                                    IS             sap                            0.10   0,600                    O.soo                 4 40                        4.62
                                                TOTAL                                                                                         2.187                    1.813                 'F.LT                     44.37

                                                CORE (COASTAL PtA$N--"*@ILLOUG AREAS); Collett of varying rates of Production $Ad
                                                                                               procoo 00 wat                           to food. overhead and management
                                                Rate of preduatfoR                       Total cost for ogle I                                -              fee Oar bushels
                                                                                 1                                                     1111.621              $2.26     1    32.71
                                                    as be.                                     $204.01                                 S -62.41              1-27.21        1   8.70
                                                Its 6".                                        212.76                                  - 3.46                4 7.,14            )8.59
                                                140 be.                                        222.11                                  12.49                 94.09              51.09
                                                #base# sees to percent moisture coatoot at harvest, :.5 porcoof price discount
                                                for sea&      P#reoftt moisture Star 19.9. *we Prices of 12.05, 12.55 and 1).05

                                                                                                                                                             314

                 W-HEAT!SOYBNS.0                                                                                            9UDGET 74-1
                                                                                                                                    1/83
                 WHEAT AND SOYBEANS. DOUR@Lf -CROPPED: Estlwated        revenue, ooorating expenses. annual ownership
                                                            costs and   not revenuo per acre

                 Cateno-y                                          Units     Price          Quantity      Value           Your Value

                 Production:
                    '01heat                                        su.       $ 4.00            50.000     SISO.00           200.00
                    Soybean                                        au.          6.75        30.000        1  146.25         202.5
                 Total Receipts                                                                           S326.25           402 - 5

                 Operating Inputs:
                    Llme applied                                   Tons      $26.00            0.333      $ 8.66
                    Seed wheat                                     su.          8.00           1.500         12.00
                    5-15-30, bulk                                               9.33           4.000         37.32
                    Dry fertilizer    spreading     a              Acr          5.=O           2.000         11.00
                    33.5% Amonlum nitrate. bulk                                 10.50          1.791         18.61
                    Post-emerge herbicide                          Acre         2.59           1.000         2.59
                    Soybean seed                                   SU.          10.50          0.8D0         8.40.
                    Soybean Inoculant                              Bu.          1.85           0.13W         1.48
                    Pre-amerge  bherbicide                         Acre         17.02          I.DDO         17.02
                    Nematlclde   b                                 Acre         34.05          I.DD0         34.05
                    Insecticide                      b             Acre         3.47           1.000         3.47
                    Insecticide applied by piano                   Acre         4.50           1.000         4.50

                    Tractor fuel and lube cost                     Acre                                      6.69
                    Tractor repair cost                            Acre                                      2.59
                    Machinery fuel and lube cost                   Acre                                      6.36
                    Mach'nery repair cost                          Acre                                      9.57
                 Total peratIng cost                                                                      $184.91

                 Returns to land. labor, capital,
                    machinery, overhead, and management                                                   S217.59

                 Capital cost:
                    Annual operating capital                                 S 0.14        S 55.143       S 7.72
                    Tractor Investment                                          0.14           39.026        5.46
                    Machinery investment.                                       0.14         189.571         26.54
                 Total Interest charge                                                                    S 39.72

                 Returns to land, labor, Machinery,
                    overhead, and management                                                              s177.87

                 Ownership cost: (Depreciation, taxow@.Insurvnce)
                    Tractor                                        Doi.                                   S 4.42
                    Machinery                                      DOI.                                      29.18
                 Total ownership cost                                                                     S 33.60

                 Returns to land, labor, overhead, and
                    management                                                                            S144.27

                 Labor cost-
                    Mach7mery labor                                Hr.       S 4.25            2.972      S 12.63
                 Total labor cost                                                                         S 12.63

                 Returns to land,   -,)verhead, and
                    manage-ment                                                                           s131.65

                 Prepared ty      F. jarrett, E. J. Dunphy, CroD Science :-xTension SDeclal!sts, nnj ). F. Neuman, @x-t@,nsion

                                        @;:@Ilcat)on oy 20 oounds In Coast:! :'lair.
                                                     will not likelv -)e            in t')e
                  A

                                                                        315

                         SOYBE AW,                                                                                                               7 3 -
                                                                                                                                                 )/83
                         S 0 YP f, AL .4,                                Ax:)nnsFos, o-an+*rs-    C01-TS M-,@! no@               acre

                         a                                                 Un I *S                   Oue r - i         Vn u t-         'our Yz 'ue

                         Pr U Ct i L n
                           .zoY-)e--!n                                      Bu.        S 5.85           3 5.           @2-%.  5
                         Tota! Racelp-,,s

                         OperaTing InDUI'-cl
                           Soybean seec                                     au.         1 C. 5 J
                                                                                                                       S  8.4
                           0-10-20,                                         Cwt.         11.55           3. ;"n,''        19..65
                           Dry fertlii:q.- -n:@-eadiig                                                    i.,
                                                                            Acre         5.50                 03          5.50
                           Lima appilec                                     Tons         26.00               -4                               -
                                                                                                                          8.66
                           soybeAn Inoc-*a@'                                9U.
                           Pro-emerae ne-t!: -,e                            Acre
                                                                                                                             02
                           Post-emeroe '@erni:;-e                           Acre                                          !4.-6
                           Nematicide -aterial                              Acre
                           Insectic1cle                                     Acre
                           Insecticide appliee     by air                   Acre                                          4.5@)

                           Tractor fuel and lube cost                       Acre                                          6.49
                           Tractor repair cost                              Acre                                          2.95
                           Machinery fuel and lube cost                     Acre                                          3.71
                           Machimery'repeir cnst                            Acre                                          6.84
                           Total operatlnq cost                                                                        S137.48

                         Returns to land, labor,     caDital,
                           machinery, overnea:%      and management                                                    S E7.217

                         Capital :ost:
                           Annual wera@;ng :zpital                                     S 0.14         S 60.3!7         S  8.44
                           Tractor Inves-mgnt                                            0.14            44.271           6.2C
                           Machinery lnves-@en-                                          0.14           128.707           18.02
                         Total Interest cmarp                                                                          S  32.66

                         Returns to land, laDor, macNinery,
                           overhead, and management                                                                    S  54.61

                         Ownership cost: (Deoreclation, taxes, Insurance)
                           Tractor                                          Doi.                                       S  5.011
                           Machinery                                        Doi.                                          19.78
                         Total ownership cost                                                                          S  24.79

                         Returns to land, laoor, overhead. and
                           management                                                                                  S -^.32

                         Labor cost:
                           Machiqerv tanor                                  Hr.        S 4.25                          S
                         Total labor cos,                                                                              S

                         Returns to lijr@,  @@verneall, and
                           menagemenT

                         Preparea try E.               Crop S@Iamce Extension                       Ano

                         aAn i nsect i c I -ic- in@- --a-Ta-r 1:@; ie. are not I I ke ly to oe nee;',(wn

                                                                                    316

                 WHEAT!SOYBNS.0                                                                                                   9UDGET 74-1
                                                                                                                                            1/83
                 WHEAT AND SOYBEANS, DOUR LE -CROPPED: Estimated revenue. operating expenses. annual ownership
                                                                costs and not revenue per acre

                 cateno-Y                                              Units     Price           Quantity       Value            Your Value

                 Production:
                     Wheat                                             Bu.       $ 4.00            50.000       S180.00           200.00
                     Soybean                                           su.          6.75         30.000         1  146.25         202.5
                 Total Receipts                                                                                 $326.25           A02--U

                 Operating Inputs:
                     Llme applied                                      Tons      S26.00             0.333       $   8.66
                     Seed wheat                                        su.          8.00            1.500          12.00
                     5-15-30, bulk                                     Cwt-         9.33            4.000          37.32
                     Dry fortll)zer spreading          a               Acr          5.r.0           2.000          11.00
                     33.5% Amonlum nitrate, bulk                                   10.50            1.791          18.dl
                     Post-emerge herbicide                             Acre         2.59            1.000           2.59
                     Soybean seed                                      au.         10.50            0.800           8.40.
                     Soybean Inoculant                                 Bu.          1.85            0.800           1.48
                     Pre-amerge   bherbicide                           Acre        17.02            1.000          17.02
                     Nematicide    b                                   Acre        34.05            I.Ow           54.05
                     Insecticide                        b              Acre         3.47            1.000           3.47
                     Insecticide applied      by plane                 Acre         4.50            1.000           4.50

                     Tractor fuel and lube cost                        Acre                                         6.69
                     Tractor repair cost                               Acre                                         2.59
                     Machinery fuel and lube cost                      Acre                                         6.36
                     MachInery repair cost                             Acre                                         9.57
                 Total peratIng cost                                                                            1184.91

                 Returns to land, labor, capital,
                     mach I nery, overhead, and managewient                                                     S217.59

                 Capital cost:
                     Annual operating capital                1'                  S  0.14        S 55,143        S .7.72
                     Tractor Investment                                             0.14           39.026           5.46
                     Machinery Investment.                                          0,14          189.571          26.54
                 Total Interest charge                                                                          S 39.72

                 Returns to land, labor,       mach I nery,
                     overhead, and management                                                                   $177.87

                 Ownership cost: (DWeelation. tamm,'-Ansurance)
                     Tractor                                           DOI.                                     S 4.42
                     Machinery                                         Doi.                                        29.18
                 Total ownership cost                                                                           S 33.60

                 Returns to land, labor, overhead, and
                     management                                                                                 S144.27

                 Labor cost-
                     Mach"nary labor                                   Hr.       $ 4.25             2.972       S 12.63
                 Total labor cc*t                                                                               $ 12,63

                 Returns to land, nverhead, and
                     M,nagernent                                                                                s131.65

                 Prepared* ty 71_ 7. jarrett, E. J.       Dunphy, CrOD Science Ex-r;msion S",clal!sts, inj               F. Neuman, @x-Ension
                     Econ-)Tlc.t.
                                          -_@:@llca!'Ion Dy 20 oounds In Coasta
                                                        .111 not llxeIV                  in t-,e

                                                                              315

                               SOYBE -NNS                                                                                                                                                       73-
                                                                                                                                                                                                1/83
                                                                                      -:t  nq Aq:3irnses         @mntirs- 1; cosrs an@! rto@ re@,-*@,--,- ,,orr acre
                                0 Y 14 @. A .4,

                                a                                                                  Un 1 #5             73             Ouer - I-,             "in   u@-             ',:)L:r vt 'ue

                               Pr =4 L c-t  L@n
                                   a '- Y -'Ie                                                       Bu.              5.85                3t. @0:1                   @5
                               Tota! Rftcelp's

                               Oper3flng
                                   Soybean seso                                                      au.          S! C. 5@)
                                                                                                                                                             S     8.4
                                   0-10-20, zu:,@                                                    Cwt.             1,.55                 3. @'O                 19 .65
                                   Dry tert I I i zs@- :@z-ead i ng                                  Acrs             5.50                  1 . 'C"'               5.50
                                   Ume appilec                                                       Tons            26.00                  :".3113                8.6A
                                   SoybeAn Inoc-'a-                                                  Bu.              1.65                  G.En-'.                !.45
                                   Pre-emerqe ne-t@:              ie                                 Acre                                                          !7.-"2
                                   Post-emerae 'iern;::1e                                            Acre                                                          14.-5
                                   Nematicide -4TS,-10'                                              Acre
                                   Insectic'Ide                                                      Acre
                                   Insecticide applied by air                a                       Acre                                                          4. C;

                                   Tractor fuel and lube               cost                          Acre                                                          6.49
                                   Tractor repair cost                                               Acre                                                          2.95
                                   Machinery fuel and lube cost                                      Acre                                                          3.71
                                   Machinery'repair cost                                             Acre                                                          6.84
                                   Total operatinq cost                                                                                                      1137.4@

                               Returns to land, labor,               capital,
                                   machinery, overnea:l,             and management                                                                          S     E7.217

                               Capital :ost:
                                   Annual wera@;nz sapital                                                        S 0.14              S 60.3!7               S     8.44
                                   Tractor Inves-nent                                                                 0.14                44.271                   6.2C
                                   Machinery Inves-nen'                                                               0.14               128.7107                  18.02
                               Total Interest cnarge                                                                                                         S     32.66

                               Returns to land, labor, mac0iinery,
                                   overhead. and management                                                                                                  S     34.61

                               Ownership cost: (Depreciation, taxes,                           Insurance)
                                   Tractor                                                           (301.                                                   S     5.0,
                                   Machinery                                                         Doi.                                                          19.78
                               Total ownership cost                                                                                                          1     24.79

                               Returns to lana, laoor, overhead. and
                                   management

                               Labor ccst:
                                   Machiiary tanor                                                   Hr.          S 4.25                                           9.
                               Total labor --os'

                               Returns to tani,           :@varneald, And
                                   menacemesnT

                               Preparea      try E.                      Crop 'Sc-lence Extension

                               aAn I nsect i       1:ip in z --ama'r I      i ce.   r e- not I I ke I y tr,' rx- neec' eo :.@l

                                                                                                              316

                                                                                                                                             O.Re-A-10 Cos"'                0.0 140, *a-**.* Per Acre.

                                                                                    JAN                   rfs                MAN                      APIII                 "at                         JI.Q            UIL               4UG                        310,
                                          -QODJC,11)k                                                          Number        of              J11fli
                                                                                    3.0                   0.0                0.0                      0.1)                  a..)                        0.4       0.0                     0.0                        0.0

                                                                                    OCT                   Nov                DEC                      PR ICE                WE IG.T      UNIT CODE                I ?IN C')OI             -P                         Cm
                                                                                                               MWelter       at              U. I to
                                          sovase.                                   0.0                   35.00              0.0                      5.69                  0.0                         2.00      lla.-Io                 2.03                       0.0

                                                                                    JAN                   PCs                mAR                      pQ                    .44,                        UK              JUL                                          SIP
                                          @Oors-lnj                                                                                          4214/u.11
                                          2sovagan Seed                             0.0                   0.0                2.0                      0.0                   0.63                        0.0             0.0               0.0                        0.0
                                          3seed Tres'04.1                           0.0                   0.0                0.0                      G..1                  CAD                         0.0             0.0               0.0                        0.0
                                          40-10-20. Balk                            0.0                   0.0                0.0                      3.                    0.0                         o. a            0.0               0.0                        0.0
                                          5Dry per, spread                          0.0                   0.0                0.0                      1.0-                  3.0                         0.0             0.0               0.0                        0.0
                                          6Liao. &&*fled                            0.0                   0.0                0.0                      0.0                   3.0                         0.0             0.0               0.0                        0.0
                                          7P"-E.Org Herb                            0.0                   0.0                0.0                      0.0                   1.00                        0.0  -          0.0               101 . 0                    0.0
                                          aPost Emerge Nor@                         0.0                   0.0                0.0                      0.0                   0.1                         1.00            0.0               0.0                        0.0
                                          9N6849-cide                               0.0                   0.0                0.15                     0.0                   1.00                        0.0             0.0               0.0                        0.0
                                          to 1094mricide                 -----      0.0                   0.0                0.0                      0.0                   0.0                         0.0             C.0               1.00                       0.0
                                          I t..goellelgo AV                         0.0                   0.0                0.0                      0.0                   0.0                         0.0             0.0               1.00                       0.0

                                                                                    OCT                   Poor               DEC                      PRICE                 WE I Gody    JNIT Coot                ITEM CODE                      To                  coo
                                          opere-1.2 '-pays                                                                                   as-9/10.11
                                          2savvese Seed                             0.0                   0.0                3.0                      10.50                 0.3                         2.00      177.06                  3.00                       0.0
                                          3Seed Treatment                           0.0                   0.0                0.3                      1.05                  0.0                         Z.00      262.00                  3.00                       0.0
                                          41-3-20. awl%                             0.*                   0.0                0.0                      6.53                  O.C                         16.00     202.00                  5.00                       0.0
                                          IOrr Fort Spread                          0.0                   0.0                0.0                      5.10                  3.0                         7.00      Z30.30                  3.00                       0.0
                                          6Lima. Applied                            0.0                   0.33               0.0                      !6.00                 .0                          5.00      229.CO                  3.00                       0.0
                                          7P`,o.(adrq Worb                          0.0                   0.0                0.0                      17.02                 0.0                         1.00      2id.00                  5.00                       0.0
                                          IPCs, :.*ego Nero                         0.0                   0.0                0.0                      14.76                 0.0                         1.00      25G.00                  3.00                       0.0
                                          9noeo?lcldo                               0.0                   0.0                0.0                      34.05                 0.0                         7.00      206.00                  3.00                       0.0
                                          10 1006491clas,                -----      0.0                   0.0                0.0                      3.47                  0.0                         7.00      240.00                  3.00                       0.0
                                          I II.Secticide 40                         0.0                   0.0                0.0                      4.50                  0.0                         7.00      269.**                  3.00                       0.0

                                                                                                                        Mentrily Sumvierv we Itocelpts said                              favatoi*es
                                          CAfjGOQV-                      UNIT       JAM        r I&            ItAx          APO             041                JUN         JUL       &fse              sip       OCT           Nov              DEC                 TOTAL
                                          Tees$ PlOsaWs,                 acrar      0.4-       6.0,            O.S.          0.0             0.0                0.0         0.0       . 0.0             *.6       0.0           204.75           0.0                 204.75
                                          Tovat 1.060996                 Acre       0.0        0.0             0.0           21.6% 64.04              17.70                 0.0       7.97              0.0       0.0           14.60            0.0                 137.49
                                          Alorural ft Laos.              Leber.     C&*4tai. slecol-ary. Overhead. Risk. ape Management                                                                                                                              67.20

                                          4%mUa@. CAPITAL                Doi.       0.0        0.0             0.0           16.72           34.22              7.39        0.0       1.19              0.0       0.0           0.5              0.0                 60.31

                                                                                                                                             Lobar 0144.110-9-12 by MORI'"
                                          MACRIN91111 LABOR              air        0.0        0.0             &.0           0.116           0.44               ').is       0.0       0.0               0.0       0.0           0.62             0.0                 2.30

                                                                                                                        Nechiftery F1.64 end variant* Costs 00,                                         Now,                    TOTAL
                                          dAC-INI                             coot             DIP%            I '@SUN                       TAX TOTAL FtxfO                REPAIR                      FUEL L UO               VANIARLI         I fit               nNITING
                                          Tracts, lot                               6          j.?z            0.30                          'j. 1 1  4.!6                  :.46                        4.72 0.71               7.89             5.12                1.00
                                          pickup Truck                              17         2.42            0.10                          0.06.    2.58                  1.10                        3.44 0.92               5.26             1.80                1.00
                                          True%                                     is         4.73            *.Z&                          0.11     5.11                  5.30                        3..14 0.49              0.79             4.14                1.00
                                          Coralsese Coooloo.                        21,        33.0&           2.01                          1.17     38.21                 7.30                        1.24 0.79               15.41            39.11               0.37
                                          random 9164                               !19        3.2v            0.23                          0. Is    J.25                  V.01                        0.0  0.0                1.01             A. 05               0.17
                                          C-11801 allwe                             32         2.19            0.13                          0.09     2.40                  0.29                        8.0  0.0                0.23             2.29                0.21
                                          Sect. "arrow                              42         or. so.         o. 0 JF-                      0.02     0.33                  0.12                        0.0` 0.4                0.12             0.56                0.11
           4                              Coro 1150496FAIT                          da         4.tl            0,. J&                        0.23     'is, 76               4.29                        0.0  0.6                4.29             6.38                0.11
            -                             ID'ever 116 VIGGO-,                       To         0.69            VI.Or                         0. In    0:70                  0.67                        or. 0. 6.0              @.Or             0.31                0.32
                                          Mail cologgeearl,                                                                                  0;11     3.35                  0.3t                             0.9                0.3%.            3.20                0.23'
                                          $&rotor 10 Ile it,                        110,       0609            or. U                         0.07     4.7v                  Q.*T                        q.01- 0.0               G.Gr             0.97                0.21

                                                                                                                             TIMES                    LAtew,                MACI4106                    FU*L-QJL-kU*.'          9111110 COSTS
                                          OPERaT I Our                              NO.                   OATf.              Gain                     MOIJIM                "OUR$        alpkt* FM                AM            P" ACRE

                                          ratio@* Oise                              6.3t                  APW                1.00                     0.2"                  0.169                                                         3.13
                                          Calsof slow                               6.32                  ApIr          .    1.00                     0. 214'r              0.210                                                         3.14
                                          random Oiled:                             6.39                  MAT                1.00                     0.204.                0.169                       1.63L                             3.13
                                          See, Narrow                                    49               mar                1.00                     0.0                   0.169                       0.01                              0.17
                                          care posel4wisTr                          4.48                  Its 1              1.00                     G.)92                 0.32)                       4.21                              7.9f
                                          Sorsior 78 1?04&                               70               may                1.00                     0.0                   0.325                       0.22                              0.41
                                          Truck                                          is               way                0.10                     0.120                 0.100.                      *. @IF                            01.92
                                          Ica.@ !rue%                                    17               FIAT               0.10                     0.120                 0.100                       0.93                              3.44
                                          14011 C.191.01of                          6.63                  JUN                1.00                     0.262                 0.21?                       1.96                              3.69
                                          spro'er To Ile 6                               71               JUN                1.00                     0.0                   Q.217                       0.14                              0.28
                                          "yc%                                           I I              'U.                0.10                     0.122                 0.00                        0.58                              3.92
                                                                         :9.1111.9       11               Nov                1.00                     O.M                   0.3 19                      4.27                              23.1%
                                          truck                                          is               Nov                0.20                     '@. .140              0,200                       1.76                              .a.)
                                          'OTAL                                                                                                       2. 290                7.659                       20.00                             48.95

                                          S@15(.qs                       jtfeCt 04 varying rates of production erg 311cpq                                         -at -6-9 e ..f.
                                                                         overhead &'a

                                          40-. .' Orod.Ctta.                                                      C'e
                                                                                               :-7_                                          S8.95              %!.v                  sb.,5
                                                                                               $204. 70                                      -60.911  5 .58.d-l                       1-55.95
                                                                                               204. 70                                       -.1.45             J.@l                  31.53
                                                                                               204.70                                        14.05              .1.55                 9 i.

                                                                                                                                                                317

                                      Reports relating the effects of altered freshwater flows on estuarine fisheries

                         Nature of influence                                            Brief abstract

                         Estuarine management.         At present no estuary of our nation is being properly managed, and none has
                         Darnell, R. M. 1981.          an adequate management structure. Tools of estuarine management include
                                                       zoning, permitting authority, and lease/purchase.
                                                       The best goal in estuarine management is the predisturbance state, and to
                                                       achieve this goal both general and site-specific knowledge are required.
                         Reduced freshwater flows.     For several years Region 2 (US FWS) has identified the problem of reduced
                         Stegman, J. L. 1981.          freshwater inflow to Texas estuaries as the number one regional environ-
                                                       mental problem.

                         Striped bass declines         Striped bass populations in the San Francisco Bay estuary have declined 60
                         and reduced freshwater        to 80 percent. A major factor responsible for the reductions has been
                         flows.                        reductions in freshwater inflow. In Chesapeake Bay, as well as the east
                         Rote, J. R. and K.            coast estuaries, stocks of striped bass have declined so dramatically that
                         Roberts. 1981.                Congress has approved and authorized funding of special studies to deter-
                                                       mine the cause. Banning the commercial harvest of shad is being considered
                                                       in Chesapeake Bay, since the catch has declined more than 80 percent since
                                                       1970 (i.e. from 5,150,000 to 994,000 pounds).
                                                       About 3 billion pounds of recent annual U.S. commercial fish landings 60
                                                       to 70 percent of the most valuable commercial species of the Atlantic and
                                                       Gulf Coast - occupy estuaries during all or part of their life cycles.
                                                       Oyster beds are now being lost from intrusion of oyster predators and
                                                       parasites upstream in the bay. With additional freshwater diversion this
                                                       problem could become a major affliction.

                      Nature of influence                                            Brief abstract

                      Salinity variations.          Spatial and temporal salinity variations constitute the most signifi-
                      Robinson, A. E., Jr.  1981.   cant physical parameter influencing the circulation dynamics of the
                                                    estuary and the types of aquatic species which reside in it.

                      Alterations of freshwater     While the exact mechanisms producing reductions of commercial harvests
                      inflows.                      are being debated, salinity levels and nutrient influxes are consid-
                      Armstrong, N. E. and G.       ered to be the most important variables.
                      H. Ward, Jr. 1981.

                      Adverse impacts of            Florida Bay has developed into a hypersaline area. It has essentially
                      altered freshwater flows.     ceased to function as an estuary. There has been a catastrophic
                      Spear, M. 1981.               reduction in nursery habitat for estuarine finfish and shellfish due
                                                    to altered flows of freshwater and reduction of overland flow from 8
                                                    months to 4 months. Discharges of fresh water from canals into
                                                    estuaries are often confined to short time periods and the sudden
        LO                                          surges result in fish and shellfish mortalities in estuaries.
                                                    The catch per shrimp boat has decreased from 44,000 pounds in 1945 to
                                                    less than 5,000 pounds in 1972. The production per acre of oysters
                                                    has decreased from 500 pounds in 1945 to about 75 pounds in 1972.
                                                    The changes are attributed to drainage and saltwater intrusion.

                      High salinity and white       High salinity has an adverse effect on white shrimp and oysters.
                      shrimp and oysters.           Hypersalinity caused by low freshwater inflows resulted in decline to
                      Parker, R. H. 1955.           white shrimp and oysters. Mission-Aransas and Nueces, Tex.

                      Reduced flows.                Reduced flows and/or additional effluents would result in negative
                      Cooper, D. C. and B.  J.      impacts to estuarine productivity. Trinity-San Jaanto, Texas.
                      Copeland. 1973.

                      Freshwater inflow is          There is a need for balanced salinity regimes as well as sufficient
                      important to Texas            nutrients and sediments to maintain a sound habit--t for shri-p.
                      shrimp industry.
                      Rayburn, R. 1981.

                         Nature of influence                                          Brief abstract

                         Optimum salinity for          Optimum salinity for oyster was in the 10-15 ppt range. oyster larvae
                         oysters.                      were killed below 10 ppt and oyster drill doesn't tolerate less than
                         Breithaupt, R. L. and         15 ppt.
                         R. J. Dugas. 1979.

                         Oyster as indicator of        The authors considered oyster a good indicator species for the deter-
                         optimum salinity range.       mination of the optimum salinity range for Louisiana estuarine fish-
                         Lindall, W. M. et al.         eries in general.
                         1972.

                         Shrimp production as          Local shrimp production is related to the ratio of marshwater inter-
                         related to ratio of           face to area of water. La.
                         marshwater interface
                         to area of water.
                         Faller, K. M.    1979.

                         Marsh-salinity corre-         Annual production of brown shrimp was correlated with the acreage
                         lated with brown shrimp       of marsh having waters above 10 ppt. salinity. La.
                         production.
                         Barrett, B. B. and M.
                         S. Gillespie. 1973.

                         Shrimp and blue crab          Low summer salinities are not suitable for brown and white shrimp but
                         production as related         are ideal for blue crabs. Sabine-Neches estuary, TX.
                         to low summer
                         salinities.
                         White, C. J. et al.
                         1969.

                         Altered temporal flows        Correlation-regression analysis indicated that offshore shrimp catches
                         affect shrimp harvests.       (brown, white and pink) are positively correlated with spring (April-
                         Browder, J. A. and D.         June) inflow and negatively correlated with winter (January-March) and
                         Moore. 1981.                  summer (July-August) inflows. Laguna Madre, Texas.

                     Nature of influence                                              Brief abstract

                     Increased flow of fresh-        Increased oyster and shrimp.production was associated with increased
                     water and nutrient input.       freshwater inflows. La.
                     Viosca, P. 1938, Gunter,
                     G., 1950, Dugas, R. J.,
                     1977.

                     Detritus.                       Significance of river-derived particulate organic matter to estuarine
                     Livingston, R. J. 1981.         biota remains in doubt. Fla.

                     Low flows in wet season         Extremely dry, wet seasons are accompanied by increased abundance of
                     affects abundances.             common and scarce forms. Abundances in such a season affects abun-
                     Fraser, T. H. 1981.             dance in the following dry season.

                     Freshwater discharge            Freshwater discharges by the St. Lucie Canal, Florida, had significant
                     and creel results.              short-term effects on catch rates-of nine important estuarine species
                     Van Os, E., et al.     1981.    and caused their habits to be less predictable.

                     Salinity and estuarine          Normal oligohaline fauna was replaced by freshwater fauna during
                     fauna.                          flood conditions when salinity fell under about 0.5 ppt.
                     Hoese, H. D. 1981.              Atchafalaya Bay, LA.

                     Freshwater inputs related       Did not conclude there was a clear relationship between       freshwater
                     to catch of commercial          flows and yields (except that shrimp catch may be negatively related
                     species.                        to freshwater flows.
                     Nixon, S. W. 1981.

                     Altered timing of               Reduction in catches of brown and white shrimp were associated with
                     freshwater flows and            reduced inflow surge delayed until mid May due to operation of a dam;
                     reduced catches of shrimp.      Sabine Lake, LA.
                     White, C. J. and W. S.
                     Perret. 1973.

                     Standing stocks and             Summary of many numerous Gulf States studies indicate highest marine
                     freshwater estuaries.           standing stocks are in or near estuaries which receive freshwater
                     Browder, J. A. and D.           inputs.
                     Moore. 1981.

                        Nature of influence                                         Brief abstract

                        Increased wet season and     Negative impacts were noted due to seasonal alterations of freshwater
                        decreased dry season fresh-  inflows.
                        water inputs in Florida.
                        Browder, J. 1977.

                        Increased freshwater flows   Stratification caused low dissolved oxygen in canals during period of
                        caused stratification.       high discharge. Benthic life was negatively affected and pelagic
                        Van de Kreeke 1979, Yokel,   fishes were excluded from the area. Lack of mixing in dead-end canals
                        1979, and Hicks 1979.        tended to trap and concentrate organic materials including pathogenic
                                                     bacteria.  Fla.

                        River flow rates control     Annual abundance indices increase directly with river flow rates.
                        survival of major species.   (striped bass, chinook, salmon, American shad, longfin smelt).
                        Herrgesell, P. L. et al.     Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.
                        1981.

                        Additional inflow at         Preliminary results indicated that additional inflow at the
                        appropriate time             appropriate time will increase numbers of fry and juvenile salmon
                        increased survival.          using the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.
                        Kjelson, M. A. et al.
                        1981.

                        Rainfall rates and           Wetter years favored populations of young migratory fishes and
                        estuarine fish and           crustacea; larger predator fishes tended to be more abundant
                        crustacea.                   during dry years than during wet years.
                        Johnson, D. R. et
                        al. 1981.

                        High concentrations          Estuarine receiving waters are commonly threatened by pollution and
                        of nutrients at time         the impacts are often most pronounced at times of low flow in warm
                        of low flow.                 weather.
                        Correll, D. L. 1981.

                      Nature of influence                                             Brief abstract

                      Declining zooplankton          Flood waters reduced estuarine zooplankton by 2/3 and sharply reduced
                      populations due to             salinities of San Antonio Bay. Implication that larval stages of
                      freshwater intrusion.          economically important species were adversely affected by the natural
                      Matthews, G. A. 1981.          phenomenon.

                      Reduced estuarine              Estuarine zooplankton were flushed out by freshwaters and replaced by
                      zooplankton and major          freshwater species. Following the freshwater incursion Acartia
                      freshwater incursions.         tonsa were successful at salinities of I to 3 ppt.. This was attrib-
                      Kalke, R. D.                   uted to the influx of nutrients, food and a decrease of higher
                                                     salinity predators. Nueces-Corpus Christi and Copano-Aransas Bay
                                                     systems, TX.

                      Increased benthos follow-      Fresh water, due to flooding, in Corpus Christi Bay, TX., may have
                      ing flood waters.              introduced nutrient materials thus increasing faunal densities which
                      Flint, R. W. and S. C.         may be a link to shrimp populations which derive much of their
                      Rabalais. 1981.                nutrition from benthos.

          4-
                      Detritus and river             Detritus is a principle element in the food web of estuarine eco-
                      flow.                          systems.
                      Copeland, B. J. 1966.

                      Nutritional particulate        Highest concentrations, of the biochemical components analy@ed,
                      matter And entrapment          occurred in the entrapment zone at salinities of-4 to 6 ppt. San
                      zone.                          Francisco Bay-Estuary.
                      Barclay, W. R. and A.   W.
                      Knight. 1981.

                      Sediment -- assets or          Sediments are assets relative to delta building and associated
                      liability.                     estuarine wetlands, but are liabilities to maintaining navigation.
                      van Beek, J. L. and K.
                      Meyer-Arendt.   1981.

                       Nature of influence                                            Brief abstract

                       Retention of freshwater       Holding freshwater will decrease total water going to bay (evapotrans-
                       on land advantageous for      piration), increase ratio of delayed runoff to immediate runoff, reduce
                       management of estuary.        peak flows, increase base flows, raise dry-season water table, reduce
                       Simpson, B. 1979.             forest fires, prevent saltwater intrusion, increase irrigation water
                                                     supplies and increase the productivity of wetlands. Fla.            ..

                       Forestry practices and        Forestry operations led to increased amplitudes and decreased duration
                       periods of high runoff        of runoff events, causing more abrupt than normal changes in salinity
                       from swamps.                  and nutrients in the vicinity. Increased water color, decreased dis-
                       Livingston, R. J. and         solved oxygen, decreased pH   coincided with periods upper bays were
                       J. L. Duncan. 1979.           heavily utilized as nursery   grounds by fish and invertebrates resulting
                                                     in significant reduction of   white shrimp. Regrowth of covering
                                                     vegetation had ameliorating   effect. Fla.

                       Climatic variables and        Recruitment of striped bass   is determined by the end of the larval
                       production of striped         stage and their position in   the estuary. Where spawning takes place
                       bass.                         and zooplankton abundance are important factors regulating this pro-
                       Mihursky, J. A. et            cess. These factors are in turn influenced by several climatic
                       al. 1981.                     variables.

                                                     Several authors have related internal ecosystems characteristic(s)
                                                     to the behavior of extrinsic variables (Menzel et al. 1966, Aleem
                                                     1972). Copeland (1966) found that fishery yields in some Texas bays
                                                     increase in years of above average river flow. Menzel et al. (1966)
                                                     showed similar trends for oyster stocks in Apalachicola Bay, Florida.
                                                     Heinle et al. (1975) concluded that colder than normal winters
                                                     enhance zooplankton and juvenile fish recruitment in the Patuxent
                                                     River, Maryland. Sutcliffe et al. (1976) and Sutcliffe et al. (1977)
                                                     demonstrated significant correlations between catches of 17 species
                                                     of commercial marine fish and shellfish and sea temperatures in the
                                                     Gulf of Maine.

                    Nature of influence                                         Brief abstract

                    Altered freshwater flows.    Unaltered areas had significantly higher production of brown shrimp
                    Jones, R. A. and T. M.       as well as other commercially important species. Rapidly pulsating
                    Sholaft. 1981.               events occurred in the altered sites.

                    Ditching systems and         Ditching systems are designed to efficiently remove surface waters
                    rates of freshwater          from cultivated fields, thus increasing peak runoff rates and alters
                    discharge.                   the ability of the inland areas and associated vegetation to act as a
                    Pate, P. P., Jr. and         natural regulator of surface runoff. The results are an increase in
                    R. Jones. 1981.              the rate of runoff during and following storms and an unstable
                                                 salinity pattern responding quickly and dramatically to rainfall.
                                                 Unaltered shrimp nursery areas were much more stable than were
                                                 altered areas during the same rain periods. Extensive drainage into
                                                 a nursery area reduces its value by reducing average salinities and
                                                 making it more sensitive to the effects of rainfall within the drain-
                                                 age basin.
                                                 Relative productivity of estuarine organisms was down each year in
                                                 the nursery area with extensive drainage. The most serious effects
                                                 of drainage into nursery areas appears to be the degree of alteration
                                                 and the danger that alteration will be severe enough to create an
                                                 unsuitable habitat during periods of normal rainfall. N. C.

                                           Bibliography

                   Aleem, A. A. 1972. Effect of river outflow management on-mariiie life.
                   Mar. Biol. 15:200-208.

                   Armstrong, N. E. and G. H. Ward,Jr. Alterations of freshwater inflows.
                   Cross, R., and D. Williams, Eds. Proc. of Nat. Sym. on Freshwater Inflow
                   to Estuaries FWS/OBS-81/04. Vol. II, p. 179-196. 1981.

                   Barclay, W. R. and A. W. Knight. 1981. The Nutritional Significance of
                   the Distribution of suspended particulate material in the upper San
                   Francisco-Bay Estuary. Cross, R., and D. Williams, Eds. Proc. of Nat.
                   Sym. on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries. FWS/OBS-81/04. Vol. II, p.
                   55-70.

                   Barrett, B. B. and M. C. Gillespie. 1973. Primary factors which
                   influence commercial shrimp production in coastal Louisiana. La. Dept.
                   Wildlife and Fish. Tech. Bull. 9:28.

                   Breithaupt, R. L. and R. J. Dugas. 1979. A study of the southern oyster
                   drill (Thais haemastoma) distribution and density on the oyster seed
                   ground. La. Wildl. and Fish. Comm. Tech. Bull. 30.

                   Browder, J. 1977. The estuary viewed as a dynamic system. Seaman, W.,
                   Jr.; McLean, R., eds. Seminar proceedings: freshwater and the Florida
                   coast: southwest Florida; 1977 May 26-27; Tampa, FL. Brooksville, FL;
                   Southwest Florida Management District; Gainesville, FL; Florida Sea
                   Grant; 1977:144-170.

                   Browder, J. A. and D. Moore. 1981. A new approach to determining the
                   quantitative relationship between fishery production and the flow of
                   fresh water to estuaries. Cross, R., and D. Williams, Eds. Proc. of
                   Nat. Sym. on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries FWS/OBS-81/04. Vol. 1,
                   p. 403-430.

                   Cooper, D. C. and B. J. Copeland. 1973. Responses of continuous-series
                   estuarine microecosystems to point-source input variations. Ecol.
                   Monogr. 43:213-236.

                   Copeland, B. J. 1966. Effects of decreased-river flow on estuarine
                   ecology. J. Water Poll. Control Fed. 38(11):1831-1939.

                   Correll, D. L. 1981. Endangered estuarine receiving waters: the eff   ect
                   of low-flow land runoff on headwaters biota. Cross, R., and D. Williams,
                   Eds. Proc. of Nat. Sym. on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries. FWS/OBS-
                   81/04. Vol. II, p. 419-432.

                   Darnell, R. M. 1981. Strategies for the Management of Estuaries. Cross,
                   R., and D. Williams, Eds. Proc. of Nat. Sym. on Freshwater Inflow to
                   Estuaries. FWS/OBS-81/04. Vol. II, p. 434-447.

                                                    327

                           Dugas, R. J. Oyster distribution and density on the productive portion
                           of state seed grounds in southeastern Louisiana. Louisiana Department
                           of Wildlife and Fisheries, Seafood Division, Technical Bulletin 23;
                           1977; 27 p.

                           Faller, K. H. 1979. Shoreline as a ccntroling factor in commercial
                           shrimp production. NASA Tech. Mem.; TM-72-732. Bay St. Louis, MS:
                           NASA Natl. Space Technol. Lab,; 27 p.

                           Flint, R. W. and S. C. Rabalais. 1981. Estuarine benthic community
                           dynamics related to freshwater inflow to the Corpus Christi Bay estuary.
                           Cross, R., and D. Williams, Eds., Proc. of Nat. Sym. on Freshwater Inflow
                           to Estuaries FWS/OBS-81/04. Vol. 1, p. 489-508.

                           Fraser, T. 11. 1981. Variation in Freshwater Inflow and Changes in a
                           Subtropical Estuarine Fish Community. Cross, R., and D. Williams, Eds.
                           Proc. of Nat. Sym. on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries FWS/OBS-81/04.
                           Vol. 1, p. 296-319.

                           Gunter, G. 1950. The relationship of the Bonnet Carre Spillway to
                           oyster beds in Mississippi Sound and the "Louisiana Marsh," with a
                           report on the 1950 opening. Publications of the Institute of Marine
                           Science, University of Texas 3:17-77.

                           Heinle, D. R. and D. A. Flemer. 1975. Carbon requirements of a popula-
                           tion of the estuarine copepod, Eurytemora affinis. Mar. Biol. 31:235-
                           247.

                           Herrgesell, P. L. et al. 1981. River flow rates control survival of
                           major species. Cross, R., and D. Williams, Eds. Proc. of Nat. Sym.
                           on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries. FWS/OBS-81/04. Vol. II, p. 71-88.

                           Hicks, D. B. Appendix-D Water quality. The Naples Bay study. Avail-
                           able from Collier County Conservancy. P. 0. Box 2136, Naples, FL
                           33939. 1979a: 69 p.

                           Hoese, H. D. 1981. Some effects of fresh water on the Atchafalaya
                           Bay System. Cross, R., and D. Williams, Eds. Proc. of Nat. Sym. on
                           Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries. FWS/OBS-81/04. Vol. II, p. 110-124.

                           Johnson, D. R. et al. 1981. Rainfall-related trends in the structure
                           of a fish-crustacean community in Texas Galveston Bay System. Cross, R.,
                           and D. Williams, Eds. Proc. of Nat. Sym. on Freshwater Inflow to
                           Estuaries. FWS/OBS-81/04. Vol. II, p. 335-349.

                           Jones, R. W. and T. M. Sholar. 1981. The effects of freshwater
                           discharge on estuarine nursery areas of Pamlico Sound. Completion
                           Rept. Project CEIP 79-11. 59 p.

                           Kjelson, M. A. et al. 1981. Influences of freshwater inflow on
                           Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha) in the Sacramento-San
                           Joaquin Estuary. Cross, R., and D. Williams, Eds. Proc. of Nat. Sym.
                           on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries. FWS/OBS-81/04. Vol. II, p. 88-108.

                                                            328

                  Lindall, W. M. et al.  1972.  Louisiana coastal zone: analyses of
                  resources and resource development in connection with estuarine ecology.
                  Sections 10 and 13, Fishery resources and their needs. Report of the
                  commercial fishery work unit of the National Marine Fisheries Service
                  to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Contract #14-17-002-430); 1972;
                  320 p. Located at: NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 9450 Koger Blvd.,
                  St. Petersburg, FL 33702.

                  Livingston, R. J. 1981. River-derived input of detritus into the
                  Apalachicola Estuary. Cross, R., and D. Williams, Eds. Proc. of Nat.
                  Sym. on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries FWS/OBS-81/04. Vol. 1, p.
                  320-332.

                  Livingston, R. J. and J. L. Duncan. Climatological control of a north
                  Florida coastal system and impact due to upland forestry management.
                  Livingston, R. J., ed. Ecological processes in coastal and marine
                  systems. New York: Plenum Press; 1979: 339-381.

                  Matthews, G. A. 1981. The effects of floods on the zooplankton
                  assemblage of San Antonio Bay Texas during 1972 and 1973. Cross, R.,
                  and D. Williams, Eds. Proc. of Nat. Sym. on Freshwater Inflow to
                  Estuaries FWS/OBS-81/04. Vol. 1, p. 509-525.

                  Menzel, R. W. et al. 1966. Oyster abundance in Apalachicola Bay,
                  Florida, in relation to biotic associations influenced by salinity
                  and other factors. Gulf Res. Rep. 2(2):73-96.

                  More, W. R. A contribution to the biology of the blue crab (Callinectes
                  sapidus Rathbun) in Texas, with a description of the fishery. Tex. Parks
                  Wildl. Dept. 1969. Tech. Ser. 1.

                  Nixon, S. W. 1981. Freshwater Inputs and Estuarine Productivity.
                  Cross, R., and D. Williams, Eds., Proc. of Nat. Sym. on Freshwater
                  Inflow to Estuaries FWS/OBS-81/04. Vol. 1, p. 31-57.

                  Parker, R. H. 1955. Changes in the invertebrate fauna, apparently
                  attributable to salinity changes, in the bays of central Texas. J.
                  Paleont. 29:193-211.

                  Pate, P. P., Jr. and R. Jones. 1981. Effects of upland drainage on
                  estuarine nursery areas of Pamlico Sound, N. C. Cross, R., and D.
                  Williams, Eds. Proc. of Nat. Sym. on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries.
                  FWS/OBS-81/04. Vol. II, p. 402-418.

                  Rayburn, R. 1981. Texas shrimp fisheries and freshwater inflow. Cross,
                  R., and D. Williams, Eds. Proc. of Nat. Sym. on Freshwater Inflow to
                  Estuaries FWS/OBS-81/04. Vol. 1, p. 431-435.

                  Robinson, A. E., Jr. 1981. Chesapeake Bay Low Freshwater Inflow Study.
                  Cross, R., and D. Williams, Eds. Proc. of Nat. Sym. on Freshwater
                  Inflow to Estuaries FWS/OBS-81/04. Vol. 1, p. 114-127.

                                                    329

                           Rote, J. R. and K. Roberts. 1981. Role of the National Marine Fisheries
                           Service in the Protection of Freshwater Inflow Estuaries. Cross, R., and
                           D. Williams, Eds. Proc. of Nat. Sym. on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries
                           FWS/OBS-81/04. Vol. 1, p. 18-22.

                           Simpson, B. Appendix F-Engineering. The Naples Bay study. 1979. 27
                           p. Available from Collier County Conservancy, P. 0. Box 2136, Naples,
                           FL 33939.

                           Spear, M. 1981. Freshwater Inflows and Fish and Wildlife Service
                           Operations. Cross, R., and D. Williams, Eds. Proc. of Nat. Sym. on
                           Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries FWS/OBS-81/04. Vol. 1, p. 23-30.

                           Stegman, J. L. 1981. Welcoming Address. Cross, R., and D. Williams,
                           Eds. Proc. of Nat. Sym. on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries FWS/OBS-81/04.,
                           Vol. 1, p. 3-4.

                           Sutcliffe, W. H. et al. 1976. Coastal circulation and physical oceano-
                           graphy of the Scotian Shelf and the Gulf' of Maine. J. Fish. Res. Board
                           Can. 33:98-115.

                           Sutcliffe, W. H. et al. 1977. Correlations of fish catch and environ-
                           mental factors in the Gulf of Maine. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34:19-30.

                           van Beek, J. L. and K. Meyer-Arendt. 1981. Sediment -- assets or
                           liability. Cross, R., and D. Williams, Eds. Proc. of Nat. Sym. on
                           Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries. FWS/OBS-81/04. Vol. II, p. 197-215.

                           van de Kreeke, J. Appendix C-Hydrography. The Naples Bay study 1979;
                           43 p. Available from Collier County Conservancy, P. 0. Box.2-136,
                           Naples, FL 33939.

                           Van Os, E., et al. 1981. The Effects of Freshwater Discharges on
                           Sportfishing CatchRates in the St. Lucie Estuary, Martin County,
                           Florida. Cross, R., and D. Williams, Ed.s. Proc. of Nat. Sym. on
                           Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries FWS/OBS-81/04. Vol. 1, p. 269-281.

                           Viosca, P., Jr. Effect of the Bonnet Carre Spillway on fisheries.
                           Louisiana Conservation Review 6:51-53; 1938.

                           White, C. J. and W. S. Perret. Short term effects of the Toledo Bend
                           Project on Sabine Lake, Louisiana. Mitchell, A. L., ed. Proceedings,
                           27th Annual Conference, S. E. Assoc. Gair,.e Fish Comm.; 1973 October
                           14-17. Hot Springs, AR: 1974; 710-721.

                           Yokel, B. Appendix E-Biology. The Naples Bay study 1979; 54 p.
                           Available from Collier County Conservancy, P. 0. Box 2136, Naples, FL
                           33939.

                                                              330

                10.4 Appendix for Section 6.1.4: Wildlife

                                                331

                             Wildlife Habitat Simulation

                                                                           Introduction

                               A wildlife habitat quality prediction model forecasts future
                      habitat conditions (given a set of present conditions and a management
                      scheme) so that impacts of proposed management pllans may be evaluated.

                               In 1973, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service began developing
                      uniform Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) to assist this process.
                      HEP use simple mathematical functions wich describe habitat guality
                      for particular species, ascribe a guality value to each habitat type
                      in the project area, and sum the quantities (area x value) to obtain
                      an index of habitat quality for a qiven species on the total area
                      (Adams et al., 1982).

                               The model presented here uses the HEP concept to predict habitat
                      qualitY for the three scenaris and four areas considered. The model
                      uses a computer program which operates on an Apple II microcomputer ,
                      prompts the user for data input permits input file editing, provides
                      hard copy printouts of inputs and outputs on request, computes land
                      use-habitat type inventories for the end of the project period with
                      and without the project, by major user), accrues annualized habitat
                      quality units (by species, with and without the project, by major-
                      user), and provides an index of overall wildlife habat impact.
                      Specifically:

                                   1.   It requires the following input:

                                              a. Project duration (20 years in our case).

                                              b. Land inventory, for each area consider-
                                                 ered (up to 4 areas) by land use-habit-
                                                 at type (up to 16 types are permitted)

                                              c. Indicator species (up  to 14 species
                                                 are permitted).

                                              d. A Habitat Suitability  Index ( HSI) for
                                                 each species for each land use-habitat
                                                 type.

                                              e. A conversion rate for each land use
                                                 habitat type to every other type,
                                                 based on "PRO", the proportion of the
                                                 area or absolute area affected,
                                                 "BEG" and "END", the begommomg and end
                                                 of the period over which the
                                                 change occurs, and "REG", the form
                                                 of the regression.

                                                                                    332

                            2. It computes annual land use-habitat type conversions
              as "changes" from one type to another. In accordance with the
              following user-specified functions.

                                a. A linear function:

                            change =  (area of type at beginning of
                                     the project period x percent of
                                     area affected) / period over
                                     which change occurs

                                 b.  An exponential function:

                            change = (area of type at beginning of
                                     computational year x percent
                                     of area affected) / period
                                     over which change occurs

                                 c. A time-phased function (5-year
                                    increments):

                            change =  (area at end of increment -
                                       area at beginning of increment)
                                       / 5

                                 d. A  fixed increment function:

                            change =   the user-specified increment

                                 e.    A sinusoidal function:

                            change =   an annual increment along a partial
                                       sine wave encompassing the percent
                                       of area affected, over the period
                                       in which the change occurs, based
                                       on the area of the type at beginning
                                       of the project period

                            For each year, the program computes "change" from each
              type to every other types, subtracts the "change" from the former, adds
              it to the latter, computes a new inventory for the beginning of the
              next year, and accumulates annualized habitat quality units for each
              species in each habitat.

                            3. It provides the following outputs:

                                     a.  All input data.

                                     b.  Habitat conditions (acreage of each
                                         type) at the of the project
                                         period, with and without the project
                                         for each major user.

                                                333

    					c.   Accrued annualized habitat quality
                                       units for each species, with and
                                       without the project, for each major
                                       user's land.

                                   d.  Total accrued annualized habitat
                                       quality units for the project area.
                                       with and without the project, and an
                                       index of project impact.

                                   e.  Average HSI for each species is each
                                       area, at the beginning and
                                       end of the project.

                                               FUNCTIONS

                                         Functional Entries

           Type            Pro.                                  BEG.,   END                 Req.

           Linear          Percent of initial                  Period over                      L
                           area affected                       which change occurs

           Esponential     Percent of annual                   Period over                       E
                           inventory affected                  which change occurs

           Sinusoidal      Percent of initial                  Period over                      S
                           area affected                       which change occurs

           Fixed           Area lost per year                  Period over                      F
    				                                   which change occurs

           Time-phased     Any number > 0                      Any number                       T
                           (Enter accrued area lost at year indicated)
                                                                                                                                                                         334

                                                                                        Variables

                                             PR   =   project period
                                             PER  =   period over which change occurs.
                                             A    =   initial area (acres)
                                             AC   =   area at beginning of given year (annual inventory)
                                             I    =   land use-habitat type losing area
                                             NUM  =   land use-habitat type gaining area
                                             P    =   "Pro." from entry data
                                             Y    =    "Yr." from entry data
                                             YR   =    year being computed
                                             Z    =    area concerned
                                             T5   =    accrued area lost by year 5
                                             TIO  =    accrued area lost by year 10
                                             T15  =    accrued area lost by year 15
                                             T20  =    accrued area lost by year 20

                                Equations (solved annually over the period in which change
                                                   occurs)

                                   Linear (L)          Change =   (A(I, Z) * (P(I<NUM) /  100)) /                                                                                               PER
    									         PER

                                   Exponential (E)     Change =   (AC(I) * (P(I,NUM) /  100)) /
                                                                   PER

                                   Sinusoidal (S)      S1     =   (COS(3.1416 * (YR I/ PER)))
                                                                  + 1
                                                       S2     =   (COS(3.1416 * ((YR-I) / PER)))
                                                                  + 1
                                                       DI     =   (P( I, NUM) / 100 * (A( I,Z)  / 2)
                                                       CI     =   SI  * DI
                                                       C2     =   S2 * DI
                                                       Change =   C2 - Cl

                                  Fixed (F)            Change =   P(I, NUM)

                                                                                  335

                             Time-phased (T) If YR <= PR / 4 then
                                             Change = T5(I,NUM) / (PR * .25)

                                             If YR > PR / 4 and YR <= PR / 2 then
                                             Change = (TlO (I,NUM) - T5 (I,NUM))
    /                                                 (PR.* .25)

                                             If YR > PR / 2 and YR <= PR / 1.3333
                                             then
                                             Change = (T15(I,NUM) - TIO(I,NUM))
                                                      (PR * .25)

                                             If YR > PR / 1.3333 and YR <= PR then
                                               Change = (T20(I,NUM) - T15(I,NUM) /
                                                        (PR * .25)

                    Inputs to and outputs from the simulation are given on the
                following pages.

                                                    336

                    HABITAT TYPES WITHIN PROJECT AREA                          EVALUATION SPECIES

                       1    RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                            1   BLACK BEAR
                       2    ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                            2   WHITETAIL DEER
                       3    OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                              3   MARSH RABBIT
                       4    AGRICULTURAL LAND                                  4   MUSKRAT
                       5    DECIDUOUS FOREST                                   5   BOBWHITE
                       6    EVERGREEN FOREST                                   6   MOURNING DOVE
                       7    MlXED FOREST                                       7   GREAT HORNED OWL
                       8    WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                  8   PINE WARBLER
                       9    MIXED SWAMP                                        9   HAIRY WOODPECKER
                       10   DISTURBED LAND                                     10  BOBCAT
                       11   HIGH POCOSIN
                       12   LOW POCOSIN
                       13   BAY FOREST
                       14   WATER AND MARSH
                       15   ACTIVE PEAT MINE
                       16   INACTIVE PEAT MINE

                    HABITAT SUITBILITY INDICES FOR                  HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES FOR
                    BLACK BEAR IN;                                  WHITETAIL DEER IN:

                           TYPE                 HSI                 TYPE                           HSI

                    RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT      0                   RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT       .02
                    ROADS AND RIGHTS-0F-WAY      .03                 ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY       .22                                                                                                                 OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS        .03                 OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS         .08
                    AGRICULTURAL LAND            .24                 AGRICULTURAL LAND             .53                                       DECIDUOUS FOREST             .72                 DECIDUOUS FOREST              .85                           1
                    EVERGREEN FOREST             .4                  EVERGREEN FOREST              .47                                  MIXED FOREST                 .62                 MIXED FOREST                  .77                                         WHITE CEDAR SWAMP            .6                  WHITE CEDAR SWAMP             .38
                    MIXED SWAMP                  .77                 MIXED SWAMP                   .58
                    DISTURBED LAND               .47                 DISTURBED LAND                .78
                    HIGH POCOSIN                 .78                 HIGH POCOSIN                  .6
                    L0W POCOSIN                  .73                 LOW POCOSIN                   .52                                                          WATER AND MARSH              .23                 WATER AND MARSH               .23                             .07                 ACTIVE PEAT MINE              .1                                                        TV-                  INACTIVE PEAT MINE           .13                 INACTIVE PEAT MINE            .28

                                                                                      337

                             HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES FOR                                        HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES FOR
                             MARSH RABBIT IN:                                                       MUSKRAT IN:

                                              TYPE                                       HSI                          TYPE                         HSI

                             RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                                     .02        RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                        .05
                             ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                                     .2         ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                        .13
                             OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                                       .06        OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                          .12
                             AGRICULTURAL LAND                                           .18        AGRICULTURAL LAND                              .38
                             DECIDUOUS FOREST                                            .32        DECIDUOUS FOREST                               .12
                             EVERGREEN FOREST                                            .24        EVERGREEN FOREST                               .03
                                                                                         .24        MIXED FOREST                                   .05
                             MIXED FOREST                                                .42
                             WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                           .7         WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                              .08
                                                                                                    MIXED SWAMP						     .27
                             MIXED SWAMP
                             DISTURBED LAND                                              .4         DISTURBED LAND                                 .15
                             HIGH POCOSIN                                                .54        HIGH POCOSIN					     .08
                             LOW POCOSIN                                                 .66        LOW POCOSIN						     .13
                             BAY FOREST                                                  .5         BAY FOREST                                     .05
                             WATER AND MARSH                                             .7         WATER AND MARSH					     .9
                             ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                            .06        ACTIVE PEAT MINE                               .05
                             INACTIVE PEAT MINE                                          .22        INACTIVE PEAT MINE                             .12

                             HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES FOR                                        HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES FOR
                             BOBWHITE IN:                                                           MOURNING DOVE IN:

                                             TYPE                                        HSI                         TYPE                                 HSI

                             RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                                     .11        RESIDENTI0NAL DEVELOPMENT					.3
                             ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                                     .37        ROAD AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY						.43
                             OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                                       .18        OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS						.28
                             AGRICULTURAL LAND                                           .75        AGRICULTURAL LAND                                     .85
                             DECIDUOUS FOREST                                            .36        DECIDUOUS FOREST                                      .16
                             EVERGREEN FOREST                                            .43        EVERGREEN FOREST                                      .48
                             MIXED FOREST                                                .39        MIXED FOREST                                          .38
                             WHITE, CEDAR SWAMP                                          .1         WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                     .12
                             MIXED SWAMP                                                 .15        MIXED SWAMP                                           .12
                             DISTURBED LAND                                              .7         DISTURBED LAND                                        .53
                             HIGH POCOSIN                                                .36        HIGH POCOSIN                                          .15
                             LOW POCOSIN                                                 .32        LOW POCOSIN                                           .12
                             SAY FOREST                                                  .21        BAY FOREST                                            .1
                             WATER AND MARSH                                             .12        WATER AND MARSH                                       .03
                             ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                            .07        ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                      .07
                             INACTIVE PEAT MINE                                          .28        INACTIVE PEAT MINE						.26

                                                                                                      338

                 HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES FOR                          HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES FOR
                 GREAT HORNED OWL IN:                                     PINE WARBLER IN:

                               TYPE                             HSI                     TYPE                            HSI

                 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                        .03       RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                       .05
                 ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                        .23       ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                       .08
                 OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                          .07       OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                         .08
                 AGRICULTURAL LAND                              .4        AGRICULTURAL LAND                             .08
                 DECIDUOUS FOREST                               .8        DECIDUOUS FOREST                              .2
                 EVERGREEN FOREST                               .55       EVERGREEN FOREST                              .96
                 MIXED FOREST                                   .82       MIXED FOREST                                  .64
                 WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                              .33       WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                             .33
                 MIXED SWAMP                                    .77       MIXED SWAMP                                   .34
                 DISTURBED LAND                                 .58       DISTURBED LAND                                .1
                 HIGH POCOSIN                                   .38       HIGH POCOSIN                                  .5
                 LOW POCOSIN                                    .33       LOW POCOSIN                                   .34
                 BAY FOREST                                     .45       BAY FOREST                                    .26
                 WATER AND MARSH                                .15       WATER AND MARSH                               0
                 ACTIVE PEAT MINE                               .05       ACTIVE PEAT MINE                              0
                 INACTIVE PEAT MINE                             .23       INACTIVE PEAT MINE                            .06

                 HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES FOR                          HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES FOR
                 HAIRY WOODPECKER IN:                                     BOBCAT IN:

                               TYPE                             HSI                     TYPE                            HSI

                 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                        .13       RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                       .02
                 ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                        .06       ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                       .15
                 OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                          .1        OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                         .05
                 AGRICULTURAL LAND                              .04       AGRICULTURAL LAND                             .28
                 DECIDUOUS FOREST                               .8        DECIDUOUS FOREST					  .68
                 EVERGREEN FOREST                               .66       EVERGREEN FOREST                              .53
                 MIXED FOREST                                   .84       MIXED FOREST                                  .75
                 WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                              .5        WHITE CEDAR SWAMP					  .53
                 MIXED SWAMP                                    .56       MIXED SWAMP						  .7
                 DISTURBED LAND                                 .16       DISTURBED LAND                                .65
                 HIGH POCOSIN                                   .52       HIGH POCOSIN                                  .67
                 LOW POCOSIN                                    .36       LOW POCOSIN                                   .65
                 BAY FOREST                                     .42       BAY FOREST                                    .62
                 WATER AND MARSH                                0         WATER AND MARSH                               .25
                 ACTIVE PEAT MINE                               0         ACTIVE PEAT MINE                              .03
                 INACTIVE PEAT MINE                             .06       INACTIVE PEAT MINE                            .22

                                                                    339

                               RATE OF HABITAT CONVERSION IN                                      RATE OF HABITAT CONVERSION IN
                               AREA 1,SCENARIO #1                                                 AREA 1,SCENARIO #1,
                               WITHOUT THE PROJECT.                                               WITHOUT THE PROJECT

                               FROM DISTURBED LAND                 TO-                            FROM INACTIVE PEAT MINE  TO:

                                            TYPE                  PRO   BEG    END  R                        TYPE                 PRO   BEG   END E

                               HIGH POCOSIN                        3.5   1      20 E              RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT          0     0     0
                               LOW POCOSIN                         16.5  1      20 E              ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY          0     0     0
                               BAY FOREST                          0     13     0                 OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS            0     0     0
                               WATER AND MARSH                     0     0      0                 AGRICULTURAL LAND                0     0     0
                               ACTIVE PEAT MINE                    0     0      0                 DECIDUOUS FOREST                 0     0     0
                               INACTIVE PEAT MINE                  0     0      0                 EVERGREEN FOREST			 0	 0     0
                               PESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT             0     0      0                 MIXED FOREST                     0     0     0
                               ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY             0     0      0                 WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                0     0     0
                               OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS               0     0      0                 MIXED SWAMP                      0     0     0
                               AGRICULTURAL LAND                   0     0      0                 DISTURBED LAND                   0     0     0
                               DECIDUOUS FOREST                    0     0      0                 HIGH POCOSIN                     0     0     0
                               EVERGREEN FOREST                    0     0      0                 LOW POCOSIN                      0     0     0
                               MIXED FOREST                        0     0      0                 BAY FOREST                       0     0     0
                               WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                   0     0      0                 WATER AND MARSH		       100	 5	 20   T
                               MIXED SWAMP                         0     0      0                 BY YEAR
                                                                                                  5 = 0         10 = 316   15 = 316     20 = 31
                                                                                                  ACTIVE PEAT MINE                 0     0     0

                                                               HABITAT CONDITIONS, SCENARI0 #1
                                                               AT THE END OF THE PROJECT PERIOD.
                                                               AREA 1 WITHOUT THE PROJECT.

                                                                     TYPE                                 ACRES

                                                               RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                    0
                                                               ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                    0
                                                               OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                      0
                                                               AGRICULTURAL LAND                          2843
                                                               DECIDUOUS FOREST                           0
                                                               EVERGREEN FOREST                           0
                                                               MIXED FOREST                               0
                                                               WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                          0
                                                               MIXED SWAMP                                0
                                                               DISTURBED LAND                             100
                                                               HIGH POCOSIN                               2138
                                                               LOW POCOSIN                                10100
                                                               BAY FOREST                                 0
                                                               WATER AND MARSH                            632
                                                               ACTIVE PEAT MINE                           0
                                                               INACTIVE PEAT MINE                         0

                                                                                TOTAL                     15819

                                                                                      340

                                              ACCRUED AN@IUALIZED HF2461TAT UNITS                                                ACCRUED ANNU"LI:ED HABITAT UNITS
                                              AT THE 'EtIri Or: THF7 PROJECT PERIOD.                                             AT THE END OF THE PROJECT PERIOD.
                                              AREA I , ;,f-- E"NARI 0 4 1 ,                                                      AREA SCENARIO #1 ,
                                              W!THOUT THE PROJECT.                                                               WITHOUT THE PR'OJECT.                       (CONT7NUED)

                                              T(PE                             SPEC.                                             TYPE                                SPEC.                        TOT.
                                                  1          2             3        4             5                                                 7          8             9       10

                                              1              0             0        0             0                              1     0            0          0             0       0            0
                                              2   0          0             0        13            cl                             2     0            0          11            0       0            0
                                                  0          0             0        0             0                              .3    0            0          0             0       0            0
                                              4   664        1509          512      1082          2136                           4     2 42 1       112@1      228           114     797
                                              5   0          0             0        0             cl                                   C,           1)         0             cl      0            0
                                                  0          0             cl       0             0                                    0            0          0             0       0            0
                                              7   0          0             0        0             0                              7     0            0          0             0       0            0
                                              8   cl         0             0        0             0                              a     0            0          0             0       0            0
                                              9   0          0             0        0             0                              9     0            0          0             0       0            0
                                              10  808        1256          688      258           1204                           10    ?12          998        1-2           275     ills         7682
                                                             1113          1001     148           668                            It    272          7
                                              !1  144                                                                                               05         9@7           964     1243         S45A
                                              1-;, 'S97                                                                          12    1052         281?2      2?80          3155    56516        3645c
                                                  8     ,    4557          5784     1 139         2204
                                              13  0          0             0        0             0                              13    0            0          0             0       cl           0
                                              14  120        120           365      4 6?          C-3                            14    16           78         0             0       1 So         1361
                                              15  0          0             0        0             0                              15    0            0          0             0       0            0
                                              16  14         3 1           2`4      13            '31                            16    2 9          25         7             7       24           206

                                              7   9470       8586          8375     71,110        .6905                          T     41-07        5837       4313          4515    9000         6482E

                                              RATE  f-,P H@iE174;T i--ONK)ERSION IN                                           RATE       @F
                                                                                                                                                               Cl-i-,IERSICIN IN
                                              p-             E: :,@ F.     41
                                                                                                                              AREA          3 C Et @H R 1
                                              WITH  THE PROJFC.T.'                                                            WITH     THE PROJE,--T.

                                              FROM  AGRICULTURAL               LAND TO:                                       PROM     DISTURBED LAND                        TO:

                                                             TYPE                         PRO     BEG    END R                                 TYPE                          PRO     BEG      END P

                                              DECIDUOUS FOREST                            0       0      0                    HIGH     POCOSIN                               0       1        0
                                              21,1ERGREEN FOREST                          0       0      0                    LOW POCOSIN                                    0       1        1)
                                              MIXED FOREST                                0       0      0                    6AY FOREST                                     0       0        0
                                              i.%IHITE CEDAR SWAMP                        0       0      0                    WATER AND MARSH                                0       11       0
                                              t!I'm,ED SWAMP                              0       1)     C!                   ACTIVE PEAT MINE                               313     1        20  F
                                              Z'ISTUReED LAND                             0       0      0                    INACTIkIE PEAT MINE                            0       0        cl
                                              HIGH POCOSIN                                0       0      9                    RESIDE!,ITIAL DEVELOPMENT                      0       0        0
                                              LOW POCOSIN                                 0       0      cl                   POADS AND RIGHTS-OF-1,-jAY                     0       0        1)
                                              EAY FOREST                                  0       0      0                    OTHEP DEVELOPED AREAS                          13      0        0
                                              WATER AND MARSH                             ,-'I    cl     cl                   @@GPICULTURAL LAND                             0       0        cl
                                              41-.TIVE PEAT MINIE                         102     1      20     F             DECIDUOUS FOREST                               0       0        0
                                              lt,,I,-CTIk,'E PEAT MINE                    cl      0      0                    EVERGREEN) FOREST                              0       0        0
                                              RESIDEHTIAL DEVELOPMENT                     0       0      0                    MIXED FOPEST                                   0       0        0
                                              ROADS "HD PIGHTS-OF-WA'(                    0       0      F@                   WHITE I.-;E[,AR S1,dAmP                        13      0        cl
                                              OTHER DEI)ELOPED AREAS                      0       0      0                    HI""ED 31,441P                                 0       0        0

                                                                                                    341

                             PATE OF HABITAT CONk.)EPSION IN                               RA,rs OF HABITAT' CONVERSION IN
                             AREA I,SCEllf"@RIO 141 -                                      AREA                 14,.,
                             WITH THE PROJECT.                                             WITH THE PROjECT,

                             FROM HIGH POCOSIN TO:                                         FROM LOW POCOSIN TO:

                                         TYPE                 PRO   BEG  END R                         TYPE                   PRO  BEG END F

                             LOW POCOSIN                      a     0    0                 SAY FOREST                         0    0   0
                             SAY FOREST                       0     0    0                 WATER AND MARSH                    13   0   a
                             WATER AND MARSH                  0     0    0                 ACI'It)E PEAT MINE                 igs  I   -@ 0
                             ACTIQE PEAT MINE                 21 3  1    ()    F           INACTI'-)E PEAT MINE               11   0   0
                             INACTIt)E PEAT MINE              0     0    0                 PESIDEINTIAL DEVELOPMENT           0    0   0
                             RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT          0     0    0                 ROo:iDS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY          0    cl  11
                             ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY          0     0    0                 OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS              0    cl
                             OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS            0     0    cl                AGRICULTURAL LAI-41.-              ct
                             AGRICULTURAL LAND                0     0    0                 DECIDUOUS FOREST                   0    0
                             DECIDUOUS FOREST                 0     0    0                 EVERGREEN FOREST                   0    (1
                             EVERGREEN FOREST                 0     0    0                 MIXED FOREST                       cl   0,  0
                             MI':<ED FOREST                   0     0    0                 WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                  0    0   0
                             WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                0     0    0                 MIXED SWAMP                        a    0   0
                             MIXED SWAMP                      0     0    0                 DISTUPSED LAND                     0    0   0
                             DISTURBED LAND                   0     0    0                 HIGH POCOSIN                       0    0   0

                             PATE OF HABIT4-7 CONIt.'ERSION IN                         RATE OF H,@F--ITAT '--C-NVERSI;---N IN
                             AREA I -SCENHF-101 -41 -                                  (-4 R EA 1 , S C Ei 4,-m. F 1 Q
                             WITH THE PROJECT.                                         WITH THE PROJECT.

                             FROM WATER AND MARSH TO:                                  FROM ACTIVE PEAT MINE TO:

                                         TYPE                 PRO   BEG  EN D R                    TYPE                 PRO 9EG END R

                             ACTIk.'E PEAT fill-JE            11    1    :10   F       INACTI')E PEAT    IIIHE          100 2      ZO T
                             INACT IVE PEAT MINE              0     0    0             E-'Y EA P
                             RESIDENTIAL De,ELOPMENT          0     0    0             5    2840     10 = q-6!30 15 = 8520
                             ROADS f*lD RIGHTS-OF-WAY         0     0    13            PESIDEl,',JTIHL DEVELOPMENT      0     0    0
                             OTHER DEUELOPED AREAS            0     0    0             ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY          0     0    1)
                             AGRICULTURAL LAND                0     0    0             OTHER DEVELOPED -@REPZ,3         0     cl   0
                             DECIDUOUS FOREST                 0     0    0             AGRICULTURAL Lt-41---
                             EVERGPEE14 FOREST                0     cl   cl            DECIDLI@70-c, Fi--,F.'E::'r      c@    cl
                             HIIXED FOREST                    cl    0    0             EVERGREEN FOR-"-'Z-'7            C;    0    zi
                             WHITE CEDAR     SWAMP            0     0    0             MIXED FOREST                     0     0    1)
                             MIXED 'SWAMP                     0     0    0             WHITE CEDi-4R Z-WAMP             0     0    0
                             DIS7'@RSED LAND                  0     0    0             MIXED SWAMP                      0     0    1)
                             HIGH POCOSIN                     13    0    0             DISTURSED LAND                   ct    13   1)
                             LOW POCOSIN                      0          1)            HIGH POCOSIN                     1)    0    0
                             SAY FOREST                       0     0    0             LOW POCOSIH                      cl    0    1)
                                                                                       BAY FOREST                       0     13   13
                                                                                       IJATER t41,10- HARSH             0     0

                                                                               342

                                                        RATE OP -@@RIT@@T f-.f-jtllJERSIOtj IN                                                                              HABITAT
                                                        AREA                                   41,
                                                                                                                                                                            AT THE END OF THE PpojECT PERIOD.
                                                        WITH THE PROITECT.                                                                                                  AREA I WITH THE PPOJECT.
                                                        FROM INACTIVE PEAT MINE                                    TO:                                                              TYPE                                                        ACRES
                                                                                TYPE                               PRO            @'EG END R                                @RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                                            0
                                                                                                                                                                            ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                                             0
                                                        RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                                    0              0   0                                     OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                                               0
                                                        ROADS AND PIGHTS-OF-Wi@@Y                                  0              0   0                                     AGRICULTURAL LAND                                                   5756
                                                        OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                                      0              0   0                                     DECIDUOUS FOREST                                                    1)
                                                        AGRICULTURAL LAND                                          7 0            5   -WO T                                 EVERGREEN FOREST                                                    799
                                                        BY (EAR                                                                                                             MIXED FOPE-ST                                                       0
                                                        5 = 0                   10 @ 102 15 = 2555                                20 = 47@48                                WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                                   FI
                                                        DECIDUOUS               FOREST                             0              0   0                                     MIXED SlIJAMP                                                       0
                                                        EVERGREEN               FOREST                             70             5   -20      T                            DISTURBED LAND                                                      214 4 cl
                                                        BY YEAR                                                                                                             HIGH POCOSIN                                                        312'
                                                        5 = 0                   10 @ 202                15 = 500                  20 = 798                                  LOW POCOSIN                                                         1504
                                                        111'.'EC, FOREST                                           0              0   0                                     SAY FOREST                                                          0
                                                        b,1H I TE      CEDAR SWAMP                                 0              0   0                                     WATER AND MARSH                                                     154?
                                                        t 1 I'-'ED     WAMP                                        0              0   0                                     ACTIUE PEAT MINE                                                    568
                                                        DISTURBED LAND                                             ri             1)  0                                     INACTIVE PEAT MINE                                                  2e?l
                                                        HIGH POCOSIN                                               70             5   20 T
                                                        BY YEAR
                                                        5 = 0                   10    =      35         15 = 87                   20                                                             TOTAL                                          15818
                                                        LOW POCOSIH                                                70             5   20 T
                                                                  YEAR
                                                        5 = 0                   1 C,  =      1 -67      15 = 413                  20 =      6 5
                                                                  FOPEST                                           0              0   0
                                                        ,.-JATER AND MARSH                                         -70            3   20       7
                                                        SY 'f'EAP
                                                        5 = q.9F,               10 = 1817 15 = 181@                               20 =      1817
                                                        ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                           11             i   20 F

                                                        ACCRUED @4NNUALIZE@, H@EITH@T UNITS                                                                        ACCRUED Af%)r'-4UALI-=D HABITAT UNITS
                                                        AT THE EHD OF THE PROJECT PERIOD.                                                                          AT THE Ef,@c, -jF THE PPOJECT PERIOD.
                                                        AREA      1, ,                       -1 #., ,                                                              A RE A      I . 3C            R' f-, @! 1 .
                                                        1,,-J I T HTHE          PF'(-ITE,-7.                                                                       ',,.) I T H THE        Pg@GjZCT.                     (CONTINUED)
                                                        T i'PF                                      SPEC.                                                          TYPE                                           SPEI-7.                                 TC7
                                                                  1             2            3    -        4       -              =,                                        6             7             8                            10
                                                        1         0                                        0                      C,                                                      0                                          0                    0
                                                                  0                          cl            0                                                                              0                            0                                  C,
                                                                  0             0            0             0
                                                                                                                                                                            0             ri            0                            cl                   cl
                                                        4         -ec-4         I .--: S 7   5 7 2         12 i 0                 2 e                                       -27 G 6       127 3         255            '27           cl, Q I              I I
                                                        5         0             0            0             ID                                                      5        ID            0             1)             0             0                    13
                                                                  lis           13?          71            ?                                                                142           1             283            jQ5           IF6                  1
                                                        7         0             0            0                                                                                            0                            0             0                    0
                                                                                             cl
                                                                                                           1                      0                                         0             ci            0              0             cl                   cl
                                                                  0             0            0             0                      0                                         ri            0             0              cl            0                    0
                                                        113       2544          3952         21 C"5        81 12                  37 8 9                           10       2809          3140          541            86.6          2519                 2 4 1 ;-G,
                                                        11        345           266          Z, --l. 9     3' 5                   159                                       6             16e.          221            23 0          2?7                  202-'
                                                        12        1544          1100         1S96          --,75                  677                              12       254           6198          71'P           71-61         1-2,75               S 7 9EO
                                                        I -::     0             0            ri            0                      0                                1 ]@     0             0             C,             C,            0                    0
                                                        14        288           288                        1 12 'P                t5l                              14       38            188           0              0             314                  3274
                                                        15        40            57           S4            -".8                   4:                                                                                                                      @n
                                                                                                                                  u                                15       40            26            0              0             i 7                  4
                                                                                                           .='O 6                 -13                              18       l!" 6 2       SS 6          152            153           5 0                  4725
                                                        7         5?75          8201         5916          3804                   8043                             T        it',776       6244          2172           2-233           2- ?               565@@4

                                                                                                                                  343

                                        PATE OF L44S                                                                     RATE OF H4;1-@T CONVERSION IN
                                                            .TT4T CONQEPSION IN
                                        AREA 2                  10 # I                                                   AREA     2 , 7:       P T 1) #1
                                        WITHOUT THE PROJECT.                                                             WITHOUT THE

                                        FROM EVERGREEN FOREST TO:                                                        FROM MIXED SIAIAMP TO:
                                                        TYPE                         PRO    BEG     ENID R                               TYPE                         PRO BEG        Et-,Ii) R
                                        MIXED FOREST                                 0      0       0                    DISTURBED LAND                               1 .251         80   E
                                        WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                            0      0       0                    HIGH FOCOSIN                                 0       13     0
                                        MIXED SWA11P                                 0      13      ri                   LOW POCOSIm                                  0       0      0
                                        DISTURBED LAND                               3.3    1.      30    E              SAY FOREST                                   0       1)     1)
                                        HIGH POCOSIN                                 0      0       0                    WATIER AND rop,.I;,SH                        13      0      0
                                        LOW POCOSIN                                  0      0       0                    ACTIVE PEAT MINE                             0       0      0
                                        BAY FOREST                                   0      0       0                    INACTIVE PEAT MINE                           0       cl     0
                                        IAATSP AND MARSH                             0      0       0                    RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                      0       0      0
                                        ACTIVE PEAT MINE                             0      0       0                    ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                      0       li     I
                                        INACTIVE PEAT MINE                           0      0       0                    OTHER DEVELOPED APE(--,S                     0       0      0
                                        RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                      0      0       0                    AGR! .CULTURAL Li44D                         0       0      0
                                        ROADS -ND RIGHTS-OF-1.,)AY                   0      0       0                    DECIDUOUS FOREST                             1)      ri     0
                                        OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                        0      0       0                    EVERGREEN FORES7                             a       0      0
                                        ."GRICULTUPAL LAND                           0      0       0                    MI'XED FOREST                                0       1)     0
                                        DECIDUOUS FOREST                             0      a       0                    WH17E CEDAR SlA4MP                           0       0      0

                                        RATE OF H@4e.!T,-T CONVERSION lN                                                 HABITAT CGNDITIC!t@S,@CEr@ F:-. @il
                                                                                                                                                      .    _:     -    -      -1
                                        @@IPEvwi 2                   #1                                                  AT THE END OF THE @";.IDJEC-71 PERIOC.
                                        k%1ITHOUT T!@E PROJECT.                                                          AREA 2 WITHOUT 7HE PRO,77-C-7.

                                        FROM DISTURBED LAND                          TO:                                         -7Y F E                                      ACFE3
                                                        TYPE                         PRO    BEG     END R                R'ESIDEt-ITIA-L DEVELOPMENT
                                                                                                                         POADS 4411) PIGHTS-OF-l-,lAY                         0
                                        H113H '10COSIN                               -7.7   1       -2 0 E               OTHER DEVELOPEC @'RE.@-=                             ci
                                        LOW POCOSIN                                  5.9    1       13    C              "GRICULTUPt@,L L.-:41D                               10 7 i
                                                                                                    Z
                                        BAY FOPEST                                   0      0       0                    DECIDUOUS FOREST
                                        WATER AND MARSH                              1)     t3      13                   EVERGPEEN FOREST
                                        ACTIVE PEAT MINE                             0      i       0                              FOREST
                                        lNACTIk.)E PEAT MINE                         0      0       1)                   WHITE CED"R S;";-'t,!P
                                        PESIDENTIAL DEQELOPMENT                      0      0       1)                   MIX'ED SWAMP
                                        ROADS At-,ID PIGHTS-OF--WAY                  0      0       1)                   DIS7UP2,ED L@'NC-                                    .45
                                        OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                        13     C.      10                   HIGH POCOSIH
                                        t-,GPICULTURAL L@'ND                         0      0       0                    L014 FOCCSIN
                                        DECIDUOUS FOREST                             0      0       0                    SAY FOREST
                                        Et,.!ERGPEEH FOREST                          5. 9   1       -@o   E              I.-JATEP. A@ID tli@,PSH
                                            ..ED FOREST
                                                                                     0      cl                           P@-Cl IUE F@EA7 ril',,IE                             ct
                                        WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                            0      0       cl                   INA-'- TIVE PEAT MINE                                0
                                        MIXED SWAMP                                  .4     i       20. E
                                                                                                                                            TC,7AL

                                                                                                        344

                                          ACCRUED ANNUALIZED HABITAT UNITS                                                       ACCRUED ANNUALIZED HABITAT UNITS
                                          AT THE END OF THE PROJECT PERIOD.                                                      AT THE END OF THE @'ROJECT PERIOD.
                                          AREA 2         ' SCENAR 10 # I                                                         AREA 2- , SCENAP 10
                                          WITHOUT THE PROJECT.                                                                   WITHOUT THE PROJECT. (CONTINUED)

                                          TYPE                                SPEC.                                              TYPE                                SPEC.                           TOT.
                                                1           2           3           4             5                                    6           -1            8                       10

                                          1     0           0           0           0             0                              1     0           0             0         0             0           0
                                          2     0           0           0           0             0                              2     0           0             0         0             0           0
                                          3     0           0           0           0             0                              3     0           0             0         0             0           0
                                          4     2 5 7       5 .41 a     193         40 -r         803                            4     ?10         428           86        43            Soo         3995
                                          5     13          0           0           0             0                              5     0           0             0         0             0           0
                                          6     509         59S         305         38            547                            6     611         700           12222     840           .674        6045
                                          7     0           0           0           0             cl                             7     0           0             0         0             0           0
                                          8     0           0           0           0             0                              8     0           0             0         0             0           0
                                          9     85          64          77          30            17                             9     13          85            37        62            77          547
                                          10    355         552         302         113           529                            10    401         438           76        121           491         3379
                                          11    1737        1336        1203        178           802                            11    334         846           1114      1158          1492        1020f
                                          12    1245        S87         1125        -222          546                            12    205         563           5,00      814           110.9       7094
                                          13    0           0           0           0             0                              13    0           0             0         0             0           0
                                          14    13          0           0           13            0                              14    0           cl            1)        .0            0           0
                                          15    0           0           0           0             0                              15    0           0             0         0             0           0
                                          16    0           0           0           0             0                              11:1  0           0             0         0             ID          0

                                          T     4188        4004        3206        968           3244                           T     24,4        2061          3114      2837          4143        3125@

                                          RATE OF HABITAT CONVERSION IN                                                          RATE OF HAE'ITI-@T CONVERSION IN
                                          AREA 2. =CENAPIO 4t.                                                                   AREA _2 , S                     0 01
                                          WITH THE PROJECT.                                                                      WITH THE PROJECT.

                                          FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND TO;                                                             FROM EVERGREEN FOREST TO:

                                                            TYPE                          PRO     BEG     END R                                    TYPE                          PRO     BEG     END R

                                          DECIDUOUS FOREST                                13      11      rl                     MIXED FOPEST                                    0       0       f-i
                                          EYEERGREEN FOREST                               0       0       0                      10HITE CEDAR -SWAr'lP                           0       0       cl
                                          MIXED FOREST                                    0       0       0                      MIXED SWAMP                                     0       0       0
                                          WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                               0       0       0                      DISTURBED LAND                                  0       1       0
                                          MI    '-'ED SWAMP                               0       0       0                      HIGH POCOSIN                                    0       0       0
                                          [,I.'-;TURF:EC, LAND                            0       ri      0                      LOW POCOSIN                                     0       0       0
                                          HIGH POCOSIN                                    0       0       0                      BAY FOREST                                      0       13      0
                                          LOW POCOSIN                                     0       11      0                      WATER AND MARSH                                 0       u       0
                                          BA*f FORES*T                                    0       0       0                      ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                q_ 0    1       211   F
                                          WATER AND MARSH                                 cl      0       0                      INACTIVE PEAT MINE                              0       0       0
                                          ACTIVE PEAT tlINE                               45      1       @13   F                RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                         0       0       0
                                          INACTIVE PEAT MINE                              0       0       0                      ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-1-dAY                       0       0       0
                                          RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                         0       0       0                      OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                           0       0       0
                                          ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                         0       0       0                      AGRICULTURAL LAND                               0       1)      0
                                          OTHER DEI)ELOPED AREf:@.S                       0       0       1)                     DECIDUOUS FOREST                                0       0       0

                                                                                                  345

                          RATE OF W48TT4T @'-:O.NtIERSION IN                  RATE  DF H"617AT C0114k)ERSION IN
                          AREA 2. -SCENAPIO #1:                               AREA      3--=Nr@,R10 1*1
                          WITH THE PROJECT.                                   WITH  THE PRO.ECT.
                          FROM MIXED SWAMP TO:                                FROM  DISTURBED LAND         TO:

                                     IYPE               PRO BEG  END R                   TYPE              PRO  BEG  END R

                          DISTIJP13ED LAND              0   1    0            HIGH POCOSIN                 0    1    0
                          HIGH POCOSIN                  0   0    0            LOW POCOSIN                  0    1    0
                          LOW POCOSIN                   0   0    0            BAY FOREST                   0    1)   0
                          BAY FOREST                    9   a    a            WATER AND MARSH              0    13   13
                          WATER AND MARSH               0   0    0            ACTIVE PEAT MINE             123  1    12 0 F
                          ACTI',)E PEAT Ml@)E           3   1    20           INACTIVE PEAT MINE           cl   0    0
                          INACTIVE PEAT MINE            0   0    0            RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT      0    0    01
                          RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT       0   0    0            ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY      0    0    0
                          ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY       0   0    0            OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS        0    0    f0
                          OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS         0   0    0            AGRICULTURAL LAND            C,   Q    0
                          AGRICULTURAL LAND             a   0    0            DECIDUOUS FOREST             0    0    0
                          DECIDUOUS FOREST              0   0    0            EVERGREEN FOREST                  1    0
                          EVERGREEN FOREST              0   0    0            MIXIED FOREST                     0    0
                          MIXED FOREST                  0   0    0            WHITE CEDAR SWAMP            0    1)   n
                          WHITE CEDAR SWAMP             0   0    0            111'.,.ED SWAMP              0    i    0

                          RATE OF HAE-IT44T CONVERSION lN                     RATE OF HAB17AT C,---Nk,-'ER3l0N lN
                          AREA 2 - SC 2' 14; 10 # i ,                         AREA 2 , SC2NI-'R@- @,
                          WITH THE PROJECT.                                   WITH 7HE PROjEC7.

                          FROM HIGH POCOSIN     TO:                           FROM LOW POCOSIN TO:

                                     TYPE               PRO BEG  END R                  TYPE               PRO  BE@3 END .9

                          LOW POCOSIN                   cl  0    0            BAY FOREST                   0    ID   0
                          BAY FOREST                    a   0    0            WATER AND MARSH              0    0    9
                          WATER AND MARSH               0   9    0            ACTI',;E PEAT MINE                1    20 F
                          ACTIVE PEAT MINE              51  1        F        INACTIVE PEAT MINE           13   0    ii
                          INACTIVE PEAT MINE            0   0    0            RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT      0    0    13
                          RESIDENTIAL DEUELOPMENT       0   0    0            ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-14AY     0    0    0
                          ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY       0   0    0            OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS        0    0    0
                          OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS         ii  0    a            AGRICULTURAL LAND                 0
                          AGRICULTURAL LAND             0   0    0            DECIDUOUS FOREST                       C.
                          DECIDUOUS FOREST              0   0    C,           EVERGREEN FOREST             0    0    0
                          EVERGREEN FOREST              13  0    0            MIXED FOREST                 0    0    0
                          MIXED FOREST                  0   0    0            IAHITE CEDAR SWAMP           0    0    0
                          WHITE CEDAR SWAMP             0   0    0            MIXED SWAMP                  0    0    0
                          MIXED SWAMP                   0   0    0            DISTURBED LAND               0    0    0
                          DISTURBED LAND                0   0    0            HIGH POCOSIN                 0    0    0

                                                                     346

                                                   RATE OF 1-4AB17,@.T CONIVERSION IN                                                                      RATE OF HABITAT CONVERSION IN
                                                   H'REA 2             z-'C2tlAPIO #1.                                                                     AREA 2 ,                                   #!,
                                                   WITH THE PROJECT.                                                                                       WITH THE @POJECT.

                                                   FROM ACTIVE PEAT MINE TO:                                                                               FROM INACTIVE PEAT MINE                                  TO;

                                                                       TYPE                                 PRO     BEG        END R                                             TYPE                               PRO        BEG    END R

                                                   lNf-'CTI,.,lE                                                                                           RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                                  0          0      0
                                                   1 4                 PEAT MINE                            300     2          20 F
                                                   ;;E'SIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                                0       0          0                           ROP-DS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                                 0          0      0
                                                   ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-I,,IAY                               0       1)         0                           OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                                    0          0      0
                                                   OTHER DEI)ELOPED AREAS                                   13      0          1)                          "GRICULTURAL LAND                                        240               20      F
                                                   ,@@GRICULTURAL LAND                                      0       0          0                           DECIDUOUS FOREST                                         0          0      0
                                                   DECIDUOUS FOREST                                         0       0          0                           EVERGREEN FOREST                                         30         6      20      F
                                                   EVERGREEN FOREST                                         0       0          0                           MIX'ED FOREST                                            0          0      0
                                                                                                                                                           WHITE CEDAR SWAMP
                                                   r,11EYED FOREST                                          0       0          0                                                                                    0          0      0
                                                   1.,iHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                     0       0          0                           MIXED SWAMP                                              1          6      20      F
                                                   mi'le.,ED SWAHP                                          0       0          0                           DISTURBED LAND                                           0          0      0
                                                   DISTURBED LAND                                           0       0          0                           HIGH POCOSIN                                             16.46             20      F
                                                   HIGH POCOSIrl                                            0       0          0                           LOW POCOSIN                                              12.66             20      F
                                                   LOW POCOSIN                                              ID      0          0                           BAY FOREST                                               0          0      0
                                                   &-)*@' FOREST                                            ci      0          0                           WATER AND MARSH                                          0          3      0
                                                   IJATEP 4@JD MARSH                                        1)      0          0                           -'CT!k@E PEAT MINE                                       0          1      0

                                                   H1,8 I TAT COND I T I ONS,                      CEt,-; P T                                              @',CCPUED INNUt@tL7ZED HHBITAT UIHIT-3
                                                   "T THE END OF THE PROJECT PERIOD.                                                                       AT THE END OF THE PROJECT PERIOD.
                                                              2 WITH THE PROJECT.                                                                          AREA    2 .           3 1: EN " P 10  141
                                                     REA
                                                                                                                                                           1,11TH  THE           PROJECT.
                                                               -;'!'FE                                                  ACRES
                                                                                                                                                           TYPE                                      SPEC.
                                                   RESIDENTIAL DEVELOKIENT                                              0                                          1             2                        4              5
                                                   POADES "HD RIGHTS-OF-144@,(                                          0
                                                   OTHER DEI)ELOPED AREAS                                               0                                  1       0             0               0        0              0
                                                   ,GPICULTURAL LAND
                                                                                                                                                           -       1)            0               0        0              0
                                                   DECIDUOUS FOREST                                                                                        3       cl            0               0        0              0
                                                   EVERGREEN FOREST                                                     57,1@                              4       489           1080            367      7,75           115271
                                                   HIXED FOREST                                                         cl                                 5       0             0               11       0              0
                                                   10HITE CEDAR SWi:;,MP                                                0                                  6       2 le. 0                       168      '7.1           301
                                                   t!IXED c-,l,,JAHP                                                                                               0             0               0        0              0
                                                   DI ST LIP                                                                                                                     0               0
                                                   - -           BE'D LA@!D                                             4                                          0                                      0              0
                                                   HIGH POCOcIN                                                         440                                57,     -3 5          2 i@            -2                      -
                                                             POCOslIt--l                                                @1138                              10      76/           115,5           655      245            1 146
                                                   BAY FOREST                                                           ri                                 1 1     606           466             420      62             280
                                                                 AND ZlAR'SH                                            cl                                 12      4:7:4         @3 0 9          S? -3    -7-@           1
                                                   ,@@CTIVE PEAT MINE                                                   300                                13      0             0               1)       0              0
                                                   !!,IHCTII,,'E FEAT MINE                                              12LIO                              14      0             1)              cl       0              11
                                                                                                                                                           15      21            -,o             11S      15             21
                                                                            TOTAL                                       71-12                              16      13'           294             231      126            --?4

                                                                                                                                                                                 3 0             2:SS     13 24          S-671

                                                                                                                        347

                                        ACCRUED ANNUALIZED HABITAT UNITS                                 RATE OF HABITAT CONVERSION IN
                                        AT THE E!@[D 'IF THE PROJECT PERIOD.                             AREA I SCENARIO 42.
                                        AREA  2 .      SCENAP 10   #1,                                   WITHOUT THE PROJECT.
                                        WITH  THE      PROJECT.          (CONTINUED)
                                        TYPE                         SPEC.                  TOT.         FROM DISTURBED LAND                  TO:
                                             i         7               1?        10                                   TYOE                    PRO     BEG END R

                                        1    0         0       0       0         0          0            HIGH POCOSIN                         4.6     1   20    E
                                        2    0         0       0       0         0          0            LOW POCOSIN                          15.41       220   E
                                        :3   0         0       0       0         0          0            BAY FOREST                           1)      0   1)
                                        4    1733      815     1-63    82        5,71       7604         I-OATER AND MARSH                    0       0   0
                                        5    0         0       0       0         0          0            ACTIVE PEAT MINE                     0       0   0
                                        6    3 3.6     385     672     462       371        3323         INACTIVE PEAT MIHE                   0       0   ID
                                        7    0         0     .0        0         0          0            RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT              0       0   0
                                        a    0         0       0       0         0          0            ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-4JAY             0       0   0
                                        9    5         35      15      25        32         226          OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                0       0   0
                                        10   867       941?    164     262       1064       7315         A3RICULTUPAL LAND                    0       0   0
                                        11   117       295     ass     404       521        3558         DECIDUOUS FOREST                     0       0   0
                                        12   -f 1      1916    202     214       387        247lb        EVERGREEN FOREST                     0       0   0
                                        13   0         0       0       0         a          0            MIXED FOREST                         0       0   0
                                        14   0         0       0       0         0          0            WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                    0       0   0
                                        15   21        15      0       0         .?         150          MIXED SWAMP                          0       0   0
                                        16   273       242     63      63        2 *lm' 1   1953

                                        T    3423      2932    1663    1512      3184       2660-4

                                        RATE OF HASIT4T CONVERSION IN                                    HABITAT CONDITIONS.;C-E@@"F-10
                                        AREA I.-SCEHAPI'D #2,                                            A-r THE END OF THE FROJSCT PSPIOD.
                                        WITHOUT THE PROJECT.                                             "REA I WITHOUT THE PROJECT.

                                        FROM INACTIVE PEAT MINE              TO:                                TYPE                                  "CRES
                                                                                                                                                      I

                                                       TYPE                  PRO BEG    END P            RESIDENTIAL DEI)ELOPMENT                     0
                                                                                                         ROADS ANb RIGHTS-OF-4AY                      0
                                        RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT              0   0      0                o'rHER DEVELOPED AREAS                       0
                                        ROADS -4ND RIGHTS-OF-44AY            0   0      0                A13RICULTURAL LAND
                                        OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                0   0      0                DECIDUOUS FOREST                             13
                                        HGFICULTURAL LAND                    0   0      0                EVERGREEN FOREST                             0
                                        DECIDUOUS FOREST                     0   a      0                MIXED FOREST                                 0
                                        EVERGREEN FOREST                     0   0      0                WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                            0
                                        MIXED FOREST                             0      0                MPKED SWAMP                                  0
                                        6-lHITE CEDAR SWAMP                      r!     0                Dl STURSED L,@ND                             III
                                        MIXED SWAMP                          0   0      0                HIGH POCOS!!l                                60SZ
                                        DISTURBED LAND                       0   a      0                LOW POCOSIN                                  Z050.7
                                        HIGH POCOSIN                         0   0      0                eAY FOREST                                   0
                                        Low POCOSIH                          0   a      0                Wi4TER AND MARSH                             600
                                        BAY FOREST                           0   0      0                .,.t:Tlk,)E PEAT MINE                        "I
                                        WATER AND MARSH                      100 5      20 T             INACTIVE PEAT MINE                           0
                                        BY YEAR
                                        5 = 0          10 = SOO        15    30d 20         300                          70TAL                        Soooo
                                        ACTIVE PEAT MINE                     0   a      0

                                                                                                     348

                                                    ACCRUED ANNUALIZED HABITAT UNITS                                                                  ACCRUED ANNUALIZED HABI                                 TAT UNITS
                                                    AT THE E7t--j[., CIF 714E PROJECT PERIOD.                                                         AT THE                        ";= THE PROJECT PERIOD.
                                                    AREA I SCEN-',PIO 02.                                                                             AREA I SCENARIO W2,
                                                    WITHOUT THE PROJECT.                                                                              WITHOUT THE PROJECT. (CONTINUED)

                                                    TYPE                                      SPEC.                                                   TYPE                                       SPEC.                               TOT.
                                                                                                                                                                                    7
                                                                         2             a             4               5                                        It.                           a          9                10

                                                                                                                                                              0                     0       0          0                0            0
                                                                         0             cl            0               0
                                                                         0             1)            1)              cl                                       0                     0       cl                          0            0
                                                                         0                                           rl                                       cl                    0       0                           0            0
                                                    4      6 4 G_'       1421          486           10 2`6          2 0 225                          4       229'5                 1060    216        108              756          10.071
                                                    5      1)            0             0             0               cl                               5       0                     0       ci         0                0            0
                                                    6      0             0             0             cl              cl                               6       0                     0       0          0                0            0
                                                                                                                                                      7
                                                           0             0             0             0               0                                .       0                     0       0.         0                0            0
                                                           o             0             0             0               0                                8       0                     0       0          0                0            0
                                                           0             0             0             0               cl                               3@      0                     0       0          0                9            0
                                                    10     892           1285          759           2C351           IS29                             10      1006                  ii0l    190        304              1234         3483
                                                    11     4424          31403         31363         454             2042                             11      851                   7,155   28316      2949             3800         25975
                                                    12     1 39,@.5      5,,? 4 8      1 262t,       2487            1222                             12      2_2 ? .6              3       6504       6887             12435        79583
                                                    13     0             0             0             0               0                                13      0                     0       0          a                0            0
                                                    14     114           114           347           446             59                               14      15                    74      cl         0                124          1292
                                                    15     0             0             0             0               13                               15      0                     13      13         0                0            0
                                                    16     14            7"?           23            113             2 ?                              16      27                    24      6                           13           195

                                                    T      20057         16211         1_17'@04      4710?                                            T       6489                  10747   9752       10254            18371        125601

                                                    R.ATE CF HAE?!T,@T                                               Tt-1                             PATE '3F @HEJT,@T CONVERSION                                      IN
                                                    AREA I _CE!-,@              'F: ',:; ti - '                                                       A REA I ,                     _=@ 1 G tt
                                                    WITH THE PROJECT.                                                                                 WITH THE.FPOJECT.

                                                    FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND TO:                                                                        FROM DISTUPBED LAND                                     TO:

                                                                         TYPE                              PRO       BEG      END R                                                 TYPE                      PRO       .9EG    END P

                                                    DECIDUOUS FOREST                                       0         0        Q                       HIGH POCO'llN                                           0         1       cl
                                                    ZVERGREEH FOREST                                       ij        0        0                       LOW POCOSIN                                             ci        1       0
                                                    H I'   ':ED FOREST                                     0         1)       G                       BAY FOREST                                              0         ID      0
                                                    IdHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                     0         0        0                       WATER AND MARSH                                         0         cl      0
                                                    MIXED SWAMP                                            0         cl       01                      @CTIVE PEAT MINE                                        4 8, 0    t       20      F
                                                    DISTURBED LAND                                         0         0        0                       INACTIVE PEAT MINE                                      1)        0       0
                                                    HIGH POCOSIN                                           0         0        0                       RESIDEt-)TIAL DEVELOPMENT.                              0         13      0
                                                    LOW POCOSIt-4                                          0         0        0                       ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-lmIAY                               C.        ct      0
                                                    BAY FOREST                                             0         ri       0                       OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                                   cl        0       0
                                                    1@@IATER AND HARSH                                     0         0        0                       AGRICULTURAL LAND                                       0         0       0
                                                    ,@I-T I I IE                                                              20     F                CECIDUOUS FOREST                                        0         0       0
                                                           I e PEAT MINE                                   135       1        -
                                                    1NACTIVE PEAT MINE                                     fli       0        0                       EVERGREEN FOREST                                        1-j       0       0
                                                    RE51DENTIAL DEI)ELOPMENT                               0         0        0                       MIXED FOREST                                            0         0       0
                                                    ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                                ri                 -                       WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                       0         0       cl
                                                                                                                              C                       MI';l.ED SWAMP                                          0         0       0
                                                    OTHER DEVELOPED :4REP-@S                               0         ij       0

                                                                                                                         349

                                  RATE OF HABITAT CONVERSION IN                        RATE  OF H-@4el--AT CCNVEPSION IN
                                  AREA I SCENARIO                                      4REA  I
                                  WITH THE PROJECT.                                    WITH  THE PROJECT.

                                  FROM HIGH POCOSIN TO:                                FROM  LOW POCOSIN TO:

                                             TYPE                PRO  BEG END R                   TYPE               PRO  BEG  END R

                                  LOW POCOSIN                    0    0   0            BAY FOREST                    0    0    0
                                  SAY FOREST                     0    0   0            blATER AND MARSH              0    0    a
                                  WATER AND MARCH                0    0   0            ACTIVE PEAT MINE              660  1    20 F.
                                  ACTIVE PEAT MINE               195  1   20 F         INACTIVE PEAT MINE            0    0    0
                                  INACTIVE PEAT MINE             0    0   0            RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT       0    0    0
                                  RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT        0    0   0            ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY       0    0    0
                                  ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-4,)AY      0    0   0            OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS         0    0    0
                                  OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS          0    0   0            AGRICULTURAL LAND             0    0    cl
                                  AGRICULTURAL LAND              0    0   0            DECIDUOUS FOREST              C,   0    C.
                                  DECIDUOUS FOREST               0    0   0            EVERGREEN FOREST              0    0    co
                                  EVERGREEN FOREST               0    0   0            MIXED FOREST                  0    0    0
                                  MIXED FOREST                   0    0   0            WHITE CEDAR SWAMP             0    0    0
                                  WHITE CEDAR SWAMP              0    0   0            MIXED SWAMP                   0    0    0
                                  MIXED S@WAMP                   0    0   0            DISTURBED LAND                !1   0    0
                                  DISTURBED LAND                 0    0   0            HIGH POCOSIN                  0    0    0

                                  RATE OF HABITAT CONYERSION IN                        RATE OF HABI74T CCINVERSION IN
                                  AREA I SCENARIO #-"    '                             AREA I SCENi-4F-10 Is-.,
                                  WITH THE PROJECT.                                    IAITH THE PROJECT.

                                  FROM WATER AND MARSH TO:                             FROM ACTIVE PEAT MINE TO:

                                             TYPE                PRO  BEG 9ND R                  7"'PE               PRO BEG   END R

                                  ACTIVE PEAT MINE               15   1   20 F         INACTIVE PEAT MINE            IT002     20 F
                                  INACTIVE PEAT MINE             0    0   0            PESIDENTIAL DEVELOPrIFNT      0         1)
                                  RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT        0    0   0            ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-Ws@',Y    0    0    0
                                  ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-4,,)AY     0    0   0            OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS         0    11
                                  OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS          0    0   0            #@tGRICULTURAL LAND           12   0
                                  AGRICULTURAL LAND              0    0   ri           DECIDUOUS FOREST              1-1  0    cl
                                  DECIDUOUS FOREST               0    0   0            EVERGREEN FOREST              ri   0    0
                                  EVERGREEN FOREST               C,   1)  0            ML/lED FOREST                      12   ri
                                  MIXED FOREST                   0    0   a            IJHI@E CEDAP                       0    Q
                                  WHITE CEDAR SWAMP              0    0   0            MIXED SWAMP                   0    0    0
                                  MIXED SWAMP                    0    0   0            Co'STURSED LAND               1)   1)   0
                                  DISTURBED LAND                 0    0   0            HIGH POCOSIN                  13   0    0
                                  HIGH POCOSIN                   0    0   0            LOW POCOSIN                   0    0    0
                                  LOW POCOSIN                    0    0   0            9-@AY FOREST                  0    0    0
                                  SAY FOREST                     0    0   0            t-dATER AND MARSH             0    0    0

                                                                                    350

                                        RATE OF H9617AT CONVERSION IN                                          HABITAT CONDITIONS.SCEt-,IARIO #2,
                                        AREA i,SCENAPI,--l #--,,                                               AT THE END OF THE PROJECT PERIOD.
                                        WITH THE PROJECT.                                                      AREA I WITH THE PROJECT.

                                        FROM INACTIVE PEAT MINE                 TO:                                   TYPE                                     ACRES

                                                       TYPE                     PRO    BEG END R               RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                         0
                                                                                                               ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                         0
                                        RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                 0      0    0                  OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                           0
                                        ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                 0      0    0                  AGRICULTURAL LAND                               16773
                                        OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                   0      0    0                  DECIDUOUS FOREST                                0
                                        AGRICULTURAL LAND                       56     5    20 T               EVERGREEN FOREST                                2460
                                        BY YEAR                                                                MIXED FOREST                                    0
                                        5 = 0          10 = 1653 15 = 9213              20 = 16773             WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                               0
                                        DECIDUOUS      FOREST                   0      0    0                  MIXED SWAMP                                     0
                                        EVERGREEN      FOREST                   8.2 5       20 T               DISTURBED LAND                                  0
                                        BY YEAR                                                                HIGH POCOSIN                                    561
                                        5 = 0          10 = 570 15 = 1515               20 = 2460              LOW POCOSIN                                     1899
                                        MIXED FOREST                            0      0    0                  BAY FOREST                                      0
                                        WHITE   CEDAR SWAMP                     0      0    0                  WATER AND MARSH                                 2907
                                        MIXED   SWAMP                           0      0    0                  ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                1500
                                        DISTURBED LAND                          0      0    0                  INACTIVE PEAT MINE                              3900
                                        HIGH POCOSIN                            1.9    5    20 T
                                        BY YEAR                                                                                TOTAL                           30000
                                        5 = 0          10   =     130 15 = 345.520 = 561.1
                                        LOW POCOSIN                             6.3 5       20 T
                                        BY YEAR
                                        5 = 0          10   =     440 15 = 1169.520               1698.?
                                        BAY FOREST                              0      0    0
                                        WATER AND MARSH                         5. - 5      20 T
                                        BY YEAR
                                        5 = 0          10 = 2907 IS = 2907              20 = 2907
                                        ACTIt)E PEAT MINE                       15 1        20 F

                                        ACCRUED ANNUALIZED HABITAT UNITS                                       ACCRUED ANNUAL-'ED HABITAT UNITS
                                        ,@L.T THE EFID OF THE DROJECT PERIOD.                                  AT THE END OF THE PROJECT PERIOD.
                                                                                                                               IARI Cl
                                        AREA                                                                   AREA   I , @K0            #Z-
                                        WITH   THE     PROJECT.                                                WITH   THE      PROJECT.            (CONTINUED)

                                        ,YPE                          SPEC.                                    TYPE                          SPEC.                     TOT.
                                               1       2          :3       4           5                            6          7         8         9       10

                                               0       0          0        0           0                       1    0          0         0         0       0           0
                                        2      0       0          0        0           cl                      2    0          0         0         0       0           0
                                               0       0          0        0           0                       3    0          0         C.        0       0           0
                                               1564    2453       1172     2476        488,6                   4    5528       2606      521       261     1,;24       242,01
                                        5      0       0          0        0           u                       5    0          0         0         0       0           0
                                                                                       983                     6    4          4
                                               56      418        214      21                                       27         90        855       58S     4i  .2      4229
                                                                           0           0                       7    0          0         0         0       0
                                                       0          13       0           0                            1)         0         cl        0       13
                                        9      cl      0          0        0           li                      9    0          0         0         0       0           0
                                        10     2143    S32?       1824     684         3192
                                                                                                               10   2417       2645      456       7,30    29-64       20363
                                        11     1603    123S       1110     164         740                     11   308        781       1028      1069    IS77        '9414
                                        12     5079    S618       4592     5-04        2226                    12   835        2296      2365      2505    4522        -28942
                                        1@     0       0          0        0           0                       13   0          0         0         0       0           0
                                        14     467     467        1422     1829        244                     14   61         305       0         0       508         5304
                                        15     105     151)       90       75          105                     15   105        75        0         0       45          750
                                        16     714     !537       1208     65?         1537                    16   14274      1263      329       329     11-7108     1ID211

                                        T      12021   14206      1111.5'32 A-81-9     13213                   T    11118      10460     5554      5481    12920       1025S-

                                                                                       351

                                   RATE OF L448!T--T CONVERSION IN                         PATE OF HABITAT CONVERSION IN
                                   AREA 2 SCENARIO #2,                                     AREA 2 SCEN,@.Rjo
                                   WITHOUT THE PROJECT.
                                                                                           WITHOUT THE PROJECT.
                                   FROM EVERGREEN FOREST TO:                               FROM MEXED SWAMP TO:
                                               TYPE                PRO BEG    D40 R                    TYPE                PRO BEG    END R
                                   MIXED FOREST                    0     1    0
                                                                                           )ISTUPbED LAND                  3.751      so E
                                   WHITE CEDAR SWAMP               0     0    0            HIGH POCOSIN                    0     13   0
                                   MIXED SWAMP                     0     0    0            LOW POCOSIN                     0     0    0
                                   DISTURBED LAND                  2.0,71     30 E         SAY FOREST                      0     0    0
                                   HIGH POCOSIN                    0     0    0            WATER AND MARSH                 0     a    I?
                                   LOW POCOSIN                     0     0    0            ACTIVE PEAT MINE                cl    0    co
                                   BAY FOREST                      0     0    0            XNACTIVE PEAT MINE              0     0    0
                                   WATER AND MARSH                 0     0    li           RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT         0     0    0
                                   ACTIVE PEAT MINE                0     0    0            FROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY        0     0    0
                                   INACTIVE PEAT MINE              0     0    0            OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS           1)         0
                                   RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT         0     0    0            64GRICULTURAL LAND              0     0    0
                                   ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-44AY        0     0    0            DECIDUOUS FOREST                0     0    0
                                   OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS           0     0    0            E-@,IEPGREEN FOREST             0     0    0
                                   AGRICULTURAL LAND               0     0    0            Ml,-@,ED FOREST                 0     0    0
                                   DECIDUOUS FOREST                0     0    )a           WHITE CEDAR SWAMP               0     0    0

                                   PATE OF HABITAT CCI-IVERSION IN                         HABITAT
                                   AREA Z, .        10 42'.                                94T THE END OF THE I@FOJECT PERIOD.
                                   WITHOUT THE PROJECT.                                    4REA 2 WITHOUT THE.PROjECT.

                                   FROM DISTURBED LAND             TO:                           T'YPE                           ACRES

                                              TYPE                 PRO   BEG  END R        RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPME'lT              ID
                                                                                           ROADS AND P.IGHTS-OF-4,vlAY           0
                                   HIGH POCOSIN                    4.7   1    20 s         OTHER C-Et@ELOPED AREAS               cl
                                   LOW POCOSIN                     12.51      20 E         AGRICULTURAL 1-AND                    1200
                                   BAY FOREST                      ri    0    0            DECIDUOUS FOREST
                                   WATER AND MARSH                 0     0    0            El.'ERGPEEN @=OFEc-T                  90 1
                                   P-ICTIVE PEAT MINE              0     1    0            MIXED FOREST
                                   INACTIVE PEAT MINE              0     0    0            1.0HITE CEDAR SWAMP
                                   RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT         0     0    0            "lIXED SWAMP                          2 7
                                   ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY         0     0    0            DISTURBED LAND                        2' 14
                                   OTHER DEVELOPED     AREAS       0     0    0            HIGH POCOS!!'-l                       I. @-' 4 5
                                   AGRICULTURAL LAND               0     0    ri           LOW POCOSIN                           8914
                                   DECIDUOUS FOREST                0     0    0            BAY FOFEST                            0
                                   EVERGREEN FOREST                2.1   1    20 E         WATER AND tlARSH                      lEo
                                   MIXED FOREST                    0     0    0            ACTIVE PEAT MINE                      0
                                   WHITE CEDAR SWAMP               0     0    0            ;NACTIVE PEAT MINE                    0
                                   MIXED SWAMP                     .8    1    20 E
                                                                                                         TOTAL                   15000

                                                                                         352

                                                              ACCRUED                                 HH617AT UNITS                                                 ACCRUE7i @@H']L,'LIZED HASITAT UNITS
                                                              ,-@T THE END DF THE cR'OJECT PERIOD.                                                                  AT THE END CiF THE PIPOJECT PERIOD.
                                                              AREA 2,SCEt4_iPIO #22'                                                                                AREA                  S!CF!424;-'IQ #2
                                                              .,,lITHOL'T THE PROJECT.                                                                              WITHOUT THE PROJECT.                                (CONTINUED)

                                                              TYPE                                    SPEC.                                                         TYPE                                         SPEC.                                 TOT.
                                                                   1             2             3              4                5                                           6                             8              9                10

                                                              1    0             0             0              0                0                                    1      0              0              a              0                ID            0
                                                              2    0             0             1-1            cl               cl                                   2      0              0              13             0                0             0
                                                              3    13            13            1-1            0                0                                    3      cl             0              0              0                cl            0
                                                              4    2S8           636           216            456              900                                  4      1020           480            96             48               336           4476
                                                              5    0             cl            0              13               0                                    5      0              0              0              0                0             0
                                                              6    4--4          5113          260            -13              467                                  6      521            5?7,           1042           716              5"75          5154
                                                              -    0                           0              0                ct                                   7      1)             0              0              0                0             0
                                                              e    0                           0              0                0                                           0              0              13             1)               0             0
                                                                   '84           214           2 5S           101)             55                                          44             '2 8 4         125            207              258           1 19 3 0
                                                              io   Z1. 8         432           *227                            414                                  10     ?, 13          343            59             1715             2`8 4         2644
                                                              11   246?          1             1710           253              1140                                 11     475            1203           1583           1046             2121          14499
                                                              12 '1610           4288          5570           1097             2'700                                12     1013           2785           286?           3038             5485          35106
                                                              13                 0             0              0                0                                    13     0              0              0              0                0             0
                                                              I                                                                                                                                                                          le
                                                              14   -35           S5            105            135              is                                   14     5              23             0              0                              392
                                                              1.5  ID            0             0              0                0                                    15     0              0              0              0                0             0
                                                              1 It.0             1)            fj             0                0                                    1.6    0              0              0              0                0             a

                                                              T    ?948          311-4         '3355          2162             569-4                                T      3351           5714           57-4           5750             01?S          64100

                                                              FATE                                                             It-4                                 RATE :-",:: H@F,T-.t:@@ CONQERSION IN
                                                              APE@4 2                                                                                               AREA 2                                    :42,
                                                              ,11TH @HE ZPlOJEC7.                                                                                   IJITH THE PROJECT.

                                                              FROM A'__,PIC'l_lLTUPAL                 L@4t,]D TO:                                                   FROM E'.)ERGREEtl FOREST TO:

                                                                                 7iPE                                P F, 0    SEG       Ei,jD P                                          Tf F E                               PRO       BEG      END R

                                                                                 FORESIT                             9         0         0                          MI@ED FOREST
                                                              E'i'=_RGPE=_H FOREST                                   cl        0         I'D                        1,,JHITE CEDHP SWAMP                                       cl        13       0
                                                              MIXED FOREST                                           cl        0         0                          M.IXED SWF41-IR                                            0         0        0
                                                              WHITE 1-7H-DAR @EWAMP                                  _1        cl        13                         Dl'-TURBED LAND                                            0         1        cl
                                                              t'l F".ED SWAMP                                                  0         0                          H113H ROCOSIN                                              cl        0        0
                                                              C.-I :_:.Tl_'F*BED LAND                                0         0         cl                         LOW POCOSIN                                                0         G        C,
                                                              HIGH P0CO.-_-.'IN                                                          0                          SA'r 7OR'E_T                                               0         ID       cl
                                                                   Fo@@CiSlt,l                                       t".                 cl                         W,,TER AN@ MARSH                                           1)        0        1-,
                                                              EA'i' PC-iPEST                                         0         1?        C.                         ACTlk@'E PEf@iT M11,1E                                     16        1        20       F
                                                              WATER i4ll) MARSH                                      0         ri        cl                         1NACTI',E PEAT MINE                                        cl        0        a
                                                              CTII,'E PEAT VIINE                                     .60       1                F                   RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                                    0         0        0
                                                              IHACTIVE FEi-@T MINE                                   r!        0         0                          ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-IA'Y                                   0         0        0
                                                              RESIDEtITIAL DEVELOFME@lT                              0         1?        0                          OTHER DEQELOPED AREAS                                      0         11
                                                              ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-1.,Jf@@r'                          0         0         11                         @@GRICULTIJRAL LAND                                        0         0        i:!
                                                              OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                                  13        I'D       0                          DECIDUOUS FOREST                                           1)        0        0

                                                                                                                               353

                                  RATE OF L44e!'ri;T S"MYERSION IN                             RATE OF HAEIT@4T CONVERSION IN
                                              C                                                                  -4
                                  AREA 2. SCENARIO 42.                                         AREA 2      SCEN@"P.10 42,
                                  WITH THE PROJECT.                                            WITH THE PROJECT.

                                  FROM MIXED SWAMP TO:                                         FRCM DISTURBED LAND                TO-

                                              TYPE                   PRO   BEG  END*R                      TYPE                   PRO   BEG  END R

                                  DISTURBED LAND                     0     1    0              HIGH POCOSIN                       13    1    0
                                  HIGH POCOSIN                       0     0    0              LOW POCOSIN                        0     11   13
                                  LOW POCOSIN                        0     0    0              BAY FOREST                         .0         0
                                  BAY FOREST                         13    0    1)             WATER AND MARSH                    4j    Q    0
                                  WATER AND MARSH                    0     0    0              ACTIVE PEAT MINE                   1105  1    2-10 F
                                  ACTIVE PEAT MINE                   22.51      20 F           INACTIVE PEAT MINE                 ri    0    0
                                  INACTIVE PEAT MINE                 0     0    0              RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT            0     1)   0
                                  RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT            0     0    0              PQ@4DS AND PIGHTS-OF-44AY          0     0    ID
                                  ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-4AIAY          0     0    0              OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS              13    0    0
                                  OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS              0     0    0              AGRICULTURAL LAND                  4)    0    0
                                  AGRICULTURAL LAND                  0     0    0              DECIDUOUS FOREST                   0     0    1)
                                  DECIDUOUS FOREST                   0     0    0              EVERGREEN FOREST                   Q     1    0
                                  EVERGREEN FOREST                   0     0    0              MIXED FOREST                       11    0    0
                                  MIXED
                                          FOREST                     0     0    0              WHIrE CEDAR SWAMP                  0     0    0
                                  WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                  0     0    0              M I     SWAMP                      0     1    a

                                  PATE OF HA6l'r,:4T CCHVERSION IN                             PtW7-E OF H"817-T CONVERSION IN
                                  @,REA 2 , SCE!%:o;R,-' #@-.                                  A P, E: A -- ,
                                  14ITH THE PROJECT.                                           WITH THE @'JEC7.

                                                                                                        -@W POCOSIN TO:
                                  F-POM HIGH POCOSIN        TO:                                FPC-M LC

                                               TYPE                  PRO   BEG  END P                       TYPE                  PRO   EEG  END R

                                  LOW POCOSIN                        fi    0    0              BAY FOREST                         1)    0    1-3
                                  BAY FOREST                         0     0    0              bdATER AND MARSH                   cl    13   13
                                  1.@ATER AND MARSH                  0     a    0              ACTIVE PEAT MINE                              ri    F
                                  ACTIQE PEAT MINE                   135   1    21 0 F:        I@IACTII)E PEAT MINE               1)    0    C,
                                  !Ni4CTIVE PEAT MIHE                0     0    0              RESIDENTIAL DEI)ELOPMENT           0     0    0
                                  RES I DENT IAL DEVELOPMENT         0     0    13             ROADS AND PIGHTS-OF-W2Y            A     C!
                                  p,---,F4DS AND RIGHTS-OF-I,,IA'(   0     0    0              OTHER DEVELOPED APE@-S             0     ll
                                  OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS              0     0    0              AGRICUL71jRiaL L--ND
                                  .,4GPICULTURAL LAND                0     0    ri             DECIDUOUS FOREST
                                  DECIDUOUS FOREST                   0     0    0              E@)ERGREE-14 FOREST                0     11
                                  EVERGREEN FOREST                   0     0    0              MIXED FOREST                       13    0    0
                                  MI',@ED FOREST                     0     Q    13             WH17E CEC-AP SWAMP                 0     0    1)
                                  b3HITE CEDAR SWAMP                 0     11;  0              MI*X.IED SWAMP                     0     0    113
                                  MIXED SWAMP                        0     cl                  DISTURBED LA14D                    ri    ri   0
                                  DISTURBED LAND                     0     0    0              HIGH POCOSIN                                  0

                                                                                                 35 4

                                               RATE 05 HABITAT CCNl.TRSIOt,j IN                                                     PATE OF HAeTT"iT CONVERSION IN
                                               AREA 2            SC0:HPIO 42',                                                      AREA 2 , ;-C-EHAPl:-j #7
                                               WITH THE PRuJECT.                                                                    WITH THE PROJECT.

                                               FROM WATER AND MARSH                      TO:                                        FROM ACTIVE PEAT MINE TO:

                                                                 TYPE                           PRO     BEG    END R                                 TYPE                           PRO       BEG   END R

                                               ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                 7.5     1      213 F                INACTIVE PEAT MINE                              750       2     20 F
                                               INACTIVE PEAT MINE                               0       0      0                    RESIDENTIAL DEVELOFMENT                         0         0     0
                                               RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                          0       0      0                    ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                         0         0     0
                                               POim@DS AND RIGHTS-OF-WA'-(                      0       0      0                    OTHER DEt)ELOPED AREAS                          ri        0     0
                                               OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                            1)      0      0                    HGRICULTURAL LAND                               0         0     0
                                               AGRICULTURAL LANE                                cl      cl     0                    DECIDUOUS FOREST                                cl        0     0
                                               DECIDUOUS FOREST                                 0       0      0                    El,jEPGREEN FOREST                              0         0     cl
                                               EVERGREEN FOREST                                 cl      0      cl                   MIXED FOREST                                    0         0     0
                                               MIXED FOREST                                     0       0      0                    WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                               0         0     0
                                               WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                0       0      0                    MI';<ED SWAMP                                   0         0     0
                                               111'KED SWAMP                                    0       0      0                    DISTURBED LAND                                  0         cl    0
                                               DISTURBED LAND                                   1)      1)     0                    HIGH POCOSIN                                    0         0     0
                                               HIGH POCOSIN                                     0       0      0                    LOW POCOSIN                                     0         0     0
                                               LOW POCOSIN                                      0       0      0                    BAY FOREST                                      0         0     0
                                               BAY FOREST                                       0       0      0                    WATER AND MARSH                                 0         0     0

                                               PATE OF HHEITAT CONVERSION IN
                                               AREA 2 ,                           42,                                               HA B I TAT C ON D I T: ON S               CEI I -- P      0 #27 .
                                               WITH THE PROJECT.                                                                    AT THE END OF THE PROJECT PERIOD.
                                                                                                                                    AREA 2 WITH THE PPO,',ECT.
                                               PPOM Il!HCTIl.lE REH7 MINE                       TO:                                           TYPE                                            ACRES
                                                                 TYPE                           P PO    BEG    END R                RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                                   0
                                               RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                          0       ci     0                    ROADS AND R!GHTS-OF-(,,-A'Y                               0
                                               ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                          0       13     ri                   OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                                     ri
                                               OTHER DEUELOPED AREAS                            ri      13     cl                   AGRICULTURAL LAND                                         1718 4 c
                                               @4GRICULTURAL LAND                               6-t,    5      220 T                DECIDUOUS FOREST                                          0
                                               E`( r'EH'P                                                                           EVERGREEN FOREST                                          i @ 2 0
                                               5 = 0                10 = 2280 15                6060                9S40            MIXED FOREST                                              ci
                                               DECIDUOUS            FOREST                      0       0      0                    WHITE CEDAR SWAtlP                                        0
                                               EVERGREEN            FOREST                      3.2 5          20 T                 MEXED SWAMP                                               54
                                               BY YEAR                                                                              DISTURBED LAND                                            0
                                                                                                                                    HIGH POCOSIN                                              .32.
                                               5 = Q                10 = 2@'5          15       1-5     ..520       1222" 0         L04J POCOSIti                                             856
                                               t-,l I X E DFOREST                               I'D     cl                          BAY F 0 RE ST                                             0
                                               WHITE       CEDAR !EWAMP                         ij      0                           W-'TEP AND MARSH                                          I
                                               MIXED       @WAMP                                .4      5      20     T             ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                          750
                                               By YEAR                                                                              INACTIVE RE,4T MIHE                                       11@10
                                               5 = 0                10  = 12.4 15               22.,;,    20 =      53.5                                                                          -
                                               DISTURBED LHND                                   0       0      0
                                               HIGH POCOSIN                                     2.1 5          ---,0  T                                  TOT A L                              15000
                                               BY (EAR
                                               5 = cl               10        74.2 15           197.720 =           3 --- 0 . 'P
                                               LOW POCOSIN                                      5.7 5          2 0    T
                                               BY "EHR
                                               5 = 0                113       11:8.215          52-6.720 =          255.6
                                               BAY FOREST                                       0       ri     0
                                               ;,.)ATER -41D HARSH                              0       5      0
                                               i.@CTIIJE PEAT HINE                              0              0

                                                                                                        355

                                                 ACCRUED ANNUALI, ED HABITAT UNITS                                                               HCCRIJED ANNUALI2ED HABITAT UNITS
                                                 AT THE END 171F THE PROJECT PERIOD.                                                             AT THE X
                                                                                                                                                        I      _ND OF 7HE @@POjECT PERIOD.
                                                 AREA     2 . SCENAR.'O                #2,                                                       @PEA       2  . SCENAPIO              #2.
                                                 WITH     THE        PROJECT.                                                                    'W I TH    THE      PROJECT.                    kCONTINUED)

                                                 TYPE                                     SPEC.                                                  TYPE                                     SPEC.                             T CIT
                                                       t             2                 3       4               5                                        .6           7            8              9             10

                                                 1     0             0                 0       0               0                                 1      0            1)           0              0             il           1)
                                                 2     0             0                 0       0               0                                 Z,     1)           13           0              13            1)           0
                                                                                                                                                                                                 i)            13
                                                 a     0             1)                ri      0               0                                 2      0            0                                                      0
                                                 4     991           -1189             744     1570            3098                              4      351 i        t652         S 3 0          i O's         1157         154rj::
                                                 5     1)            13                1)      0               13                                5      0            0            0              13            1?
                                                 6     400'          477               244     30              43-@                              6      4G7          5se          975            670           5 S S
                                                 7     0             0                 0
                                                 8     0             0                 1)      0               13                                                                                ri            0
                                                 9     179           135               163     63              35                                9      28           1            79                                          50
                                                 10    469*          728               399     150             698                               10     5:29         5 7 0        100            60
                                                 ti    to9l          339               ?55     t12             504                               1.1    21.0         53!                         727           ?__          640
                                                 12    2723          1939              2462    485             1103                              12     448          1231         12 0 3         1.343         2424         15515
                                                 13    0             0                 0       0               1)                                13     0            0            0              0                          C,
                                                 14    16            116               50      .64             ?                                 14     2            11           '1             0                          1
                                                 15    53            75                45      38              5 3                               i S    51           2.                          .0                         3 5
                                                 16    34e           749               5S8     321             74'@'                             10     0 @, 5       -S 1 !5      i 60,          16",          3:_::8       4 97 3:'

                                                 T     6276          7140              5449    2 8 3 2         6775                              T      '5 9 6 2,    T 3          361 Z,         ,:, 3 1@ 6                 5 S, 3 0

                                                 RATE OF Ht@i-BITAT CONQERSION lN                                                                RATE -_iF                        CONt"ERSION IN
                                                 AREA 3. SCENI-iP"i 42,                                                                          AREi, 3
                                                 WITHOUT THE PROJECT.                                                                            WITHOUT THE PROJECT.

                                                 FROM MIXED SWAMP                                                                                FRCM DISTUPBEiD L@f,-*                               7.0
                                                                     TYPE                             PRO BEG           END F                                        7YPE                             P P 1:1 SE G     END R

                                                 DISTURBED LAND                                       Zol::5 i          "' 0   E                 HIGH POCOSIN                                         I Z .41          2 .0   E
                                                 HIGH POCOSIN                                         0        0        a                        LOW POCOSIH                                          3.3      1       -: @,  =
                                                 LOW POCOSIN                                          0        13       ri                       SAY FOREST                                           13       0       43
                                                 EAY FOREST                                           11       0        13                       1,,)ATER AND MARSH                                   0        0       1)
                                                 WATER AND MARSH                                      G        0        0                        ACTII)E P5@T r-jT1,j=                                a                0
                                                 ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                     ru       11       a                        INAC-Ik.lE PEAT M!'JE                                01       0       !D
                                                 INACTIVE PEAT MINE                                   0        0        0                        REE I DENT! 'L C-El 'ELOPMENT                        0        _1      0
                                                 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                              0        0        0                        F,.&@41)-, @,ND RIGHTS-OF-I@JAY                      0
                                                 ROADS AND RIGHTS-l_)F-(,W(                           0        ri       @l                       OTHEP DEk.)ELOREI,
                                                 OTHER DE')ELOPED AREAS                               0        0        ri                       AGRI CULTUR#@-.L LHND                                cl       ri      ri
                                                 AGRICULTURAL LAND                                    0        0        0                        DECIDUOUS FOREST                                              13      C,
                                                 DECIDUOUS FOREST                                     0        0        0                        0JERGREEN FOREST                                     0        1
                                                 EVERGREEN FOREST                                     13       0        0                        MIXED FORES7                                         0
                                                 MIXED FOREST                                         0        0        0                        WHITE CEDi-4.R SLI(-4MP                              13       'D      ID
                                                 WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                    0        0        0                        MIXED SWAMP                                          4.3      1

                                                                                                                                          356

                                               HABITAT CONDITIONS, SCENARTO 4@,
                                                                                                           -1                     ACCRUED ANNUALIZED HABITAT UNITS
                                               AT THE END OF THE PROJECT PERIOD.                                                  AT THE END OF THE PROJECT PERIOD.
                                               AREA 3 WITHOUT THE PROJECT.                                                        AREA 3,       SCENARIO #2',
                                                        TYPE                                               ACRES                  WITHOUT THE PROJECT.
                                                                                                                                  TYPE                                SPEC;
                                               RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                                     0                           1           2           -2         4             5
                                               ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                                     0
                                               OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                                       0                      1    0           0                      0             0
                                               AGRICULTURAL LAND                                           0                      171  0           ri          0          0             0
                                               DECIDUOUS FOREST                                            0                      3    0           0           0          0             0
                                               EVERGREEN FOREST                                            0                      4    0           0           cl         0             0
                                               MIXED FOREST                                                0                      5    0           0           0          0             0
                                               WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                           0
                                                                                                                                  el   0           0           cl         0             0
                                               MIXED SWAMP                                                 163                    7    0           0           0          0             0
                                               DISTURBED LAND                                              533                         9           0           0          0             0
                                               HIGH POCOSIN                                                1?979                       -96         59,9        722        2779          155
                                               LOW POCOSIN                                                 5325                   10   824         1280        701        263           1227
                                               BAY FOREST                                                  0                      11   142?5       10'P'P6     98?7       1466          6598
                                               WATER AND MARSH                                             cl                     12   2567        2541        3225       635           1563
                                               ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                            0                      13   0           0           0          0             0
                                               INACTIVE PEAT MINE                                          0                      14   0           0           0          0             0
                                                                                                                                  15   0           0           0          0             0
                                                                    TOTAL                                  26000                  16   0           0           0          0             0

                                                                                                                                  T    1@,432      15410       14546      2643          9544

                                               ACCRUED APINUOLIZED HFwiB17AT LINIT-1                                              RATE OF HABITAT CONVERSION IN
                                               AT THE END OF THE PROJECT PERIOD.                                                  AREA .3            M@ lf@ T
                                               AREA Z@ - -::CEtJ-'P!C' i*--,                                                      WITH THE PROJECT.
                                               14ITHOUT THE PROjECT.                    (CONTINUED)
                                               TYPE                               SPEC.                          TOT.             FROM Ml.*@@'ED SWAMP TO:
                                                     6                                             10                                              TYPE                          PRO    BEG    END R
                                               1     0          0           0           J3         1)            0                DISTURBED LAND                                 0      1      0
                                               2     0          0           0                      cl            0                HIGH POCOSIN                                   0      0      0
                                               :3    0          0           0           0          13            0                LOW POCOSIN                                           0      Ill
                                               4     0          0                       cl         0             0                SAY FOREST                                            0      0
                                               5     0          0           0           0          Fi            0                WATER AND MARSH                                0      0      0
                                                     0          13          .0                     0             0                ACTIIIE PEAT MINE                              7      1      20 F
                                                                            0                      0             cl               INACTIVE PEAT MINE                             0      Q      01
                                                     0          0           cl                     0             0                RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                        0      0      0
                                               9     124        -           351         5 7 9      72-           5 126            ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                        0      0      0
                                               10    1? 2 9     jol-,       175         2-181      1140          7 8 13 11        OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                          0      0      0
                                               11    2 7 f4     6964        9' z,4      '?530      12-179        82940
                                                                                                           -     -                HGRICULTURAL L,@41D                            0      0      0
                                               12    586        1 .6 12     1@61        1759       2.1-76        Z, 0 --l 2 5     DECIDUOUS FOREST                               0      11     Fj
                                               13    0          0           0           13         1)            cl               Et)ERGREEN FOREST                              0      0      0
                                               14    0          cl          ol          Q                        0                MIXED FOREST                                   0      0      0
                                               15    0          11          0           ID         0             13               WHITE CEDAR SL.4@4MP                           0      0      0
                                               16    0          0           0                      0             0

                                               T     4289       10289       11352       12148      17318         1172)  8

                                                                                                           357

                                                  RATE OF HARITAT CCHVERSION IN                                                                   FATE OF H"Fl--;,T                   @Ctlt 'ERSION !rl
                                                  AREA 3 , :-CEN-P 1                    *2.                                                       A R E,, -S . 3 CEN fw4 R T j it.-I ,
                                                  WITH THE PROjECT.                                                                                     H -1 H E p R 0 -,. so T .

                                                  FROM DISTURBED LAND                                   TO:                                       FROM HIGH POCOSIN TO:

                                                                     TYPE                               PRO      BEG      END R                                       TYPE                              FPO      e E (3  END R

                                                  HIGH POCOSIN                                          0        1        0                       LOW POCOSIN                                           0        0       13
                                                  LOW POCOSIN                                           11       1        0                       SAY FOREST                                            13       a       0
                                                  SAY FOREST                                            0        0        0                       WATEER AND MARSH                                      1)       13      a
                                                  WATSR AND MARSH                                       0        0        0                       ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                      7 13 0   i       20     F
                                                  ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                      39       1        20 F                    INvACTP,,lE PEAT MINE                                 1        0
                                                  INACTIQE PEAT MINE                                    0        0        0                       RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                               0        1-1     Q
                                                  RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                               0        0        0                       ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-1.4""y'                           0        0       'i
                                                  ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                               0        0        0                       OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                                 cl       cl
                                                  OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                                 0        0        0                       AGRICULTURAL LAND                                     0        0
                                                  AGRICULTURAL LAND                                     0        0        0                       DEC.;DUOUS FOREST                                     10       C.      6
                                                  DECIDUOUS FOREST                                      0        0        a                       EVERGREEN FOREST                                      0        1)      0
                                                  El,'ERGREEN FOREST                                    0        1        0                       MI,.'ED FOREST                                        0        1)      0
                                                  MIXED FOREST                                          0        0        0                       WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                     0        1       0
                                                  I.-JHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                  Ll       0        a                                                                             0        0       0
                                                  MIXED SWAMP                                           0                 0                       DISTUREPED LAND                                       0        0

                                                  PAT-71' OF                           --CriVEPSION lN                                            RATE       OF L4r-ETT
                                                  AREA.                                                                                           AP&
                                                  WITH THE PROJEC7.                                                                               WITH       THE PRO,-'ECT.

                                                  FROM LOW POCOSIN 70:                                                                            FRCM       ACTIVE P_=.-;T MINE TO.-

                                                                     TYPE                               PRO      BEG      END R                                      T'-@ P E                           PRO SES          END R

                                                  SAY FOREST                                            0        0        0                       INACTIVE PEA7 !@IIINE                                 IS 0 1) Z        2 li
                                                                                                                                                                               -)ELOFMENT               1)       Fj
                                                  1-.JATEP AND MARSH                                    1)       ri       13                      R'ESIDENTIAL DV
                                                  ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                      208      1        20     F                PC-IDS                                                c'       1).     1)
                                                  !N#;4CTP-)E PEAT MINE                                 0        13       13                      OTHER DEVELOPED                                       1)       1)      i-I
                                                  RESIDENTIAL DEI)ELOPt-,IENT                           0        cl       0)                      AGRICLILTURr-iL L111D                                 1-,      0       0
                                                  POADS AND RIGHT@--l)F-l.jAt'                          ri       13                               --ECIS-UOUS FOPE`T                                    ct               II
                                                                                                                                                                            REEST
                                                  OTHER DEYELOPED 4REAS                                 c:       0        ri                      El.)ERGPEEN FOF                                                u       0
                                                  "GRICULTUPAL LAND                                     0        cl       0                       HIXED FOREST
                                                  DECIDUOUS FOREST                                      0        13       0                       WHI'7*E CEDP@4P
                                                  EVERGREEN FOREST                                      0        a        0                                                                                      --j
                                                  ',!I' ED FOREST                                       0        0        0                                                                             0        0       0
                                                  1s.lHITE CEDAR SWIAMP                                 0        cl       0                       H113H POCOSI'l                                        i)       J-j     1)
                                                  M I. @ED SWAMP                                                 0        0                       L01,' POCOSIN,                                        13
                                                                                                        0        0        0                                  FOREST                                     .1
                                                  C-ISTUPSED Li4ND
                                                  HIGH POCOSIN                                          0        0        .0                                   "ND MARSH                                0

                                                                                                                                                      358

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       0                                                               fj U)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       f2-

                                                                                                       w                           C.   0                       Ol                      a)        C.
                                                                                                                                                                                   C@ 0           a.
                                                                                                0      Ix                          co   C.                      Ol
                                                                                                       L)                          `0 C:)             V                  @T        (1) r@         "0
                                                                                                -      @l       C) C)     C)       -    17@ 0         IT   C.            m    a,        01        (,A                                                                                                                                                  vj
                                                                                   0            Ix                                                                                                                                                             Z
                                                                                                w                                                                                                                                                              Z, w                                                              lr@ll)                10")
                                                                                                LL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             7

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       TOj
                                                                                   Lj.j         LIJ             F-                                                                                                                                                         W           L)                             r.,)       r,                    In 0, c@
                                                                                   Lj           -@              z                                                                                                                                              ca                      uj Q               C@ C-       N C, --r                         If) -r
                                                                                                0 W             w         0-)                                                                                                                                                          a-
                                                                                                w -1            z         -1                                                                                                                                   T Ix                    fo
                                                                                                LIL 0           Ll- IL W                                                                                                                                                   (I                                                                          Q,
                                                                                   Ol           w               oow                                                                     w                                                                                                                             -1)        In                    (171 cli
                                                                                   = W OL                       -i 1      110                    CL                                     z                                                                                                                             .0         ..,                   (" r@ C@
                                                                                   0            :E              w (1)              z                                               w                                                                           r,I                                   C:. .7)          -T         '4C.  C'              11 1 r) rl)
                                                                                                w               :;@ @-    C@ 11                                               x    z
                                                                                                                w 3: w -i w w                                                 cri @                                                                                        a LLJ
                                                                                                                Cj L. Ll           Ix OK         (r)       z                  w    2:             0                                                                                                                                                    rrj
                                                                                   C.1 0                            - Cl _j 0 0                            1 z                11
                                                                                                                -i LY -) 'I U- LL ILI) M CL j
                                                                                                                                                                Ln
                                                                                                                .1        ul w              w <1 x                                                                                                             z C,                                                                                    Pj r.j (A
                                                                                   C.) Z                                                Z Ix          q0ow0ow
                                                                                                _;     W                           (n            a
                                                                                                w      CL       @-ZIA@-Dwow2w0owzCI-W                                                                                                                                      LLI LU
                                                                                                                z a 0 J 0 W LL 0 (0 111 0 0 11: 4                                                                                                                          . T                                                                         tl@
                                                                                   "T LU fn                     w                  D D Q@                  ky LL Cl 0              LLJ                                                                         LLI Lu C.)                                                                              "0 f,-
                                                                                                                    0 ix u C, 0 a w a D                                  M LL M :@                                                                             D a:
                                                                                                                                                                              W         L)                                                                     (Y @- 'I T              W '4C.                                                          P I
                                                                                                w               0 q x a-                w X                                                                                                                    (.i         w F-
                                                                                   'I F- Lk@                    WOF-ow-:,-y                           :x 2 2 3.@- @-                    a                                                                                  X           a_
                                                                                                                                                                         0 'T a I.) Z                                                                                      @- I
                                                                                   X @j                                                                                                                                                                                    I <1        F-

                                                                                                                                                 OD                      ID                                       C,          10
                                                                                                                                                 '40                                                              1711 @-     It
                                                                                                                                                                         IN

                                                                                                                z                                          C.            11        CD
                                                                                                                W                       Pj                               c. 0 (14                                   C-1
                                                                                                                                                                         c                     0                              CD                               (r. c
                                                                                                                                                                         IN                    (14                (1-1        rq                                           0
                                                                                                                w                                                                              U-)                                                                                                                                                     170 "1
                                                                                   z                            m         C. 1=1 C, I[-)              C) III             to C, C. in                                                                                                                                                                   cri r
                                                                                                                                                                                   U-)                                        U-)                              D LLJ                      10             c,                      o                     'T
                                                                                                                                                                         ("1       1,          .4)                  (Y:       0                                            CL
                                                                                   z                            (Y                                                                             r-4                            Cl                               F-
                                                                                                                                                      0 CC.              0 0                      C. Ir,
                                                                                   C.                  F-       CL        L,
                                                                                                                                                                         fl
                                                                                                       w                                                                                                                                                                   w           0
                                                                                                       z                                                                 ID                    LO                 LO          LO                               CD @7.                               C.                4 1@ k     1 0 0 P. U-1
                                                                                                                          W
                                                                                                       z                                                                                                                                                                                                              04
                                                                                                                          (L       w             17,                                           LFj                                                                         LL
                                                                                                                          0        Ix                                                                                                                                                                                                                  cri
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      T          IT                    C.i L
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Ul LLJ
                                                                                                                                   I                                                                                                        LL)
                                                                                                       LLJ                w        "    z             F-                 0)   7-                                  IN                                                                                                             c. C@
                                                                                                       CL                 -@ F- 0 .1:                 rA Iln                  I                                                        T Z
                                                                                                w                         w :E uj -i                  w w                11   :3               11 C.)             if                   O-j -
                                                                                                @      w        W         C) (D o-                    ix fr                   j)                  z                                    CL 2:                   4. L L                                                 Q,                               Lr. III
                                                                                                0               a-                 - C, -1       000                     C. F-                    j                                                            D 0@          0                                        .11        C-                    (I. C,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           I,J                                                                         Lr.
                                                                                                                          -j ft@ -J 11           - (L U@                 - L'i CL a-              -I -              z                  Z                       z             It
                                                                                                Cl-                                uj IX                                 w 1:1 z                                                            <1                               P@                     0 .7, C-. 0 -Z, F.) C.
                                                                                   T                   Cl                          C) D Z.                 z             fl@ C, -1                Z) 0              V)            W a w
                                                                                                Lli    IT.                F- -- W F-                  =1 ul              C. w :3                  LU Cl             0             w Z Li.                                  Im Ili
                                                                                   tj-          a:     z                  Z -1 c)       -i m          0 u I L'If         LL-            cl.,      m C.    Q@        -) ly         CX   11                      , .           T                                        C,                               C,
                                                                                                M                         w             D q           D CL      '1                      .1        CL 11-  .1        C, 1:         0         w                  ul w f"ll 1-                                           0
                                                                                                                          0 0 w u w C. IZI C.                   w0c           W Li W              :",     W C. a@ w 0 LL               w -                     1. T-                                                  0
                                                                                   LLJ 'I x                               - c) W -                    _0_,               w t- w                   F- -E   ,                            W -                     W F-        q m
                                                                                                Ld     o                  J) I T ti:             11 C, LLI               It X - X              11 c.) If-         11 :3                F- F-                   C.          w           LL
                                                                                                ll@    ft-                w 0 F- 1-9                  LLJ -,             - X            -         - 7 @-            0                  <1 C)                               CL
                                                                                   LL                  LL                 w If Cl 11 (D U-) L:) 51 fD U-) z                                       C,      m tF.     -A Ili LF, ru                                                                                     --r        1:1 V. lfj 1)

                                     PATE OF @404BIT"'T CONVERSION IN                                Po;@,TE j--,F HA2:@-T CCINVERSION 'N
                                     AREA 4, :-'CT-NAP!O 42-,                                        FEA 4,                   m2,
                                     WITHOUT THE PRO,:iECT.                                          WITHOUT THE PROJECT.

                                     FROM WHITE CEDAR SWAMP TO:                                      FROM MIXED SWAMP TO:

                                                 TYPE                    PRO BEG    END P                          (PE                  PRO   BEG   END R

                                     MI'-,,'ED SWAMP                     0    0     0                DISTURBED LAND                     25    4     so   E
                                     DISTURBED LAND                      1 2251     80    E          HIGH POCOSIN                       Of    0     Ij
                                     HIGH POCOSIN                        6    o     0                LOW POCOSIN                        0     0     0
                                     LOW POCOSIN                         0    0     0                2AY FOPEST                         1)    0     0
                                     SAY FOREST                          0    0     0                WATER AND MARSH                    0     0     0
                                     14ATER AND MARSH                    0    0     0                ACTIVE PEAT MINE                   0     1     0
                                     ACTIVE PEAT MINE                    0    0     0                INACTIVE PEAT MINE                 0     0     0
                                     INACTIVE PEAT MINE                       0     0                RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT            0     0     0
                                     RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT             0    ri    0                ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-44AY           0     0     0
                                     ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-44AY            0    0     0                OTHER DEVELOPED t:4REAS            cl    0     0
                                     OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS               0    0     0                #L@GPICULTUR44L LAND               0     0     fj
                                     AGRICULTURAL                        13   cl    13               DECIDUOUS FOREST                   0     0     a
                                     DECIDUOUS FOREST                    0    0     0                El.'ERGREEN FOREST                 0     0     0
                                     EVERGREEN FOREST                         0     0                11VIED, FOREST                     cl    0     cl
                                     MIXED FOREST                        0          0                WHIiE CEDAR SWAMP                  cl    r,    cl

                                     RATE CF H SIT4iT                        IN                      P,47E -:F              CC-NIJERSION IN
                                     AREA 4-                  42,                                    AR EA 4,                 :*21
                                     WITHOUT THE PROJECT.                                            'Aj [ THOUT 7HE PF;Ol-=.

                                     FROM DIS71JRBED LAND                70.                         FROM BAY FOREST 70:

                                                 TYFE                                                            T' PE                  PRO   SEG   E N'l: P
                                                                         PRO  EEG   END P

                                     HIGH POCOSIN                        5.3        -20   E          Wi,.TER AND- I-IARSH                     0     0
                                     LOW POCOSIN                         16.4 1     70    =          .,i',7:1.'E PEAT MINE              cl    0     01
                                     SAY FOREST                          I    1     20    E          ItIACTII)E PEAT MINE               (3)   0     0
                                     10ATER "D MARSH                     0    0                      RESIDENTIAL DEVE: OPMENT           0     cl    0
                                                                         0    1     ri               ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-W-'i           0
                                     ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                                               1                         0     0
                                     IN-C'71UE PEAT MINE                 cl   0     co               07HEP DEYELOPED                    1)    cl
                                     RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT             0    0     0                @GPICULTUP"!- L,@44D               10
                                                    R.IGHTS-OF-WAY       0    0     0                DEC-1-DUOUS Frlp.E:@!              !j          0
                                     OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS               0    0     0                EQERGREEN FOREST                   0     0
                                                       L@'ND             13   0     0                        FOREST                     0     0     13
                                     DECIDUOUS FOREST                    0    li    0                WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                  0     13    1)
                                     ElljEPGREEN FDr-.'.E-TT             0    1     0                i,l,:."ED SWAMP                    1     0     li
                                     MIXED FOREST                        0    0     ij               DKS'rUR2ED LA!-lD                              01) E
                                                                                    2, 0  E
                                     WHITE CEI`t@R SWAMP                 .2   1                      HfGH POCOSIN                       0     1)
                                     MIXED !SWAMP                        6.4  1     2, 0 E           LOW POCIDS11N                      0     0     0

                                                                                                     360

                                                      HABITAT CONDITION-E
                                                      AT THE END OF THE :)POJECT PERIOD.                                                                        ACCRUED ANNUAL17ED HABITAT UNITS
                                                      AREA 4 WITHOUT THE PROIJECT.                                                                              AT
                                                                                                                                                                A THE END OF T@F PROJECT PERIOD.
                                                                                                                                                                AREA 4, SCEN,4PIO 42,
                                                                TYPE                                                       ACRES                                WITHOUT THE PROJECT.
                                                      RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                                              cl                                   TYPE                                     SPEC.
                                                      ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                                              0                                        1              2               3             4             5
                                                      OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                                                0
                                                      AGRICULTURAL LAND                                                                                         1   0              0               0             0             0
                                                                                                                           2.60                                     cl
                                                      DECIDUOUS FOREST                                                     ri                                   -
                                                      EVERGREEN FOREST                                                     0                                    3   ri             0               0             0             0
                                                      MIXED FOREST                                                         0                                    4   6 2            136             47            99            1515
                                                      WHITE CEDAR Si...jAmp                                                165                                  5   0              0               0             0             0
                                                      1-11/f,'ED SWAMP                                                     185,                                 6   0              0               0             0             0
                                                      DISTURBED LAND                                                                                            7   0              0               0             0             0
                                                      HIGH POCOSI@-j                                                                                            8   ?4             5 -P            65            12            1.6
                                                      LOW POCOSIvi                                                         U9418                                ?   50-            382             46 1          178           99
                                                                                                                           6005
                                                      EAY FOREST                                                           495                                  0   25@            1331            -29           273           127.6
                                                      Wo@;TER AND MARSH                                                    130                                  11  3267           2513            2262          335           1508
                                                      ACTIVE PEAT                                                          0                                    12  37t:3          2 t1i 4 5       3357          6@61          1628
                                                      IHACTIVE PEAT MINE                                                   ri                                   13  489            @--qs           S 4           35            147
                                                                                                                                                                14  30             so              91            117           16
                                                                              TOTAL                                        I-e-000                              15  o              0               0             0             0
                                                                                                                                                                16  0              0               0             0             0

                                                                                                                                                                T   @.@O 18        74-Pf           77 1          1711          4SS?

                                                      ACCRUED ANNUALIZED Hi@BIT@@'T UNITS
                                                      AT THE :--!iC- OF THE -,F.,O.JE,--T PEFIi'-DD.                                                            RATE OF       HA617A7 CCNVERSION                               IN
                                                                                                .7,
                                                      AREA 4.                                 #@.                                                               AREA 41
                                                      klITHOLIT THE PROJECT.                              'CONTINUED)                                           WITH THE PROJECT.
                                                      TYPE                                       SPEC.                               TOT.                       FRCM AGRICULTURAL LAND TO:

                                                                                                                                                                                   TYPE                             PRO        BEG      END R
                                                      1      0             0             0
                                                             1,                                                                                                 DECIDUOUS FOREST                                    0          0        0
                                                             j             cl            0                0          0               0
                                                             0             0             0                0          cl              13                         EVERGREEN FOREST                                    0          0        0
                                                      4      121           104           21                                                                     MIXED FOREST                                        cl         0        0
                                                             0             0                                                                                    loJHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                 13         0        0
                                                                                         cl               9          0               0                          1111*XED SWAMP                                                 0        0
                                                             0             cl            0                cl         0               cl
                                                                                                                                                                DISTURBED LAND                                      0          0        0
                                                             0             0             1)               0          0               li
                                                                           -             51               4--        - -.            .-,4 =                                                                         -                   -
                                                                                                                                                                HIGH POCOSIN                                                   n        rl
                                                             71,           50 7          2Z-4                        4ol                                        LOW PclcOSI;l                                       0          Ij       Q
                                                      10                   1057          1                2Y2        I I '.:-i 5     S 14:3                     DAY FOREST                                          0          0        cl
                                                      11     6 2           15512         2094             17 S       2b,06           i @:- I                    v.lATER AND MARSH                                   0          11       11
                                                      12     .610          167?          1 1. So          8 - 1            0         21 lo,                     ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                    13         1        ZO     F
                                                      i 2    70            314           181              2 ?3'      423             2708    2                  ItJAZTlUE PEAT MINE                                 0          3        I'l
                                                      14     4             20            1                0          l's             -31 :3                     RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                             0          0        0
                                                      15     u             0             0                0          0               0                          ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                             0          0        ri
                                                      16     0             0             cl               0          1)              0                          "ITHEP DEYELOPED A@EAS                              0          0        0

                                                      T      255717        5323          4483             5051       8379            56302-

                                                                                                                           361

                               PATS OF 14ASTTAT CONVERSIOM IN                               RATE OF                             IN
                               ,;RFA 4, -SCEINAPIO ;Q.                                      AREA 4. =CT.N@"RIO 42,
                               141TH THE PROJECT.                                           WITH THE PROJECT.

                               FROM WHITE CEDAR SWAMP TO:                                   FROM MIXED SWAMP TO:

                                           TYPE                   PRO  BEG  END R                      TYPE                  PRO   BEG  END R

                               MIXED SWAMP                        0    0    0               DISTURBED LAND                   0     1    0
                               DISTURBED LAND                     0    1    0               HIGH POCOSIN                     0     ri   13
                               HIGH POCOSIN                       0    0    13              LOW F10COSIN                     0     0    0
                               LOW POCOSIN                        0    0    0               BAY FOREST                       0     0    0
                               SAY FOREST                         0    0    a               WATER AND MARSH                  0     0    0
                               WATER AND MARSH                    0    0    0               ACTIt,'E PEt:,7 MINE             182   1    20   F
                               ACTIVE PEAT MINE                   6.5  1    213 F           INAC71VE PEAT MINE               0     0    0
                               INACTIVE PEAT MINE                 0    0    0               RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT          0     0    0
                               RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT            0    0    0               ROADS AND PIGHTS-OF-WAY          0     ri   0
                               ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-14AY           0    0    0               OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS            a     0    0
                               OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS              0    0    0               AGRICULTURAL LA.1--lD            13    0    0
                               r4GRICULTURAL LAND                 0    0    0               DECIDUOUS FOPEST                 0     0    a
                               DECIDUOUS FOREST                   0    .0   0               EVERGREE14 FOREST                0     0    13
                               EVERGREEN FOREST                   0    0    0               tlI>,E!) FOREST                  13    0    0
                               MIXED FOREST                       0    0    0                      CEDAR SWAMP               cl    0    0

                               RATE OF '.-4AEl"rA'r CONVERSION IN                           RATE OF H--'F,17-T                  lN
                               AREA 4. -ECE"i"'PIO 42.                                      AREA 4.               t;--.
                               WITH THE =ROjECT.                                            WITH THE PPC-JECT.

                               FROM DISTURBED Lj-4ND              TO:                       FROM HIGH POCOSIN TIC:

                                           TYPE                   PRO  BEG  END R                      TYPE                  PRO BEG    END R

                               HIGH POCOSIN                       0    1    0               LOW POCOSI&H
                               LOW POCOSIN                        0         0
                                                                                            SA'@ FOREST
                               BAY FOREST                         0    1    0               L-JATER AND MARSH                1)
                               14ATER AND MARSH                   0    0    0               @CTII,IE PEAT MIHE               14,,Z.51   20
                               ACTIVE PEAT MINE                   65   1    '20  F          INACTIVE PEI-T                   0     0    Q
                               INACTIVE PEAT MINE                 Q    0                    PESl:)E!-JT",4L --l-EYELOPMENT   0     1-1  1-1
                               RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT            0    0                    F.0-D'S kND                      0
                               R&4DS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY            Q    0    ri              OTi@ER DEI)ELOPED                rt    C,
                               OTHER DEVELOPED AREMS              0    0    0               AGRI:1-ILTURAL LANC,             13
                               i;,GRICULTURAL LAND                0    0    0               DECIDUOUS FOREST                 1)
                               DECIDUOUS FOREST                   0    0    0               El.:ERSPEEN FOREST               0     0    ri
                               E:,)E;GREEN FOREST                 0    1    0                      FOREST                    13         1)
                               MIXED FOREST                       0    0    0               WHITE CEDAR StJ-"MP              1.1        0
                               WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                  ri   1    0               MIll<ED sl;j@;mp                 fj    j    0
                               MIXED SWAMP                        0    i    0               DISTUP13ED LAND                  0     ID   1)

                                                                                            362

                                                                             co r-T          :K    pi c, 1,     c, -v -ij-D        Tl             @kl                     x  v   a           o  i  q    -n x    1::. -- rp         -n
                                                                             C. -                  rn r-, -1 c) m Z Q                                                              x -       M G) -4 o rTI      Cil, 1,            m
                                                                                11) CO X     X [11 C) n 2: 1- (1)                  0      --1 m -A                        Gi co X - X rn (-):U:E I -D 1            -4 -<           0
                                                                                x -4 m -A m T - - m li, -- C-1 @                   :K     T- T, rri                                                                III             :K
                                                                             -n 71 C 0 M Z) 0 0 0 M k.6 0 -1                                                                 cr-, mooon X01-1 -4 1: -Ili -n
                                                                             C) 0 -0 lu            '11 c        M - M                     -4 f. C,                        -0 IT           m c C           M-M Jo                   r-
                                                                             T (-l 0 U) -J-- kl -11 (11 0 r- C) 1, C                      m       -n                      o w @Lj o -n 111 0 r- 0 1, Z @:          1 10            0
                                                                             m c)  m Z: m -D FYI       -A m        m -D                   m                               C-) m 1@- m C) III C -A M Z -A m -U Z M
                                                                                                                      M            m                                      0.@11."-Mzwcco                        m V (.0
                                                                                         I, m          7@ m        -0 D      .-A   lu     M                               (A       D M          "0 m @ -0 D -A               --i   T
                                                                                         T -C, 11      1 F 'D r m -i                                                               m w -11 M D r M r m -A Z                        0
                                                                                             -1 C) C-i (- 0 - 1,                          C.                              z D         -loor-0- D 1,                          T     (-)
                                                                                         e(.       773 T        -0 w 0 -1 :z m                                               Z     o)     ,n -0    -u G') 0 -1 z             M     0
                                                                                                   fnmr-ma:rn -                    ;@j    Fil                                C,    Z      mmrmmm -'r.
                                                                                         1@        01 U) :11, C-1 --i C :K z              CI                                              OwDa-Acazm
                                                                                                   -i  z        (.) m - m          :z     Li                                              -1 --f z      0) M - M                   z
                                                                                                       cl       D Ir-Z             D      -                                                     v  D I     r-  Z
                                                                                                                0 0 0 m                      Z    C)                                               ;u 0 0 m
                                                                                                                rn -n -u           fil                                                             m 71 T                          0
                                                                                                                                                  m                                                (n E m
                                                                                                                11 z                                                                                    1> z
                                                                                                                                   0              CO
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             -u
                                                                             C)    0 Cl C@ C. 0 C, D C) Ln C) Q V.                                                           C@ C', C,    0 L.) C. C,                 C,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                CO

                                                                                   C. C. C. ID C, a- C. CD C. L')            En                                           C@ (1- C) 0 cr, 0 C) 0 0 0 1-) C.           Cl     cu
                    LO                                                                                                       m                                                                                               m
                    a',                                                                                                                                                                                                      G)
                    W
                                                                                                       D CD C. 1=1 L, W      m                                            L, 1=1 CD C) C, 0 C@ C-1 LD L, L') C) r.) C) C,    III
                                                                                                                             z                                                                                               z

                                                                                                                      -n

                                                                             F- Un F- :E 0   Z     M ri JP 0 _0 T                  -n                                     r -T Q          :K m o D cl ;u @4)          Z
                                                                                                                --                 -Z                                                                   -A 0 M
                                                                                             :c        m G)     -4 b rfi                                                  0 - - - X             M M                0
                                                                             i  Z     Ln           M t-j Xi     :I- :r, to 1,      C.     -1 m -A                            u-) o) X :@ x m 0 x :r D 0)           -4              0
                                                                             m     x  -4 m -A r7i -u - - m CD - r)                                in                         a: -A III    MM--mo-r,.-m
                                                                             T-"T cvmc7oQoTov-A
                                                                             ID -D T  10           -Tj c c         M -                    -A J- C.                        C, -010               C C:           M-M
                                                                             le T (7) L-) rJU u-. (-) -11 m o r- cl D z C                 :L      -71                     n o a) to r-) ii mo-r, v i :!,-             D
                                                                             Z in 0 0 M E M C. M c -A m Z -A m                     -A     m                               o o m E m o m c -i m z -A rFl --o z
                                                                                01 0 0 D V m Z 0 C C 0 -                                          :c                      wot:7DOXZWCCv- mv
                                                                                   (0)   :K D- III              _0 m 1; -0   -A    C      -Dki I                          -(o XT-M                 m m D -0 D                -4    -n
                                                                                      r- -o 7b Lc. -n -n D r- -n r m         -,'   M         ;9                           7 - r- 13 M fj) 'il -n D r :0 r m -4 7             -<    0
                                                                                                                                          7.n     @u                         z J>         -A 0 0 r- 0                        -0    X
                                                                                      11           -40OF-Ci- 11              -v           0
                                                                                      Z      co    'IV 7-n T i7j " -4        ITI   'a     C.                                     Z    (),)   ;0;0 Torl-lam                   m     m
                                                                             CO       Q      E:    m m r- m:r m                    M      M .n I..                               o    E      mmrmxm -0                             Y)
                                                                             T               1"    (f) u, 1, C, --i @- :1          T.     (7, -, --i                                  D      w w D v -A,7: -7
                                                                                             75-   -1 -4 Z U) M- -                 -1     -1 0                                        a      --i -i z 0 m ;:,.
                                                                                             Q                  0. 1 1 r- Z                                                                             1, 1 r- -7
                                                                                                                IT 0 ct m                                                                               ;o o o fn-                 0
                                                                                                                m -n -0                           Z                                                     m -n -6
                                                                                                                                   m                                                                    U) Z- m
                                                                                                                                                  @13
                                                                                                                   -A
                                                                                      'n C@ C. C@      C, 0 C. 'D :-, ("     T1                                           a- 0 (D 0 Co 0 0 C. C) 0 CD 0 clr- C@              -0
                                                                                                                      Ln     711                  z                                                                0         ;u
                                                                                                                      11     0                                                                                               0
                                                                             C, C. C, C. 0 0 (1- C. Cl .7. C,   C) 'D f,     ED                                              0 - (D ID cl C. 0 C. 0 C) @- 0           CD     w
                                                                                                                             m                                                                                               rn
                                                                                                                             0                                                                                               a)
                                                                                                                             m                                               L, C) C) CD 0 CA 0 C) C-1 @, 11 L@ to C,        m
                                                                                                                      0      -7                                                                                    Cl        z
                                                                                                                             0                                                                                               0

                                                                                                                      -n

                                               RATE OF HAeITA7 ',-.f-,t,,VERSION IN                                                             HABITAT CONDITIONS.
                                               ..REA 4,                                                                                         AT THE END OF THE F:R6TECT PERIOD.
                                               WITH THE PROJECT.                                                                                AREA 4 WITH THE PROJS@T.
                                               FROM      IINACTIVE PEAT MINE TO:                                                                          TYPE                                                   AGRES
                                                                  TYPE                                 PRO  BEG ENO R                           RES,111SNTIAL DEt,)ELOPMENT                                      -:"-: 5 4
                                                                                                                                                ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                                          0
                                               PESIDENTIAL DEI)ELOPMENT                                IS   5        '20 T                      OTHER DEI)ELOPED AREAS                                           13
                                               SY (SAR                                                                                          @,GRICJJLTURAL LAND                                              214
                                               5 = 0                  10 - 106 13                      331 20               2354                DECIDUOUS FOREST                                                 0
                                               ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY 0                                    0        0                          Ek)ERGREEN FOREST                                                i 11 2 6
                                               OTHER          DEVELOPED AREAS                          0    0        0                          MIXED FOREST                                                     0
                                               F:40RICULTURAL LAND                                     1.7  5                 T                 WHITE! CEDAR SWo;l-MP                                            Z 2
                                               BY YEAR                                                                                          MIXED SIAAMP                                                     @,20
                                               5                      10 = 53              15          69        20         214                 DISTUPeED L@HD
                                               DEC I DIJOUS           FOREST                           1)   a        0                          HIGH POCOSIN                                                     50?
                                               Et)ERGREEEN            FOREST                           15   5        20 T                       LOW FOCOSIN
                                               BY YEAR                                                                                          SAY F -3 R E ST
                                               5 = 0                  10 = 2:@4            15          430  ,    20 =       1?26                WATER AND MARSH                                                  42so
                                               MIXED FOREST                                            0    b        o                          r4CTIVE PEAT M!NE
                                               !...JHITE      CEDAR EWAMP                                   5        - 20 T                     INACI'!',E PEAT MINE
                                               BY "EAR
                                               5 = 0                  10 = 3               15          4.9       .20 =      2 2'                                        TOTAL
                                               MIXED SWAMP                                             4.8 5         '2 0 T
                                               BY YEAR
                                               5 = 0                  10 = 95              1'-         138.420              -@20
                                               DISTUP2ED, LAND
                                               C.                                                      1)   0
                                               HIGH POCOSIN                                            3. 9 5        20 T
                                               S-@'r' '(Ei@@,.R
                                               5 = 0                  io        69.8       15          113.1-20 =           509
                                               LOW POCOSIN                                             4.a 5         'Z 0 T
                                               EY
                                               5
                                               5 = ID                 10        S5         15          13e.420 =            61-0
                                               Ef_lf' FORES-1                                          I . 7- !5     7:- 0    7

                                               5 = 0                  10        21.2       15          34.6      2e =       1'5
                                               10ATER 41C,            MARSH                            :,13 5        20 T
                                               BY        EAR
                                               5         C,           10 = I@F34              5        Z187          0
                                               -C"!'Ik)E PE_^T MIHE                                    0

                                                                                                                                                   364

                                                          ACCRUED AHNUALIZED H--4BITAT UHITS                                                                          ACCRUED ANNUAL17ED HABITAT UNITS
                                                          AT THE END OF THE PROJECT PERIOD.                                                                           AT THE END OF THE PROJECT PERIOD.
                                                          AREA      4, `-CEH@@FIQ                   #7-.                                                              AREA 4. SCENARIO                           # -@'
                                                          WITH      THE         PROJECT.                                                                              WITH THE                   PROJECT.                   (CONTINUED)

                                                          TYPE                                          SPEC.                                                         TYPE                                          SPEC.                                TOT.
                                                                 1              2              3             4                5                                               6                  7         8                9              10

                                                          1      0              9              Q             23               51                                      1       139                14
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ^_o            9             338
                                                          2      0              13             11            0                cl                                      2       0                  0         cl               1)             13            0
                                                          3      cl             cl             cl            0                0                                       3       0                  0         0                0              0             0
                                                          4      -15            515,           32            .71              140                                     4       152                ?4        15               7              52            694
                                                          5      Cl             cl             0             0                0                                       5       0                  0         0                0              0             0
                                                          6      185            2'17           ill           14               199                                     t@      2242               254       444              305            245           2196
                                                                 0              11             0             0                0                                       7       0                  0         0                0              0             0
                                                                 40             25             28            5                                                        8       8                  22        22               34             36            227
                                                                 1446           1089           1314          507              2.132                                   ?       225                1446      6SS              1052           1314          ;314
                                                          10     250            451            -2 4                           432                                     1. 0    327                358       .62              99             401           2760
                                                          It     12 0 3         ?25            .233          123              555                                     11                         S136      -t               802            1 C133        7065
                                                          1 -1                                      -        -                60 1                                    1'      '@@25              620       638              67.6           1221          7812
                                                          1-     1 --1- 1       lp.7-6         1239          244
                                                          13     32':'          268            235           23               99                                      13      47                 211       122              1?7            291           1821
                                                          14     400            400            1217          1565             209                                     14      52                 261       0                0              435           453?
                                                          15     46             65             39            -3 3             46                                      15      46                 33        0                0              20            325
                                                          16     -3 9 6         8 5 3          61-1          @ It" 6          8 5 3                                   16      792                '701      183              183            671           566-55'

                                                          T      5750           53-9           5977          3067             2472                                    T       2473               4580      2919             3415           5728          4276

                                                          RATE 0;: HA617-T C-j-jt,jUEF;.SION IN                                                                       PA77- OF H@@e,rAT                          --NVERS I ON              I N
                                                          APEA 1 .                !A;; 1,j 0 -',                                                                      AREA !.`SCEI-4-@PIO 14-Ll
                                                          WITHOUT THE PROJECT.                                                                                        l.,JITHOUT THE PROjECT.
                                                          FROM DISTURBED LAND                                        TO -                                             FROM INACTIVE PEAT MINE                                    TO:
                                                                                TYPE                                 PRO BEG            END R!                                                   TYPE                            PRO       BEG      END R'
                                                          HIGH FOCOSIN                                               :3.5 1             20      E                     RESIDENTIAL DEt)ELOPMENT                                   0         0        0
                                                          LOW POCOSIN                                                16.51              20 E                          ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                                    0         0        0
                                                          BAY FOREST                                                 13       0         0                             OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                                      0         0        0
                                                          WATER AND Mi:@P'@H                                         .3       0         0                             AGRICULTURAL -AND                                          cl        0        0
                                                          "CTIk.'E PEAT flIHE                                        0        rl        0                             DECIDUOUS FOREST                                           0         0        0
                                                          INACTI-E PE@T MINE                                         13       1)        cl                            Ek)ERGREEN FOREST                                          1)        ID       11
                                                          PESIDEHTI,-@L DEIJELOPMPIT                                 0        r.                                      Ml"'El- FORE-::-                                           1)        c
                                                                                                                                                                      WHITE CEE.-'F,'
                                                          r,O'DS :,14D RIGHTS-OF-Wl'y                                0        cl        cl
                                                          OTHER DEVELOPED ARE."S                                     0        cl        ID                            MIXED SwHrllp                                              1)                 0
                                                          14GPICULTURAL L.4ND                                        cl       0         0                             DISTURBED LAND                                             0         0        0
                                                          E-ECIbUOUS FOREST                                          0        0         0                             HIGH POCOSIN                                               0         cl       0
                                                          EI)ERGREEN FORE.-IT                                        cl       0         cl                            LOW POCOSIN                                                0         0
                                                          MIXED FOREST                                               0        0         ct                            BAY FOREST                                                 11        0        0
                                                          WHITE CEDAR EWAMP                                          0        0         0                             lAATEP AND MARSH                                           100       5        20      T
                                                          MIXED SWAMP                                                0        0         0                             BY YEAR
                                                                                                                                                                      5 = 0                      10 = 31.6          15           .316        20 = 316
                                                                                                                                                                      ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                           0         0        0

                                                                                                                              365

                                                        HABITAT CONDITICNS.SCENARIO #3,                                                                                ACCRUED 4,INIJAL,-@ED HASITAT UNITS
                                                        AT THE END OF THE PROJECT PERIOD.                                                                              AT THE END OF THE PROJECT PERIOD.
                                                        "REM I WITHOUT THE PROJECT.                                                                                    AREA I.SCENAPIG
                                                                                                                                                                       W17HOUT THE PROJE@@-
                                                                    TYPE                                                       ACRES
                                                                                                                                                                       Tl.(FS                                    SPEC.
                                                        RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                                                0                                            1                            .3             4                !5
                                                        ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                                                0
                                                        OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                                                  1)                                      1    0               0            0              0                0
                                                        AGRICULTURAL LAND                                                      2a4a                                    71   0               0                           13               1.1
                                                        DECIDUOUS FOREST                                                       0                                       3    0               0            1)             0                01
                                                        EVERGREEN FOREST                                                       0                                       4    6.34            i 50;4       1313           10821
                                                        MIXED FOREST                                                           0                                       5    0               0            0              0                13
                                                        WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                                      0                                            0                                           0                0
                                                        Ml',,,'ED SWAMP                                                        0                                            0               0                           13
                                                        DISTURBED LAND                                                         100                                     S    0               0                           13               0
                                                        HIGH POCOSIN                                                           2138                                    .?   1)              0            1)             13               0
                                                        LOW POCOSIN                                                            10100                                   10   803             1 2_1 5 -A   1688           25.13            1204
                                                        BAY FOREST                                                             0                                       11   1447            1113         1001           148              6^8
                                                        WATER AND MARSH                                                        632                                     !2   .6 *39 7        4557         5784           1!39             _23 0 4
                                                        ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                                       0                                       13   13              0            0              0                1)
                                                        IVIAC71                                                                                                                                                         46@              -
                                                                   IVE PEAT MINE                                               0                                       14   20              120          365                   7
                                                                                                                                                                       i If        .        0.           Fj             0
                                                                                 TOTAL                                         15818                                   16   14              3 1          74             i 3;             31

                                                                                                                                                                       T    ?4-10           S-586        :3,3'75        3 110            6'@ 13 5

                                                        ACCRUED ANNUALIZED HABITAT UNITS                                                                               RATE OF Ht-4e!-47 --ONVERSION                                     1N
                                                                       END OF THE PROJECT PER!OD.                                                                      r.I            -L,-
                                                        AT THE                                                                                                         REA !                                42,
                                                        -REA 1-:CENARIO #21                                                                                            W17H 7HE PROJECT.
                                                        GJITHOUT THE PROJECT. (CONTINUED)
                                                        7'(PE                                         SPEC.                                                            FROIA AGPIC_UL71J'Rr@@L LAND TO:
                                                               6              7              8              0             10                                                                TYPE                               PRO       SEG      END R

                                                        i      0              0              n              0             0                10                          DECIDUOUS FORES7                                        13        0        1)
                                                                              0              0              0             0                13                          =_:,'ER:GREEN FOREST                                    0         1)       0
                                                                              0              13             0             0                                            tl!@-zD FOREST                                          0         0        1)
                                                        4      2421           1139           228            114           797              !0623                       'AH I                    Swt41P                                   0        0
                                                        5      0              0              0              0             0                0                           MIXED     SWAMP                                         0         C,       0
                                                        6      0              0              0              0             0                cl                          DISTURSED LHND                                          .3        0        1--
                                                                                                            0             0                                            HIGH POCOSIN
                                                               0              cl             0              0             0                                            LIDW POCOSIN't                                          0         0
                                                               0              0              0              0             0                10                          SAY* FOREET                                             ri        0
                                                        11     912            ?98            172            275           ills             "r 0, Sa                    1,44TER AND          MARSH                              0         1)       cl
                                                        li                                   '927           9.64          124S             S494                        HCTIVE PEAT MINE                                        1 0 Z     1        10      F
                                                        '2                                                                                                             1NACTIVE PEAT IMINE                                     0         -
                                                        1      1052           Z .3 1? 2      '2 9 S 0       73 155        5696             30,456                                                                                        I'l      13,
                                                        I S    11-11          0              0              0             0                0                           RESIDENTIAL DEI)ELOPMENT                                0         1)       0
                                                        14     t6             73             0              0             12.10            1. 13 6 1                   RCADS AND RIGHTS-OF-1.dA'Y                              0                  u
                                                        15     0              0              0              0             0                1)                          07HSR DEI)ELOF"ED AREAS                                 0                  0
                                                        16                                                                24               206
                                                        1      29             25

                                                               4707           5837           4313           4515          9009             44R',B

                                                                                                                                                               366

                                   PATE OF HABITAT C!'NVERSION IN                            RATE OF HABITAT '-,-'NkjERS ION IN
                                   AREA 1 SCENAR.10 *:.,                                     AREA I '-3CEr--lARIO i*3,
                                   WITH THE PROJECT.                                         WITH THE PROJECT.

                                   FROM DISTURBED LAND             TO:                       FROM HIGH POCOSIN TO:

                                              TYPE                 PRO  BEG  END R                     TYPE                 PRO  BEG  END R

                                   HIGH POCOSIN                    0    1    0               LOW POCOSIN                    0    0    0
                                   LOW POCOSIN                     0    1    0               BAY FOREST                     0    0    0
                                   BAY FOREST                      0    0    0               WATER AND MARSH                0    13   0
                                   WATER AND MARSH                 cl   0    0               ACTIVE PEAT MINE               23   1    10   p
                                   ACTIVE PEAT MINE                313  1    10 F            INACTIVE PEAT MINE             0    0    0
                                   INACTIVE PEAT MINE              0    0    0               RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT        0    0    0
                                   RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT         0    0    0               ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY        0    0    0
                                   ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY         0    0    0               OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS          rf   0    0
                                   OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS           0    0    0               AGRICULTURAL LAND              0    0    0
                                   i-kGRICULTURAL LAND             0    0    0               DECIDUOUS FOREST               0    0    0
                                   DECIDUOUS FOREST                0    0    0               EVERGREEN FOREST               0    0    0
                                   EVERGREEN FOREST                0    0    0               MIXED FOREST                   0    ri   0
                                   MIXED FOREST                    0    0    0               WHITE CEDAR SWAMP              0    0    0
                                   WHITE CEDAR SWAMP               0    0    0               tllXED SWAMP                   0    11   0
                                   MIXED SWAMP                     0    0    0               DISTURBED LAND                 0    0    0

                                   RATE OF HABIT4@i7 1--l--,NQERSION IN                      RATE OF HABITAT CONVERSION IN
                                   ARE" I -*D:Zj@@.F,10 #3,                                  AREA 1 -ECENf@iPIO
                                   W17H THE PROJECT.                                         WITH THE F-R.OJECT.

                                   FROM LOW FOCOSIN TO:                                      FROM 14ATER AND MARSH TO:

                                              T*I'*F'E             PRO  BEG  END R                     TYPE                 FRO  6 E GEl--lD P

                                   BAY FOREST                      0    0    0               ACTIVE PEAT MINE               11   1    iO F
                                   WATER AND MARSH                                           TNACTIVE PEAT MINE             0    cl.  0
                                   ACTIVE '@,&;T HINE              108  i    10 F            RE3,1DENT! PA- DEVELOPMENT     0    0    0
                                   lt-,4@1--TIVE P&@T HINE         cl   0    0               ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-k-,lAY     0    cl   0
                                   RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT         0    0    0               OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS          0    0    0
                                   ROADS AND RIGHTS-CIF-WAY.0           0    0               AGRICULTURAL LAND              0    0    0
                                   OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS           0    cl   0               DECIDUOUS FOREST               0    0    0
                                   AGRICULTURAL LAHD                    0    0               EVERGREEN FOREST               1)   cl   0
                                   DECIDUOUS FOREST                0    0    ri              MEED FOREST                    C,   0    0
                                   EVERGREEN FOREST                0    0    0               1.,JIH@TE CEDAR SWAMP          0    0    0
                                   Ml'q ED FOREST                  0    0    ri              MIXED SWAMP                    0    cl   0
                                   WHITE CEDAR St,-jAmP            cl   ri   cl              DISTURBED LAND                 C,   1)   ci
                                   @,j I: ED SWAMP                 0         0               HIGH POCI'=-'!N                0    0    0
                                    1 "
                                   DISTURBED LAND                  0    0    0               LCIJ POCOSIN                   ri   0    ri
                                   HIGH POCOSIN                    0    0    Q               BAY FOREST                     0    0    0

                                                                        367

                                                     RATE OF HAeITA7 CONVERSION IN                                                                               PATE QF @4ASTTA-@' 1:10liVERSION IN
                                                     AREA 1 .:3C-a4APIO 03.                                                                                      AREA I SCENAF-.';D W-3,
                                                     WITH THE PROJECT.                                                                                           W'117H THE PROJEC7.

                                                     FROM ACTIVE PEAT MINE TO-                                                                                   FROM INACTIVE PEAT MINE                                    TO:

                                                                         TYPE                                   PRO     BEG         END R                                                 T'VPE                             PRO       BEG      END R

                                                     INACTIVE PEAT MINE                                         568     2           11      F                    RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                                    0         0        0
                                                     RESIDD-ITIAL DEVELOPMENT                                   0       0           0                            ROADS P*ID RIGHTS-1-IF-1.@JAY                              0         11       0
                                                     n040S AND RIGHTS-OF-WA(                                    0       0           0                            07HER De)ELOPED AREAS                                      0         0        0
                                                     OTHER DEt.,IELOPED AREAS                                   13      0           0                            AGRICULTURAL -;,;iND                                       .3        5        2 0 T
                                                     AGRICULTURAL LAND                                          0       0           a                            BY YEAR
                                                     DECIDUOUS FOREST                                           0       0           0                            5 = 13                   10 = 162 15 =_O                                20 = D
                                                     EVERGREEN FOREST                                           0       0           0                            DECIDUOUS                FORES7
                                                     MIXED FOREST                                               0       0           0                            EVER13REEN               FOREST                            4         5        20
                                                     WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                          0       0           0                            By ylz-"@R
                                                     MIXED SWAMP                                                0       0           0                            5 = 13                   10             2       15 =-O                  Z
                                                     DISTURBED LAND                                             0       0           0                            MIXED FOREST                                               ij        0
                                                     HIGH POCOSIN                                               ri      0           0                            WHITE        CEDAR SWAMP                                   0         0        0
                                                     LOW POCOSIN                                                0       a           0                            M IX E D     SWAMP                                         0         0        0
                                                     BAY FOREST                                                 a       0           0                            DISTURBED LAND                                             0         10       0
                                                     WATER AND MARSH                                            0       0           0                            HIGH POCOSIN                                               2         T        20 T
                                                                                                                                                                 BY YEA R
                                                                                                                                                                 5 = 1)                   10   =      35         15 = 13                 20 =        0
                                                                                                                                                                 LOW POCOSIN                                                4         5        20 T

                                                                                                                                                                 5       0                10   =      167 15 = 0                         27 cl =     C,
                                                                                                                                                                 e,A,,f, froPEST                                            ri        1@       0
                                                                                                                                                                              AND MARSH                                     10 C,     5        20 T
                                                                                                                                                                 ply YEAR
                                                                                                                                                                 5 = -)                   10 = 1454                         = 5:386      20 =        588.
                                                                                                                                                                 ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                           il                 10 F

                                                     HABITAT COND17, I Of-IS                        SCENARI 0                                                    ACCRUED          ANNUALIZED Hs@tSITAT UNIT'S
                                                     AT THE END OF THE PPDjECT wERTOC.                                                                           AT THE T!C'                     -Y=        -PF0-.'E---T
                                                     AREA I WITH THE PROJECT.                                                                                    @4REA        I     c2i      i",@
                                                                                                                                                                 WITH         7L@E        PF'OjE,--7.
                                                                TYPE                                                         ACRES
                                                                                                                                                                 TYPE                                         SPEC.
                                                     RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                                                 ri                                          1                2                                           5
                                                     ROADS AND R!GHTS-':)F-lAJAY                                             1)
                                                     OTHER DEUELOPED AREAS                                                   0                                           0                0                                           0*
                                                                                                                                                                                                      cl            cl                cl
                                                     AGRICULTURAL LAND                                                       1828                                        i"               I
                                                     DECIDUOUS FOREST                                                        0                                           13               11          0                               0
                                                     EVERGREEN FOREST                                                                                            4       5'- 4
                                                     MI'e.E,D FOREST                                                         0                                   5       0                0           0             0                 1)
                                                     WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                                       0                                   6       2 0              24          1             2
                                                     NEX"ED SWAMP                                                            0                                   7       0                ID                        1)
                                                     DISTURBED LAND                                                          5570                                8       11               0           0             0                 0
                                                     HIGH POCOSIN                                                            403                                 ?       0                0           0             0                 0
                                                     LOW POCOSIN                                                             1925                                10      2949             4580        2510          'P41              43@@2
                                                     SAY FOREST                                                              0                                   i       6 2              2;. 7 8     250
                                                     WATER AND MARSH                                                         6092                                        1.61 S           1149        14@8          Z, S              7 ri 7
                                                     ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                                        0                                   1-      0                1)          0             13                0
                                                     INACTIVE PEAT MINE                                                      0                                   14      .6 78            .67S        *2 0 6 4      2654              254
                                                                                                                                                                 i5      23               -@@a        47            14                20
                                                                               TOTAL                                                                             1 @6    1514             417         2 iZ s        1                 417

                                                                                                                                                                         6329             *.3         -017          41? 1

                                                                                                                                                                 368

                                                               ACCRUED ANNUALIZEr- HABITAT UNITS                                                                        RATE OF Lio@48ITAT C.01+.'ERSION IN
                                                               AT THE =',JD -jr' TL4E PROJECT PERIOD.                                                                   AREA 2 SCENARIO W-3,
                                                               AREA      I SCEHAPIO #7S.,                                                                               WITHOUT THE FROJE,-;l
                                                               WITH      THE       PROJECT.                        (CONTINUED)
                                                                                                                                                                        FROM EVERGREEN FOREST TO:
                                                               TYPE                                       SPEC.                                 TOT.
                                                                    6                             8                9             10                                                          TYPE                                   PRO       BEG       END R

                                                               1    0                             0                0             0              0                       MIXED FOREST                                                0         0         0
                                                               2    0              0              0                fi            1-1            0                       WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                           0         0         0
                                                               3    cl             0              0                0             0              0                       MI,-,ED SWAMP                                               0         0         0
                                                               4    1783           839            1 t- 2           :34           5 817          7S26                    DISTURBED LAND                                              3.3       1         30      E
                                                               5    ID             o              cl               0             0              0                       HIGH POCOSIN                                                0         0         0
                                                                    24             28             48               23            27             240                     LOW POCOSII',I                                              0         0         0
                                                               7    0              0              0                0             0              0                       BAY FOREST                                                  0         0         0
                                                                    0              cl             0                0             0              0                       WATER AND MARSH                                             0         0         0
                                                                    0              ri             0                0             0              0                       ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                            0         0         0
                                                               10   :3 3 225       363?           -627             1004          4078           28046                   INACTIVE PEAT MINE                                          0         0         0
                                                               11   -170           1 7-tl         2'82             241           311            2123                    RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                                     0         0         0
                                                               12   265            729            751              79.6          1436           -7 1    3               ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                                     0         ri        0
                                                               13   0              0              0                0             0              0                       OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                                       fj        0         0
                                                               14   28             442            0                0             737            7 6     6               AGRICULTURAL LAND                                           0         0         0
                                                               15   Z, 0           14             0                0             9              142                     DECIDUOUS FOREST                                            0         0         0
                                                               I@   S'ED7          *3 4'-:        139              SIP           328-           2770

                                                               T    5    6 3       621 iD         1916             2247          7513           5-9035

                                                               RATE OF         HAE:I@AT CONk.'EPSION IN                                                                 RATE OF HABITAT CONVERSION IN
                                                               AREA -2         -1 C E'r I A R 1 '0 4 -', ,                                                              AREA 2 SCENAFIO #3,
                                                               WITHOUT         THE PROJECT.                                                                             WITHOUT THE PROJEU.

                                                               FROM MIXED SWAMP TO:                                                                                     FROM DISTURBED LAND                                         TO-

                                                                                   TYPE                                  PRO BEG           END R                                             TYP E                                  PRO       BEG       ENID R

                                                               DISTURBED LAND                                            1.251             80       E                   HIGH POCOSIN                                                7.7       1         Z, 0    E
                                                               HIGH POCOSIN                                              0       0         1)                           LOW POCOSIN                                                 5.9       1         2 0     E:
                                                               LOl,--J POCOSIIN                                          0       0         0                            BAY FOREST                                                  0         0         0
                                                               BAY F10FEST                                               0       0         0                            WATER AND MARSH                                             0         1)        1-1
                                                               WATER AND NIARSH                                          0       0         0                            ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                            0         1         0
                                                               ... CTIVE PEAT MIHE                                       0       0         0                            INACTIVE FSAT MINE                                          01        ri        0
                                                               INACTIVE PEAT MINE                                        0       0         0                            RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                                     0         0         cl
                                                               RESIDENTIr@-L DEVELOPMENT                                 0       0         0                            ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WA',(                                   0         0         0
                                                               ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                                   0       ri        0                            OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                                       0         0         0
                                                               OTHER DEVELOPED                                                   0         cl                           AGRICULTURAL LAND                                           0         0         0
                                                               AGRICULTURAL LAND                                         0       1)        13                           DECIDUOUS FOREST                                            0         0         cl
                                                               DECIDUOUS FOREST                                          0       cl        0                            EVERGREEN FOREST                                            5.1y      1         20      E
                                                               E','ERGREEN FOREST                                        0       13        0                            tAIXED FOREST                                               0         0         0
                                                               MIXED FOREST                                              0       cl        0                            WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                           0         0         0
                                                               WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                         0       0         0                            !,1IXEE) SWAMP                                              .4        1         20      E

                                                                                                                                 369

                                                                                                                                                      FACCRUED ANNUALI:E-D PA21T-*T UN173
                                                    YAB I TAT COND I T I ONS                        -li@,P 10 4'
                                                    AT THE END OF THE PROJECT PERIOD.                                                                 AT THE F-Hr.,                      =0!),;Ef--T PERKOD.
                                                    AREA 2 WITHOUT THE PPOJZCT.                                                                       P.AREA 2 SCalp:,.RIC 43.
                                                                                                                                                      WITHOUT THE PROjECT.
                                                            TYPE                                                    ACRES
                                                                                                                                                      TYPE                                 SPEC.
                                                    RESIDENTIAL DEI)ELOPMENT                                        0                                                  Z,             3          4               5
                                                    ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-61AY                                        0
                                                    OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                                           13                                1   cl           0              3          ID              0
                                                    o--GRICULTUPAL LA1,1D                                           1071                              2   0            0              cl         13              9
                                                    r@'ECIDUOUS FOREST                                              0                                 :3               1)             0          0               3
                                                    E"ERGREEN FOREST                                                1147                              4                563            19 'S      407             @=-!j
                                                    ,1-11'::.ED FOREST                                              0                                 5                                          0               ID
                                                    WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                               0                                 6   '509         598            305        S Z'            547
                                                    MI-E-D SWAMP                                                                                      7                0              ri         3
                                                    DISTURBED LAND                                                  Z 4 c5                            8                0              0          0               0
                                                    HIGH POCOSIN                                                    25E5                                               64             -          30              -7
                                                    LOW POCOSIN                                                     1 9719                            10  355          "2             302        113             529
                                                    EAY FOREST                                                      0                                 1   11.73,17     1 '336         1 Zo 3     !-;a            802
                                                    1AATER AND MARSH                                                0                                 122 122 4 5      SS-4           1 1        2=1             @Z46
                                                    ACT IVE PEAT M114E                                              0                                 13  ()           0              0          0               1)
                                                    IN,@4CTIVE PEAT MINE                                            1                                 14  0            cl             0          Ll              0
                                                                                                                                                      15  .)
                                                                                                                                                      I                1-j                       0               IJ
                                                                          TOT@',L                                   7142                              16  1)           0              0          0               cl

                                                                                                                                                      T   @; I S       4OFj4          :3 20 @i   ':@'9 S         :22 4

                                                                                         ZSD 'H@BITAT UNITS
                                                    -.,CCRUED r-NNUALI@
                                                                                                                                                      PAT=- CF wi.4eTrAT                                         lN
                                                    ,-iT THE E,',J[, -tF TWE RROJECT PERIOD.
                                                                                         4 Z
                                                    A P EA 2 . : @ @- @"R ! i--,            , ,                                                       . .PEA                          0
                                                    W17HOUT THE PROjECT.                            (CONTINUED)
                                                    TYPE                                    SPEC.                              TOT.                   =P011 AC-F.I@--UL7-'R@L LAMO, TO:
                                                          6             1                S.                                                                            TYPE                             PRC      S, E G   END
                                                          0             1)               G          0                                                 DECIDUOUS FOREST                                           Q        0
                                                    Z,    0                              0          0               0          0
                                                    3     0             0                0          0               0          0                      EVERGREEIN FOPEZ-7                                                  1)
                                                                                                                                                      XED                                               0        0
                                                    4     51!0          42-8             6          43              300        :S ? 9.1               M 1,      FOREST
                                                    5     0             13               o          0               0                                 L,-JHITE C=D'R Sl,-;' !F                          0        L
                                                                                                                                                      MI,."]:-,C,
                                                          611           77 0 0           1222       340             6-14       6045
                                                                                                                                                      DISTUPEED L4.!--lD
                                                                        0                0          L)                         0
                                                                                                                                                      HIGH POCOSIN                                      0        Ll       1-
                                                          la            S 5              '2 7       02                         547,                   LOW POCOE.Tt,j
                                                    ij    -101          4 -:: 8          -,i        12, i                                             SAY FORES7                                        0        13       C.
                                                                                                                    91         S37,?
                                                                                                                                                      'xiHTER "NE, MARSH                                                  0
                                                    11    S 'S 4        84-6             1ia        i:5a            1492       1 C, 12 0 0
                                                    1 Z   205           5-@ S            T-130      i 4             iris       OP 4                   CTP@E PEAT            M INE                       45       1        13
                                                                                                                                                             1'.'E          -4T .'11HE                  0        0
                                                    1:3   0             0                                                                             NACI             PE.'
                                                    14    0             0                0.         0               0          ri                     PESIDaITIAL DEVELOPME!-iT                                  0        C.
                                                    15    0             0                0          0               0          0                      ROADS *)D                                         j        ;j       0
                                                    10'   0             0                0          0               0          0                      OTHER DEVELU-PED @@PEAS                           13       cl       j

                                                    T     2474          2061             S114       2837            d143       :31*25?

                                                                                                                                                      370

                                      RATE OF @-J@'@BITAT CONVERSION IN                             RATE OF HABT7P@7 CONVERSION IN
                                      AREA Z , SCENARIO tt.3,                                       AREA 2. SCENARIO #3,
                                      WITH THE                                                      WITH THE PROJECT.

                                      FROM EVERGREEN FOREST TO:                                     FROM MIXED SWAMP TO:

                                                  T'rPE                 PRO   BEG  END R                       TYPE                   PRO  BEG   END F

                                      MIXED FOREST                      0     0    0                DISTURBED LAND                    0    1     0
                                      WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                 0     0    0                HIGH POCOSIN                      0    0     0
                                      r-II@'ED SWAMP                    0     0    0                LOW POCOSIN                       0    0     0
                                      DISTURBED LAND                    0     1    0                BAY FOREST                        0    0     0
                                      HIGH POCOSIN                      0     0    0                WATER AND MARSH                   0    0     0
                                      LOW POCOSIN                       0     0    0                A.CTIVE PEAT MINE                 3    1     10 F
                                      BAY FOREST                        0     0    0                INACTIVE PEAT MINE                0    0     0
                                      WATER AND rlARSH                  0     0    0                RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT           0    0     cl
                                      HCTI()E PEAT MINE                 :3 1/ 1    10    F          ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-lAAY          0    0     0
                                      TNACTIVE PEf2@T MINE              0     0    0                OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS             0    0     0
                                      RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT           0     0    0                AGRICULTURAL LAND                 0    0     0
                                      ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-l,,)AY        0     0    0                DECIDUOUS FOREST                  0    0     0
                                      OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS             0     0    0                EVERGREEN FOREST                  0    0     0
                                       GRICULTURAL LAND                 ri    0    0                MIXED FOREST                      13   0     0
                                      DECIDUOUS FOREST                  1)    0    0                ',-JHITE CEDAR SWAMP              0    0     0

                                                                                                    RATE OF HHBIT,@4T CONVEP
                                      PAT@'  OF H,@,81T-4T --3HVERSION IN                                                        .SIO!ll IN
                                      AREA   -1,             #3                                     AREA 2,
                                      WITH   THE PROJECT.                                           WITH THE PROjEr-T.

                                      FPOM   DISTURBED LAND             TO:                         FROM HIGH POCOSIN TO:

                                                  TYPE                  PRO   BEG  END R                       TYPE                   PRO  EEG   END R

                                      HIGH   POCOSIN                    0     1    0                LOW POCOSIN                       0    0     0
                                      LOW POCOSIN                             I    1-j              BAY FOREST                        cl   0     0
                                      BA'f FORE37                       ID    0    a                WATER AND MARSH                   0    0     9
                                      @@JATEP @AND "APSH                cl         0                 CTIVE PEAT MINE                  51   1     101
                                      "r.TPlE PEAT MINE                 123   1    10 F             INACTIVE PEAT M.INE               0    0     0
                                      1NACT11,1E PEAT MIHE              0     0    0                PESIDE@-ITIAL DEVELOPMENT         0    0     0
                                      PE'-z 1 DE@,J-l IAL DEVELOPMENT   0     cl   0                ROADS AND PIGHTS-QF-t-,li@iY      &    cl    C.
                                      ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-1.,Ji@4(      0     cl   cl               OTHER. DEYELCIFEE., AREAS         0    cl    11
                                      IDTHEP DEVELOPED ARE-iS           Q     0    ri               @@--,RICULTUPFm@L LAND            0    C,    0
                                      ,'IGPICULTUPAL LAND               1)    0    1-.              DECIDUOUS FOREST                  0    'j    cl
                                      DE,-7DU)D'-"S FOFEST              !,j   0    0                El@'EPGREFIIJ FOREST              0    0     0
                                      E"!EPGREEN FOPE@-T                0     1    0                        FOREST                    cl   0     13
                                      MIAED FOREST                      Q     1)   0                ]WHITE CED(@R SWAMP               0    0     cl
                                      WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                 01    0    0                MIXED SW41P                       0    1.)   0
                                      MIX*ED SWAMP                      0     1    0                DISTURBED LAND                    0    0     0

                                                                              371

                                                   RATE OF HAeITAT CONVERSION !N                                                                  RATE -DF PA817AT C@ONt)ERSIC'N IN
                                                   A-REA 2. SC-ENAPIO 1*3.                                                                        AREA               SCE@!@'.P!o #s,
                                                   WITH THE PROJECT.                                                                              WITH THE PROJECT.

                                                   FROM LOW POCOSIN TO:                                                                           FPCM ACTIQE PEAT MINE TO:

                                                                       TYPE                                PRO    BEG        END P                                    TYPE                              PRO       EEG     END F

                                                   SAY FOREST                                              0      0          0                    lN$A'r_71VE PEAT MINE                                 @_@O 0    2       11     F
                                                              4ND MARSH                                    1)     Q          0                    REEIDENTIiAL DEVELOPMENT                              13        0       ri
                                                   ACTIVE PEAT MINE                                        39     1          1 li  F              RO-"DS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY-0                                      0       0
                                                                       PEAT MINE                           0      a          0                    OTHER DEUELOPED AREAS                                 9         0       0
                                                   RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMelT                                 0      0          0                      GPICUL7UPAL LAND                                    0         0       0
                                                   ROADS @-*ID RIGHTS-OF-WAY-0                                    0          0                    DECIDUOUS FOREST                                      0         0       cl
                                                   OTHER DEVELOPED AREolliS                                0      0          0                    EVERGREEN FOPETT                                      0         0       13
                                                   AGRICULTURAL LAND                                       0      0                               MIXED FORE@@T                                         1".       ri      0
                                                   DECIDUOUS FOREST                                        ri     13         0                    WHITE CEDAR SWAMP                                     0         0       0
                                                   e)ERGREEN FOREST                                        0      0          0                    rll@'ED SWAMP                                                   0       0
                                                   Ml'.,.'ED FOREST                                        0      0          0                    DIS7UPSED LAND                                                  1)      0
                                                   1-.-;HIlTE CEDAR S14AMP                                 0      0          0                    HIGH POCOSIN                                          cl        0       0
                                                   MIXED SWAMP                                             0      0          0                    LOW POCOSIN                                                     0       0
                                                   DISTURBED LAND                                          0      0          04                   eAY 50REST
                                                   HIGH POCOSIN                                            0      0          0                    1..jATE-R AND MAPSH                                                     0

                                                   RATE OF                             CClNL.!ERSI(-jN IN                                         'riASITAT CCM-6111710NS
                                                   i..4REA 2 -                                                                                    AT 7HE EHD OF THE @:ROJE= PERIOD.
                                                   WITH 7HE PROJECT.                                                                              HREA@ _': WITH 7HE

                                                   FROM INACTIUE PEAT MINE                                 TO:                                             TYPE                                                   ICRES

                                                                       TYPE                                PRO    eEG END P                       ='E'S@IDENTIAL DEI.)ELOPMENT                                    ci

                                                   RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT                                 0      0          0                    OTHER DEVELOPED HPEHS
                                                   ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY                                 0      0          0                    ACRl --.!JL71JPAL ILANC@
                                                   OTHER DEVELOPED AREAS                                   0      0          0                    DECIDUOUS zCFE3`
                                                   AGPICULTURAL LAViD                                      4      5          20 T                 EVERGREEN FOREST
                                                   BY YEAR                                                                                        fll' ED FOREST                                                  iI
                                                   5 = ID                 10 = 1*200 LE                    0          2 0    = 0                  t..JH171z- CEC-@--R
                                                   DEC! DUOUS             FOREST                                  0          13                        E:-') @IJAMP
                                                                                                           13                                                 Z@
                                                   EVERGREEN              FOREST                           5      11         .2 0  T              DISTUPeED LAND
                                                   e`( '(Et@,P                                                                                    H113H POCOSIN                                                   --j"
                                                            0             10 = 150              15         0          .2 0     0                  01A
                                                   M I "--,ED  F 0 R'E S T                                 0
                                                   1.0HITE       ;-'E[.,;R    SWAMP                        0      0          !3                   W,@-TER r;fJD r,!ARSH                                           3
                                                   MIXED        SWAMP                                      1      5          Z- 0  T                                                                              13
                                                   *_Y YE@'P.                                                                                     7@1ACTIk.)E PEAT NIIlE                                          0
                                                   5 = ,,                 1 Q  = 5              1. 5 =     0          20     = ,
                                                   D 1 STURBED            LAND                             0      0          Q                                          TOTAL                                     '17142
                                                   HIGH POCOSIN                                            6      5          22 0 T
                                                   BY '(EAR
                                                   5 = 0                  10   =       32       i 3 = 0               '2 0 =   13
                                                   LOW POCOSIN                                             3      5          220 T
                                                   E;Y '.1 EPAR
                                                   5 = 13                 10   =       63       15. = 0               '2       0
                                                   SAY FOREST                                              0      0          1)
                                                   WATER o@,ND MARSH                                       100    11         7-0 T
                                                   SlY YEAR
                                                   S = 0                  10 = 0                15 = sooo             20 =     sooo
                                                   AC7. *@"E PSA7 MINE                                     0      1          0

                                                                                                                                                  372

                                                                     ACCRUED ANNUALIZED HABITAT UNITS                                                                         ACCRUED ArlNIji2iLI7-ED HABITAT UNITS
                                                                     AT THE ETID OF 7HE PPOJEf--;T PERIOD.                                                                    AT THE EHD OF THE rPnJECT PERIOD.
                                                                     AREA      2           CE !AP., iD      # i@,                                                                                SC@I'tAF
                                                                                           -!.          -                                                                     AREA       2 ,         , - - -'. T 0      #3.
                                                                     WITH      THE         PROJECT.                     'CONTINUED)                                           WITH       THE         PROJECT.

                                                                     TYPE                                        SPEC.                                  TOT.                  TYPE                                         SPEC.
                                                                               6           7            8                            10                                               1              2               3            4             5

                                                                     1         0           0            0             0              0                                                0              ri              0            0             0
                                                                     Z,        0           13           0             0              0                                        2       0              0               0            0             0
                                                                     s         0           0            Fj            0              13                 0                     3       0              ID              0            0             0
                                                                     -4        86?         1409         82            41             28 6               8 1                   4       245            542             10-4         368           -67
                                                                     5         0                                      0              0                                        5       0              0               0            0             0
                                                                                                            8         4se            352                2-3155                        260            312             159          zo            286
                                                                                                        0             0              0                                                0              0               0                          0
                                                                     8         0           0            ci            0              cl                                               0              ID              cl           .0            0
                                                                     ?         6           2., E:       1-7                          24                 242                           38             28              34           1             7
                                                                     10        1047        1145         197           S16            12e4               S927                  10      922            1442            -75'0        2 ?6          1-3e@2
                                                                     11        1 '-':� 6   S19          420           436            5 6 2              3,3 4 4               11      655            504             453          67            3012
                                                                     1 --'     77          212          218           231            418                '26 7 3               12      4 6'7-         334             42*@         84            Z06
                                                                     1:3       0           0            0             0              0                  0                     13      0              0               0            0             0
                                                                     14        36          1130         ID            0              @Ao                3132                  14      2 7            276             8140         1080          144
                                                                     15        11          8            0             0              5                  75                    15      11             1@              9            8             1
                                                                     1,:.      1516        1 !3 81      36            316            1. 2 2             1116                  16      79             168             132          72            168

                                                                     T         2646        -7914        1608          1526           32- S              26-879                T       2P   5         3621            S'0 2 6      2023          3272

                                                                                                                                     373

                     10.5 Appendix for Section 6.2.1.1: Amount of Surface
                          Water Runoff

                                                                                          i

                                                                                          I

                                                                                          i

                                                                                          i

                                                    374

                                                        Scenario #1, Area 1. Acreape t3v land use catepories
                                                        for the 20 year stuay. oeriod.

                          .. .... . ..... .                                                 ... . .......                       ....... ...... .. . ......... ... . ..... ....       . ... .....
                                                      OPEN                        PRE-MINING                               PEAT                           RECLAIMED
                                 YEAR                 WATER DISTURBED SHRUB                                                MINE                   AGRIC                  FOREST

                                                                                                                                                                                     .. .......... .
                                        0               330                      114160                4000                   330                         0                          0
                                        1             L-660                       8400                 4000                   750                         0                          0
                                        2             2660                        6990                 4000                2160                           0                          0
                                        3             C2,660                      6900                 3670                E580                           0                          0
                                        4             2660                        6820                 3340                3000                           0                          0
                                        5             2660                        6400                 3340                3410                           0                          0
                                        6             3000                        5990                 3340                3330                      170                             0
                                        7             3160                        5570                 3340                35BLA                     170                             0
                                        a             3500                        5490                 3340                3330                      170                             0
                                        9             4000                        4740                 3000                3750                      P70                          70
                                    10                1670                        73PO                 2670                3500                      530                       130
                                    11                1670                        6990                 2670                2660                   1470                         370
                                    12                1670                        6320                 2340                3000                   2000                         500
                                    J-2               1670                        5990                 2340                2330                   ;--1800                      700
                                    14                1670                        5660                 2000                2660                   3060
                                    15                1670                        5320                 1670                2660                   3600                         900
                                    16                1670                        4660                 1670                2660                   4130                      10,30
                                    17                1670                        4660                 1340                2330                   4660                      1170
                                    18                1670                        4660                    670              3000                   4660                      1170
                                    19                !670                        4660                    340              2330                   5460                      1,370
                                    20                1670                        4660                         0           2000                   5990                      1500

                                . ... ..........                      . . .....                                        . .... ...... . .........       ........ ... .. .... .... . .......

                            Note: OPEN                  WATER includes                        the teriloorary lagoon, permanent lake
                         and an estimate of the canal surface area.

                                                                                                             375

                                     -rable 10. 5B:                    Scenario #1, Area 2: Acreage by land use categories
                                                                       for the 20 year study perlod.

                                                                    . ........ ..                  . .. .. . . ....... . . . ..... .... .. ......... ... .... ......         . . ......... . . ........ . ........ .. .... ....

                                                                                 PRE-MINING                                     PEAT'                          RECLAIMED
                                                YEAR                   DISTURBED SHRUB                                          MINE                    AGRIC                       FOREST

                                                                                   ............ . . .                                   . ..... .... . ... - - -----------

                                                     0                       2140                      4000                        0                         0                      1000
                                                     1                       2050                      3830                     300                          0                      960
                                                     2                       1960                      3660                     600                          0                      920
                                                     3                       1870                      3490                     900                          0                      881zf
                                                     4                       1780                      3320                     1200                         0                      840
                                                     5                       1690                      3150                     1500                         0                      800
                                                     6                       1600                      2980                     1800                         0                      760
                                                     7                       1510                      P-810                    1800                      300                       720
                                                     8                       1420                      2640                     1800                      600                       680
                                                     9                       1330                      2470                     1800                      720                       820
                                                    10                       1249                      2300                     1800                      960                       840
                                                    11                       1150                      2130                     1800                    1200                        86QI
                                                    12                       1060                      1960                     1800                    1440                        860
                                                    13                          970                    1790                     1800                    1680                        900
                                                    14                          880                    1620                     1800                    1920                        920
                                                    15                          790                    1450                     1800                    2160                        940
                                                    16                          700                    1280                     1800                    2400                        960
                                                    17                          610                    1110                     1800                    2640                        980
                                                    18                          520                       940                   1800                    2880                        1000
                                                    19                          430                       770                   1800                    3120                        1020
                                                    20                          340                       600                   1800                    3360                        1040

                                                                                                                                        . ............. ....... . ........... . .......

                                                                                                                           376

             Table10.5C: Scenario #2, Area 1: Acreage by land use categories
                          for the 20 year study period.

             . .........  . . ......

                         OPEN         PRE-MINING        PEAT         RECLAIMED
                 YEAR    WATER    DISTURBED SHRUB       MINE      AGRIC     FOREST

                   0       300      12300     17100       300         0         0
                   1     5000       7250      16250     1500          0         LA
                   2     5000       6600      15400     3000          0         0
                   3     5000       5950      14550     4500          0         0
                   4     5000       5300      13700     6000          0         0
                   5     5000       4650      12850     7500          0         0
                   6     6500       4120      11380     8000          0         0
                   7     8000       3590       9910     8500          0         0
                   8     8000       3060       8440     9000       1500         0
                   9     3000       7530       6970     9500       2400      .600
                  10     3000       7000       5500    10000       3600        900
                  11     3000       5600       4400    10500       5200      1300
                  12     3000       4200       3300    11000       6800      1700
                  13     3000       2800       2200    11500       840LA     2100
                  14     3000       1400       1100    12000      10000      2500
                  15     3000           0          0   12500      11600      2900
                  16     3000           0          0   10000      13600      3400
                  17     3000           0          0    7500      15600      3900
                  18     3000           0          0    5000      17600      4400
                  19     3000           0          0    2500      19600      4900.
                  20     3000           0          0        0     21600      5400

                                                  377

                  Table(0.51): Scenario #2, Area 2- Acreage by land use categories
                                for the 20 year study period.

                                                                            ...... ....

                              OPEN         PRE-MINING         PEAT        RECLAIMED
                      YEAR   WATER    DISTURBED SHRUB         MINE      AGRIC   FOREST

                           . . ........              . ......
                        0      150       1500        11700        0        0      1650
                        1      150       1425        11110      750        0      1565
                        2      150       1350        10520    1500         0      1480
                        3      150       1275        9930     2250         0      1395
                        4      150       1200        9340     3000         0      1310
                        5      150       l125        8750     3750         0      1225
                        6      150       1025        7960     4000        750     1115
                        7      150        925        7170     4250      1500      1005
                        a      150        825        6360     4500      1800      1345
                        9      150        725        5590     4750      2400      1385
                       10      150        625        4800     5000      3000      1425
                       11      150        500        3840     5220      3800      1490
                       12      150        375        2680     5440      4600      1555
                       13      150        250        1920     5660      54LAO     1620
                       14      150        125          960    5880      6200      1685
                       15        0          0           0     6100      7000      1750
                       16        0          0           0     4880      7970      2000
                       17        0          0           0     3660      8940      2250
                       18        0          0           0     2440      9930      2480
                       19        0          0           0     1220      10900     2730
                       20        0          0           0         0     11880     2970

                                                       378

                                   e 10. 5 E         @S c e n a r          :rp                         Ac-r-eace oy lal"d use categories
                                                              t7te 20 year- stucy oerioa.

                                                                                                                       .... ......
                                                   tj EN                         E - M I N         G                 PEAT                      RECLAIMED
                                                                                                                     MINE                 A G R 1 C          FOREST
                                YE P.I          WAI E R               7 C_ T L, R B E_ D     SH RUB

                                    0                  Q@                  '780                 1'37E-'-O                    0                   0             5460
                                                       0                   750                  i 8920               1100                        0             5230
                                                       0                   7 *,:-:'0            18080                2200                        0             5000
                                                       0                   630                  17240                3300                        0             4770
                                                       0                   660                  i6400                4400                        0             4540
                                    5                  0                   6'.30                i5560                5500                        0             4310
                                    k                  0                   580                  4-4350               6000                 1100                 3970
                                    7                  0                   530                  13140                6500                 2200                 3630
                                    8                  0                   480                  1.19"30              7000                 2640                 3950
                                                       0                   430                  .07,::'0             7500                 3520                 3830
                                   10,                 0                   .-".Bo                  9510              80010                4400                 3710
                                                       0                   300                     7610              8900                 5680                 3510
                                                                             -                     5710              9800                 61360
                                                       0                   2 @-" Q7)                                                                           3310
                                                       0                   140                     ;;Slo           10700                  S240                 3110
                                                       0                     60                    11.3 10         11600                  9520                 21310
                                   1 '77)              0                       0                         0         i 2500.              10800                  2700
                                                       0                       ol                        0         10000                .12600                 3200
                                                       0                       0                         0           7500               14SIZIO                3700
                                                                                                                           DO           16800                  4200
                                    B                  0                       0                         0           50V
                                                       0                       0                         0           2500               18800                  470LA
                                   20                  0                       0                         0                   0          20800                  5200

                                                                                                       379

                                      Ta pi e 10. 5F: Scertaric,                                       Area 4              A-reatoe O'y'                   jA ri Cl Q.    L@ CLRI@; 0 CC;         3. e s
                                                                                trie E-NI vear stuc.v

                                                                 OPEN                           PRE-MILNING                                                             7'R L C   A          D
                                              YEAR               WATER               D    S T U R B E D           Sri R,,'-., B            Mll I NE                     .. -f r-             .- - - --
                                                                                                                                                                    i- Ri-

                                                   0               130                       91-10.               7280                         0                          0                    oo
                                                                   130                       860                  6. 9 0 e.,            6 B 0                             0               44130
                                                   2               130                       810                  65'LO                1360                               0               4 18. CA
                                                   3               1 1-1-5 0                 7E@,O                E, 1. 4 0            2:, 0 4 0                          0                  r:)  0
                                                   4                 3 V.,                       10               55 7 F, 0            2 7 @_-_'O                         0
                                                   5               130                       El El: 0             5 3 El, 0            3400.                              0               -.3 /13 0
                                                   6               8.10                      610                  A- 9: 4 CA           34`3 0                             0               " 150
                                                   7             122,0                       560                  ZI-500               3580                               0               3140
                                                   8             1700                        510                  4 0 E, 0             "35 E, 7 0                        60               ".3000
                                                   9             2i8o                        460                  1_31 S 2 0           3760                          iso                  2850
                                                   0             ;R5E.10                     4@, 0                131 i 80             38150(140)                    190                  27 10
                                                  ii             2790                        330                  2 15 .3 0            4 8 3 0 i 3-',-% 0            2 "', 0                 5 7 0
                                                  .@2            30*70                       250                  :,,BBQI              4610(520)                     2140                 C440.
                                                  13             3280                        170                  123 0                  9 9 0 (7 10')               --,o
                                                  :,.4           32 4': @ Q)                    90                   580               "i370(900.)                   420
                                                  15             3700                             0                       0            t750(10,90)                   360                  21 0 a 0
                                                                                                                                           '00        4 4 0)                              ",600
                                                   6             4010                             0                       0            4 6                                                2
                                                                                                                          A            ---450(1790)                  3 21 0                  120
                                                  17             4-320                            0                       IZ
                                                  18             4640                             0                       0                   0 ( 2 14 Qi            260                  3 E, 4 0
                                                                                                                                       . 150 (2490),                 C2.4 0               4 i F-0
                                                  qq             4960                             0                       0            1
                                                  20             5280                             LA                      0                    0                     2 3, 0               4 6 3 0

                                         Nurilbev'S Irs Dare-ritrieses reoreserit t,,-ie resicleritia.1 ar'eas.

                                                                                                                           380

              10.6 Appendix for Section 6.2.1.2: Nutrient Yieilds and Surface
                   Water Eutrophication

              Table 10.6A: Land use acreages used in calculations for sections
                            6.2.1.2 and 6.2.1.3

              Scen- Area Year        Naturally- Crop land       Pasture Open       Resi-
              ario                   vegetated & Actively        Land     Water
              dential
                                                    Mined

              1         1     0        15818           0            0         0       0
                             10        10702        3662            0      1454       0
                             20         6054        8310            0      1454       0

              1         2     0         7142           0            0         0       0
                             10         4420        2670           30         0       0
                             20         2042        5010           90         0       0

              2          1    0        30000           0            0         0       0
                             10        23640        3168          285      2907       0
                             20         4875        20943         1230     2952       0

              2         2     0        15000           0            0         0       0
                             10        11820        3123           57         0       0
                             20         2460        12294         246         0       0

              2         3     0        26000           0            0         0       0
                             10        21280        4525          195         0       0
                             20         4200        20750         1050        0       0

     4
              2         4     0        13000           0            0         0       0
                             10        10127          760          53      1954      106
                             20         3852        2300          214      4280     21354

              Notes:
                Naturally-vegetated includes reforested, buffers
                Scenario #3 = Scenario #1 at years 0 and 10

                                                  381

                                                           TAqtE F0. 6 B: General Ranges of Primary Productivity of Phyloplanklon and Related Characteristics
                                                                                                         of takes of Different Trophic CalegiWes"

                                                                       blean
                                                                       11,11milry                                                                         Light
                                                                       11'soduc-     Phyto.       11,11)10.                                            lixtindion Total                                                       Total
                                                                       lirlIV6     P10161,14"I plankton Chlorophyll                                       Cactu- Organic                                                    1101orgulde
                                                                    flog C in -I   Density        Biomass            s             Dominant               ticills     Cadjon         Total F            Total N               Solids
                                           Tropleit Type               day - 1)   (Callm-11111KCM-2) (mgm-2)                    1`11)ICIP10111tion        Non-11 1118gl-1)          Wa 1 '9             (OK 1   1)          (Ing I - 1)

                                        Uloa-1111glAW111111k.          <50           < I          <50             0.01-0.5                                0.0.3-0.8                < 1-5             <                      2-15
                                        Oligotillpille                 50-300                     20-100          0.3-3        ChlysophytVat.,            005-1.0      < 1-3

                                        011go-enesolrophic                           1-3                                       D11111phyllt.1c.                                    5-10              M-W                    10-200
               00
                                        MOMOIF01111iC                  gm-low                     160-.1w         2-15                                    0.1-2.0      < 1-3
                                        hieso-eittiophic                                                                                                                           10-34)            SOO- 1 !00             A
                                        E111follisk.                   > HNIO                     > 3(9) *        10-500       11acilhorloplivecar,       I]A-4.0      5-30
                                                                                                                               Cyalloployceble.
                                                                                     >10                                                                                           30->.5000         rAxi-> ISMO            4#X)-6(MMXI

                                        Dystlopilic                    < .50-500                  <50-200         0.1-10                                  1.0-4.0      3-30        <1-10             < 1-519)               5-2(k)

                                             *hWilified from Likens 11975). after inatoy saidwis and sources.
                                             "no-feirdox 14) approxituately ilea plinlawy pf"411101rity. 5111@h as weasured loy the IIC methoil.

                                                                                                                                                                                  Oletzel, 1975)

                                                                     PHOSPHORUS EXPORT (KG/tIA/YR)

                                GQ
                                                              ?                ?

                                >                            FOREST

                   0  cu w   @-aw
                   0  :j     w  0
                   H  JaA    ;j
                   0         m
                      0                                                                                   ROW CROPS
                      H
                      m w    En 0
                      aq     m  rt
                      0      cn rA

                        rD      0
                        0    Fh                                                                NONROW CROPS
                      (D Fl  H
                      rt     0

                                0
                             @d
                                0                                        PAST
            U.)       F"        H                                                        i
            00        "0 OA  0  r.
            Lo        OD (D     rj)
                        rt
                        (D      (D
                                                                                                      MIXED AGRICULTURAL
                      0      co 0

                      ;uw       0
                      rt 1.4    m
                      FA                                                    URBAN

                      (a OQ

                      ca     w  rt
                      rtm    0  Ln
                      m
                                                                              C)
                                0           ?                                 ?                                 ?

                             OD
                      0 %D                                                                            FEEDLOT
                      H OD                                                                       MANURE STORAGE
                      ct0       0
                      t3l       c:

                                                                                                             Ln
                                                                                                             ,@q    0
                                                                                                       @ROW   @CR 0 P @S@@

                                                                                                      FEE'TTOOTRAGE
                                                                                                      U
                                                                                       ='=M=AN =RE

                                                                                          10                 n      rtm
                                                                                          0

                                                                    41,50   38.47
                             25-            79.6           30.85                           80001 7979.9
                                                                     Cr.

                            20-                                                             4000-

                                                                                                        w

                                                                     X                                  CC
                        >-                   CL
                                           X                                                            w
                                                                                                        CC
                                                                                            3000.

                                                     CL

                                                     0                                                  w
                            10                                                                          Uj
                                                            w                              2000-        U-
                                                     z
                        Q.)                          0                       cm
                                                     z                       C=
                                    W                       V)

                                    0

                             5-                                                             1000-

                                                                                               0i

                        Figure 10.6B:    Box plots of nitrogen export coefficients from various
                                                            U

                                         land uses (from Reckhow, Beaulac and Simpson, 1980)

                                         x marks areal. yields determined by Skaggs et al., 1980
                                         and Gregory et al., 1984, for peatland systems in
                                         North Carolina

                                                                384

             10.7 Appendix for Section 6.2.1.3: Trace Element, Pesticide
                   and Coliform Bacteria Yields
     I

                                                       I

                                            385

                         Other pesticides currently in use in the area (Dr. J. W. Van Duyn, personal

                     communication), and the crops on which they are used, include the following:

                      Herbicides

                          Corn and soybean, pre-emergent:

                               Alachlor (Lasso) - high organic soils

                               Atrazine - used with Alachlor in low organic soils

                               Linuron (no-till soybeans)

                          Soybean, post-emergent;

                               Bentazon (Basagran)

                               Acifluoron (Blazer)

                               Fuselaid

                          Corn, post-emergent:

                               2,4 D

                               Dicamba

                               Ametryn

                               Linuron

                          Small grains:

                               2,4 D or  Dicamba (at time of N-application @ April)

                               Paraquat  (no till)

                                                              386

                     Insecticides

                           Corn (1 application at planting) of either:

                                Carbofuran

                                Chlorpyrifos

                                Phorate

                                Turbufos

                          Soybean, mainly:

                                Phorate

                             Late-planted soybeans typically are treated

                              in August with either:

                                Carbaryl

                                Methomyl

                                Fenvalerate

                                Permethrin

                         Small grains (typically on @ 10% treated, mainly for army worms):

                              Carbaryl

                              Methomyl

                              Malathion

                              Toxaphene (being-phased out)

                                                            387

              Air Quality Assessment

              Introduction

                   The air quality impacts of peat mining and utilization are impossible

              to predict except on a site specific basis.       Model predictions require

              quantitative information on the flux of emitted pollutants from each

              source, the location of each source, the location of all sensitive

              receiving areas with respect to the sources, comprehensive meteorological

              data for the region and an appropriate mathematical dispersion model.       In

              addition, the height above ground at which the pollutants are emitted and

              any ameliorating conditions must be factored into the model calculations.

              The cost and complexity of both data gathering and computation limit air

              quality model development to immediate cases of concern; long range,

              cumulative air quality impacts are rarely undertaken because of the

              additional costs and the uncertainty that exists in source location.        To

              date, an air quality impact assessment has only been performed for that

              part of the Scenario,l peat mining area operated by Peat Methanol.

              Associates.   Predicted impacts of both fugitive dust emissions during

              mining and pollutant emissions from methanol conversion are reported in PSD

              permit applications of PMA to the NC Division of Environmental Management.

              Because these two source types are assumed to be the same that would exist

              in the scaled up peat mining development of Scenario 2, this could provide

              the basis for development of air quality impact models         involving the

              integrated impact of the largescale peat mining postulated in Scenario 2.

                   None of the companies currently considering peat mining in the region

              has developed such an integrated impact model.        This is understandable

              since they are not, as individuals, knowledgeable about the specific plans

              of other companies and the NC State permitting process deals with PSD

              permit applications on an individual, sequential and incremental basis
                                                      389

                      rather than planning for and partitioning  allowable pollutant increments on

                      the basis of anticipated cumulative integrated impacts.
                           An attempt to take an integrated view has been made in a study
                      conducted by the firm of Rogers, Golden and Halpern, issued as CEIP Report
                      No. 14 "Design of a planning program to help mitigate energy facility air
                      quality impacts in the Washington County-, North Carolina, area."         This

                      report has been criticized for the additive scaleup assumptions used in

                      extrapolating impacts resulting from peat mining and conversion on 15,000
                      acres of land to those resulting from development eight times as large.
                      Additional criticism has been directed at the failure to consider options
                      for amelioration of impact that are possible through pollutant source

                      spacing options and pollution control technologies.

                                                            390

                    Air Suality standards

                    Relevant air quality standards have been discussed recently in CEIP

               Report No. 14 which specifically focused on peat mining impacts in the

               Pamlico /Albemarle sound area.     State and Federal regulations set upper

               limits on permissible concentrations of specific pollutants as both annual

               averages and short-term maximum permissible concentrations. The regulated
               pollutants are carbon monoxide (Co), hydrocarbons, nitrogen dioxide (NO        2),
               sulfur   dioxide    (SO 2     lead,   photochemical     oxidants    (ozone)    and

               particulates. Table I lists the primary and secondary standards. Primary

               standards are intended to protect public health; secondary standards are

               intended to protect public welfare.      The standards differ among different

               class areas, two of which exist in the peat mining area.          Class II areas

               are those thought to tolerate some degradation of air quality that

               accompanies normal, well-managed growth. Class I areas are more sensitive

               and cannot tolerate further air quality deterioration. . These are often

               park and wilderness areas.      The Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge in

               Hyde County is such a Class I area in the peat mining region and it

               requires special consideration in assessing air quality impacts. All other

               areas are Class II.

                     In   addition,    regulations     designed    to   Itprevent     significant

               deterioration" (PSD) are intended to limit increases above existing
               baselines in concentrations of two pollutants        JSO 2 and total suspended

               particulates. These are listed in Table 2. These are.intended to provide

               protection to areas with air that is currently cleaner than the ambient air

               quality   standards    by  limiting   additional    increments   of pollutants.

               Particulates from fu6itive emissions during peat mining are exempt from PSD

               increment limitations.

                                                         391

                     Table 10.8A: National Ambient Air Quality Standards

                           Finally it is required that Visibility (which is primarily a. function
                      of particulate.concentrations) should not lie reduced in Cl   ass I areas.

                           Pollutant                                 Primary    SecSndary
                                                                 Pg/m (ppm) IIg/m (ppm)

                           CO
                              80 hr Max                          10,000 (9)         same
                              1-hr Max                           40,000 (35)        same

                           Hydrocarbons
                              3-hr Max                           160 (0.24)         same
                              (6-9 a.m.)

                           N02
                              Annual Arithmethic Mean            100 (0.5)          same
                              24-hr Max                          250 (1.25)

                           Photochemical Oxidants (ozone)
                              1-hr Max                           235 (0.12)         same

                           Particulates
                              Annual Geometric Mean              75                 60
                              24-hr Max                          150                150
                           so 2Annual Arithmetic Mean            80 (0.03)          --
                              24-hr Max                          365 (0.14)         --
                              3-hr Max                                              1300 (0.5)

                           Lead
                              3-mo Max                           1.5                same

                                                               392

                     Table 10.813: Maximum Allowable increases under
                                  prevention of significant
                                  deterioration (PSD) regulations

                                  Pollutant               Micrograms per
                                                           cubic meter

                                               .CLASS I

                                  Particulate Matter
                                     Annual Geometric Mean               5
                                     24-hr Maximum                     10

                                  Sulfur Dioxide
                                     Annual Arithmetic Mean              2
                                     24-hr Maximum                       5
                                     3-hr Maximum                      25

                                                 CLASS II

                                  Particulate Matter
                                     Annual Arithmetic Mean            19
                                     24-hr Maximum                     37

                                  Sulfur Dioxide
                                     Annual Arithmetic'Mean            20
                                     24-hr Maximum                     91
                                     3-hr Maximum                      512

                                                      393

                        Uncertainties in Estimates of Fugitive Dist Emissions

                                                   There are large uncertainties that must be:
                      associated with these estimates.   In part this results from the empirical.
                      nature of the source emission models. Most of these were derived from coal.

                      storage models which may not be appropriate to peat.   In particular, dried
                      peat will likely have a much lower bulk density than coal and thus be more
                      easily resuspended by wind and held in suspension-more easily.

                          In addition, although some conservative assumptions have been included
                      in the PMA analysis/ there are several assumptions that tend to minimize
                      estimates of fugitive dust emissions. First, it is assumed that the fields

                      will be tilled 16 times each year in order to remove 16 inches of peat for
                      dryingIat one inch increments.    However, PMA's Draft Environmental and
                      Occupational Health Monitoring Plan Outline states that the milled peat
                      harvesting process removed only as much as 7% of the peat moisture with

                      each turn to a depth of 4 inches. To reduce moisture  from 81% to 40% would

                      require a minimum of about 6 turns or 24 per year to mine 16 inches depth.

                      There will be a separate milling process associated with each turning which

                      could resuspend additional peat.

                           Second, fugitive dust emissions are assumed to occur only during

                      tilling (i.e. turning). However milled, dried peat will lie on the surface

                      'in what is described as a "thin fluffed layer" that should be easy to

                      resuspend by wind erosion.   This may be as important a source of fugitive

                      dust emissions as tilling.

                           Third, field storage piles (I mile    by 70 feet by 10 'feet high) are

                      assumed to behave as coal storage piles in terms of dust emissions.        As

                      mentioned earlier this may not be the case.   Also, a seeming impossibility

                      exists in the emission model equation used by PMA.        Wind erosion from

                                                           394

             storage piles is calculated to be proportional to the average peat pile

             turnover in days (33 days in PMA's case).     If the piles are never turned

             over (i.e. utilized) the turnover time is infinite and the emission rate

             is, therefore, also infinite.    This cannot be true.     In addition model

             calculations made by PMA assume an 80% reduction in emissions due to wind

             speed control using screens.    There is no adequate justification for the

             choice of this reduction factor. Such screens would need to be taller than

             the 10 foot height of the piles to be effective and would probably need to

             be on both longitudinal sides of the storage pile to be effective. If wind

             screens are not used or are not as effective as assumed above, dust

             emissions from storage piles would be substantially increased.

                  Last, the dust emissions resulting from truck traffic will vary with

             the average round trip distance travelled along unsurfaced roads between

             field storage piles and plant storage. PMA has used an average round trip

             distance of about 3 miles to calculate inputs for subsequent dispersion

               modeling.   However, the choice of initial and worst case harvesting

               locations are all  clustered around the methanol plant peat storage sites.

               If the whole 15,000 acre PMA site and other sites of Scenarios 1 and 2 are

               to be considered, round trip transport to either a methanol processing

               facility or transshipment points for offsite use will certainly be greater

               with consequently greater fugitive dust-emissions.

                    It is worth noting that CEIP Report 14 cites a paper by Ertugrul and

               Sober (1979) that fugitive dust emissions during peat harvesting could be

               as high as 10 percent of the total peat harvested.     This is equivalent to

               96,000 tons per year based on the 1900 acre/yr mined under the assumptions

               of PMA in Table 5.4A,Although this. seems unrealistically high and the

               assumptions leading to the 10% figure are not immediately available, it

                                                   395

                  points to the same two conclusions previously reached:       First, there are
                  serious uncertainties in our estimates and our ability to estimate fugitive
                  dust emissions during peat harvesting and second, existing estimates by PKA
                      be too low.  There is an obvious need to refine these estimates if the
                  emission inputs used in air quality dispersion models are to be of any use.

                       Critical receptors

                       Two critical receptor types exist in regard to air quality impacts.

                  First is the offsite boundary of the peat mining and processing facility,

                  where air quality deterioration would first impact the general public.

                  There are an infinite number of possible receptor points along the!

                  peripheral boundary of any peat mining operation. As harvesting-operations

                  shift throughout any permitted mining area, different points along the:

                  periphery become the most sensitive receptor     s.  This complicates most

                  modeling efforts.   Worst case analyses can probably set upper limits on

                  impacts.

                         Second is the Class I area of the Swanquarter         National Wildlife

                    Refuge, which is a more sensitive receptor.     Given the  distance from the
                    PMA (-27 km),,and most other proposed mining     areasI it could probably be
                    modeled as a single point receptor for each      proposed  mining area which

                    could, in turn, be approximated as individual point sources. An exception

                    might be Area II of our Scenarios which lies nearest to Swanquarter NWR and

                    which lies approximately NNW of Swanquarter, the direction from which the

                    dominant wind blows during the September to November season. More detailed

                    modeling of this source/receptor pair might: be necessitated as a result.

                                                         396

                  In addition)the Mattamuskeet and Pungo Lake National Wildlife Refuges,

             although not Class I Areas, should perhaps be considered special receptors.

             The impact of peat derived particulates on visibility at -Pettigrew State

             Park (Phelps Lake) should also be considered for special treatment.

                                                    397

                         Monitoring Requirements

                            CEIP Report No. 14 has considered extensively the needs and purposes
                      of air quality monitoring in relation to peat mining and use in the area.
                      Their evaluation and generally sensible recommendations will be quoted
                      verbatim in what follows.

                      Need for Monitoring

                            Air quality monitoring is an essential. component of an           air quality
                      maintenance/air pollution control program. Monitoring provides the      inf ormation
                      needed to judge compliance with air quality- standards and chart trends or
                      changes in air quality. In order for an air quality monitoring network to provide
                      the required data, the design of the network must take into consideration factors
                      such as existing pollution levels, meteorology, topography, population, and source
                      distribution.

                           The purpose of this chapter is to present several basic concepts and
                      requirements to be considered in upgrading the existing monitoring system to
                      track more closely the air quality impacts of peat mining and various end uses in
                      eastern North Carolina. Suggestions on the future placement of air quality
                      monitors will be offered.      These monitors will augment the existing State
                      network to keep closer surveillance on emissions from peat mining, transpor-
                      tation, and combustion, as well as conversion to peat methanol. In addition to
                      regional surveillance, the use of specially designed intensive monitoring pro-
                      grams will be suggested to improve knowledge of particulate emissions charac-
                      teristic of various peat mining, transportation, handling and storage activities.

                           Operation of the State monitoring network is the responsibility of the
                      Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The Division operates twelve
                      monitors that sample the air continuously as well as seventy-two manual
                      monitors that sample the air for a 24-hour period once every six days. In the
                      vicinity of the study area, there are only three DEM air quality monitoring
                      stiltions: Plymouth (50 29 NO 2 and particulates); Washington (particulates); and
                      Elizabeth City (particulates)."
                               1. The existing State network is clearly inadequate to document air
                      quality and trends in the study region, yet the air quality impacts of peat mining
                      must be monitored in order to protect the area's natural resources and to ensure
                      C                                                                     .4. -

                                                                  398

                                                                                   A new monitoring
                system must be designed to complement the existing system.        Eff ective resource
                management and the design of an eff ective monitoring             system require a
                knowledge of the overall physical and ecological systems in the region where
                peat mining is now or will be occurring. Planners need to know about the
                components of the natural system, their natural variability, and vulnerabiEry to
                disruptions caused by peat mining and reclamation, and the critical threshold
                levels beyond which a problem is created. Knowledge of a.U these elements is
                difficult to obtain, as the area in which peat mining is ongoing or contemplated
                is an isolated one, about which little has been documented,

                       Any new monitoring system to be constructed must serve          the f ollowing
                purposes, at a minimum:

                       0     Ricord compliance of peat mining and development activities with
                             existing environmental standards;

                       0     Provide information for general protection of the Class I area
                             (Swanquarter Wildlife Refuge), as well as the sensitive areas of Lake
                             Phelps and Pungo Lake;

                       0     Provide information to    determine the need for changes in environ-
                             mental standards, permit conditions, or mitigation design; and

                       o     Provide information to more accurately quantify emissions from
                             peat-related activities to make possible more accurate prediction of
                             the effects of future development.

                 Monitoring of Regional Background and Trends

                       Good definition of regional air quality will require installation of   at leas t
                 two air quality monitoring stations.@.

                                                                   399

                             One station should be located within the boundaries of the Class I area and
                       the other should be located just downwind (to the east or northeast) of the active
                       and proposed mining areas between Pungo Lake and Lake Phelps. The ourpose of
                       the Swanquarter monitor would be to determine current ambient air quality.
                       Since the Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge has been designated by the
                       Federal government as a Class I area, the level of ambient particulates cannot
                       be increased more than 5 micrograms per cubic meter as an annual geometric
                       mean or 10 micrograms per cubic meter as a 24-hour average over the baseline.
                       Similar, highly restrictive limitations apply to 50  2                         There
                       has not been any air quality monitoring within the Refuge, so accurate
                       determination of the "baseline level" of ambient particulates or any of the other
                       criteria pollutants is impossible.    If the air quality of the Refuge is to be
                       protected in the face of projected regional development, sampling must be
                       initiated to establish the baseline air quality. However, such a monitor would
                       not likely be capable of providing increment tracking information or dispersion
                       modeling for increment consumption in that monitors are unable to differentiate
                       between impacts from those sources consuming increment and variations in
                       impacts from existing baseline sources.

                            The overall purpose of the second monitoring station is to quantify air
                       quality in the heart of the region near Lake Phelps and Pungo Lake.

                            LAKE PHELPS is a sensitive area that may be adversely affected by peat
                       operations. Lake Phelps borders the area where First Colony Farms and others
                       are       now         or        wul        soon        be        mining         peat.

                                                                 400

              The sensitivity of this area tends to support the location of a monitoring station
              near Lake Phelps, at a location downwind from peat mining operations.

                   PUNGO LAKE, a 12,350-acre National Wildlife Refuget is another sensitive
              natural area within Washington County that the County feels should be preserved
              in the future for scientific, ecological, educational, and recreational purposes.
              The lake has been designated as a wildlife refuge because of its importance as a
              wildlife habitat, its representation of a protected pocosin ecosystem, and its
              !Uu3-tration of geologic and geomorphic processes.   Its proximity to present and
              proposed peat mining areas supports the placement    of monitoring devices in the
              vicinity.

                    Data collected by this second monitoring station will serve three useful
              purposes. First, when winds are blowing from the peat mining areas and fuel
              conversion plant toward the monitors, this station will record the general air
              quality impact of the aggregate of these activities. Second, when winds are
              from other directions, this station will be used to determine the true background
              pollutant levels for the study region. These background values may well be
              substantially different from the EPA values heretofore assumed. The third use
              of data from this station will be to monitor the trends in air quality caused by
              expansion or an increase in the number of nearby sources. In this manner,
              modeling need not be relied upon exclusively to keep track of increment.

                 In addition to augmentation of -the existing State network for purposes of
           documenting overall regional air quality, implementation of special purpose
                                    0
           particulate monitoring systems should also be considered. The primary purpose
           of such systems would be to determine fugitive emissions and their associated
           impacts. Reliable fugitive emissions factors simply do not exist for many peat-

                                                        401

                          related activities. Studies should be designed to determine emission factors as
                          functions of wind speed, moisture (precipitation, evaporation, and relative
                          humidity),. and activity (vehicles per day or tons of material handled) for the
                          following:

                                0     Peat mining,
                                0     Peat transportation, and
                                0     Peat handling and storage.

                          The emission factors developed for these activities must include mass emission
                          by particle size to be successfully used in          dispersion modeling

                                Since the operation of monitoring programs entails some considerable
                          expense, the responsibility for their implementation and maintenance should be
                          shared. by the applicants for peat mining and other peat-related licenses. The
                          Department of Environmental Management anticipates that a monitoring
                          network will eventually need to be established, and that a significant portion of
                          the monitoring will likely have to be performed by the mining operators. The
                          Division's approach to monitoring peat mining impacts is to allow, limited initial
                          mining to proceed while affording the opportunity to evaluate the mining
                          impacts.     From these evaluations, operational conditions and monitoring
                          requirements can be applied to future permits or renewals.              Currently, Air
                          Quality Permits issued to peat mining operations are only issued for one year.

                                Compliance monitoring can also be required under the State's Mining Act
                          of 1971. Although the phrases "unduly adverse" and "significantly adverse" are
                          used in the Mining Act in reference to effects on wildlifej fisheries, and
                          publicly-owned parks, forests, and recreation areas, there are no concrete
                          standards attached to these phrases. Revision of the Mining Act may be needed
                          to quantify these standards, thus allowing lack of monitoring to be cited as a
                          reason for denying mining permits.

                         For the purpose of studying PSD increment consumption by sources that
                   could potentially locate in the region, it will be necessary to determine the
                   amount of increment remaining at*various receptor locations in both the Class I
                   and Class II portions of the study region. This will require compilation of a
                   special source data base (inventory) of emission changes both inside the region
                   and at sources outside the region but having a significant effect upon the region.

                                                              402

                     Model Validation/Calibration

                           Accuracy of dispersion model predictions 13 generally considered to be
                     within a factor or two of the actual concentration. Modeling accuracy lessens as
                     source-receptor distance increases or as influence of topographical features that
                     violate model assumptions (such as nearby significant bodies of water) become
                     important. Both of these problems leading to accuracy degradation are present
                     when ISC is used for predictions in the Class I area. The most restrict   ive Class I
                     so 2 PSD increment is less than 2 percent of the corresponding NAAQS. This
                     almost infinitesimally small concentration increment is extremely difficult to
                     predict accurately. It is almost beyond the current state of the art. In addition
                     to the factor of two uncertainty generated simply by modeling theory and
                     assumptions, other sources of possible inaccuracy are present.           A modeling
                     analysis can be no more accurate than the input source emissions data. Sources
                     not included in the inventory that are actually present, sources that are included
                     but are actually defunct, and errors in emissions or stack data may seriously
                     degrade the modeling.

                           For all the above reasons, a validation of modeling results for the     Class I
                     area is considered an absolute necessity. A validation program using           quality
                     assured monitored data and emission information from the sources now affecting
                     the Class I area should be developed. Calibration of ISC for.the study region
                     may be possible if the validation results are disappointing.'

                                                          403

                10.9 Appendix for Section 6.7: Local Economics and Employment.

                                                                                        e

                                                 404

                                     SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

                Large-scale developments have the potential to greatly affect a region's

             people, communities and governmental-institutions. For developments that are

             resource based, and for developments that occur in sparsely populated agricul-

             tural areas, the potential for important impacts is especially great.  Peat

             mining in North Carolina possesses both these attributes. The socioeconomic

             analysis in this report is designed to: (1) establish a general framework

             for analysis of the social and economic impacts of peat mining in North Carolina

             and (2) estimate those impacts to the extent possible given the time constraints

             placed on thi,s study and the general lack of available data necessary for a full

             understanding of peat mining impacts. This Appendix expands somewhat on the

             procedures in the basic report but does not present again those results pro-

             vided in Section 5.8.

                 It is useful to separate economic impacts into two components: (1) private

             sector impacts and (2) public sector impacts.

                                           Private Sector Impacts

                Through production of output that is demanded locally and/or nationally,

             peat mining will create jobs and provide income through salaries paid to

             workers and through increased demand for materials from input and service

             supplying businesses. These are often called the direct effects of an expan-

             sion of an industrial sector.

                 In addition, these direct effects lead to additional income-generating

             effects: (1) through wage earners spending of money received from their

             employment at the new or expanded industry and (2) through direct suppliers

             purchasing additional materials and hiring labor in order to provide the

             inputs and materials to the peat mining industry.  These are often called

             indirect effects. More specifically, the trickle-down cumulative impact of

             wage earners spending their money is often called the consumer indirect.
                                                         405

                  effect, while the trickle-down cumulative impact of purchases of inputs is

                  called a producer indirect effect.   In cases where wage earners spend a large

                  proportion of their earnings locally, and where input purchases are made

                  locally rather than from producers located great distances from the -site of

                  the new industry, the indirect income and employment impacts can be 'Substantial.

                  It is important to understand that the economic impacts of peat miniig on the

                  private sector is not limited to their payments of wages to employees nor to

                  purchases of supplies to construct and operatE- the peat mining facility

                     Direct employment and income effects are normally estimated from studies

                  relating the value of the output of the new industry to its projected employ-

                  ment and wages paid, and to projected expenditures for construction or opera-

                  ting materials. Indirect employment and income eff  ects are typically estimated

                  using input-output models that provide output employment and income multipliers

                  by which peat mining output levels can be multiplied to obtain the desired

                  "trickle-down" consumer and producer indirect effects. Alternative output

                  levels can be developed from phasing of plant capacity schedules or plans

                  and scenarios of multiple industry possibilities.

                                                Public Sector Impacts

                     Economic growth and development affects the fiscal affairs of local

                  government by providing revenue and by causing government to incur additional
                  expenses.  On the revenue side, the process of constructing and operating the

                  peat mining facility will provide revenues for, the operation of state and

                  local government.  Currently included in North Carolina are, for example,
                  business and personal property tax, sales tax, utility franchise tax, intangible
                  personal property.tax, motor fuel tax, corporate and personal income taxes,
                  unemployment taxes and inventory taxes.   Some of these taxes go to the state
                  and others are paid to counties and cities.   The amount of these funds avail-

                  able locally depends upon how taxes are administered locally and upon how the

                                                         406

              state shares with local government the taxes it collects. An additional factor

              is whether a severance charge is assessed and, if so, how it is distributed.
              In addition, new residents in the area will be assessed sales taxes on pur-
              chases and property taxes on homes and personal property.    Taken in sum, this
              revenue is available to pay or help pay for the public service and facilities
              costs local government incurs as a result of the development of the peat mining
              industry and the new residents it attracts.

                  The fiscal cost impacts of growth and development upon the public sector
              are understood or acknowledged to a lesser degree than are the private sector
              income and employment impacts, because of the less obvious   (on the surface)
              tie between the arrival of new workers and families and the demand for public
              services and facilities they create. However, these costs and benefits are
              just as real and must be estimated to fully understand the total impact of the
              peat mining industry on coastal North Carolina residents.

                 Public service and facilities costs depend largely upon the influx of new
              residents (workers and families) resulting from the construction and operation
              of the peat mining facility. This, in turn, depends upon the level of d,irect
              and indirect employment generated by the facility, the level of unemployment
              and skills available within the area, the labor force participation rate, the
              extent to which workers currently employed and living elsewhere commute to the
              peat mining facility rather than relocate their residence, and family composi-
              tion of the new residents (size of family, number of children, whether both
              spouses work, etc.).  Community service impact models can be constructed at
              various levels of detail to estimate these impacts.
                  In the public sector, the issue is not whether the peat mining facility
              provides revenue to or generates costs for local government. It is clear that
              both costs and revenues will be generated. Rather, the issue-concerns the net

              balance, that is, whether or not the public costs generated by the peat mining

                                                      407

                 activity are offset by revenues generated.  Both short-run and long-run time

                 frames must be analyzed.  Further, it is essential to know the cumulative

                 effects of the development since multiple developments may occur in which case

                 the impact of the sum of all activities may exceed the sum of the individual

                 parts.

                                                        408

                                            Long-run Impactsl

                 Long-run impacts are those that have occurred after the economy has had a

            chance to fully adjust to the new activity and which are expected to be long

            lasting. Two types of impacts are considered: economic impacts and fiscal

            impacts.

            Economic  Impacts

                 Stimulation of the economies of Tyrrell, Hyde, Washington and surround-

            ing counties is assumed to occur because of rising demand for the final products

            of the peat mining industry. Increased demand for these exportable goods leads

            to direct and indirect employment and income increases in those counties and,
            perhaps, in other counties as well.2

                The estimates presented in Section 5.8 are based upon a number of assump-

            tions and upon data that may or may not reflect what might result in reality if

            the plant were to be constructed.   Although this is the nature of any study of

            such a type because of the highly speculative and uncertain nature of key pieces

            of data, the roughness of the estimates should not be underestimated. Many of

            PMA's assumed coefficient levels were used for the direct plus indirect impact

            without verification. Also, the 1.55 income multiplier derived in a coal mining

            study but used here may not be accurate for peat mining.   Without the benefit of

            time for an in-depth study and analysis, these assumptions are the best available.

            Nevertheless, it can be said that the PMA study ignores the indirect effect of

            constructing the peat mining facility and, thus, underestimates the long-run

            employment, population and income effects of the facility.

                IThis report has benefited greatly from the work of Stinson, et al. [1982].
                2A]though the foc-is of the scenarios is upon Tyrrell, Hyde and Washington
            Counties, the economic impact will extend far beyond those counties.   PMA
            assumes workers will commute 1 hour 15 minutes to work on the project, thus
            affecting 12 counties.   The PMA Socioeconomic Analysis uses a study area of 10
            counties and, since this section is heavily dependent upon their data, the
            same is used here.

                                                    409

                     It might also be worthwhile to note that the information available in 'the

                 PMA study does not lend itself to providing the type of income estimate normally

                 derived from an input-output model. That is, the income estimate from PMA is

                 the retail sales volume generated by the spending of new workers and their

                 families, whereas an input-output model uses the value of output from the new

                 industry. In the latter case, changes in output level (assumed to bE! generated

                 by increased demand for its products) works through the sectoral interdepend-

                 encies in the model to provide estimates of changes in total area income

                 including indirect employment and income from the industries providing services

                 and supplies to the mining activity.

                 Fiscal Impacts

                      Net revenues going to local governments as a result of

                 peat mining may exceed the costs of services and facilities  demanded by new

                 residents. On the other hand, three types of developmental   problems might con-

                 front local governments in the impacted area.   First, long-run fiscal problems

                 may arise in cases where a local government must provide expanded services and

                 facilities but is unable to tax the new facility. This is a spillover problem

                 where new residents locate outside the political boundaries of the local govern-

                 ments that have the power to tax the facility.    Thus, costs of facilities and

                 services to meet demands of residents are incurred without receipt of offsetting

                 tax revenue. Second, even if long-run benefits were to exceed costs, there may

                 arise front-end or short-run fiscal problems where revenues generated lag cost.

                 incidence. For example, local government may need to increase the school budget

                 immediately upon arrival of new residents, whereas tax re venues generated by

                 those residents or from the peat mining facility itself will be lagged 1, 2 of,

                 more years beyond that time.   A short-run cash flow problem will thus arise.

                 Third, the cumulative impacts of peat mining must be studied. To some extent,

                 the scenarios address different levels of development and, thus, go beyond
                                                        410

             estimation of the impacts of a small-scale test facility. However, if develop-
             ments beyond current expectations were to be attracted, impacts will likely
             increase geometrically rather than arithmetically. For example, fiscal costs
             could increase geometrically as excess capacity in the school systems is exhausted,
             as full employment is reached, or as the road system becomes overloaded. Many
             of these costs may not arise with a small facility. The report of the Peat
             Mining Task Force [19831 indicates that success initially could lead to a
             three- to eight-fold expansion of plant capacity. If such is a possibility, an
             in-depth study of the cumulative impacts is required.
                 Fiscal impacts will vary by county and city in the 10-county area.   Taxes
             of several categories will be contributed directly or indirectly by the peat
             mining facility:  business property taxes; unemployment taxes; intangible
             property taxes; inventory taxes; corporate franchise taxes; sales and use taxes;

             and income taxes on wages and proprietory income.   However, the distribution of
             these local and state revenues to individuals and counties will vary greatly.
             For example, Washington County will receive the bulk of the property taxes,
             estimated by PMA to be $900,000 per year.  Municipalities and other counties
             may receive little. Many of the tax categories are paid directly to the state.
             How and to what extent they are distributed to impacted counties and municipali-
             ties will partially determine whether the net fiscal impacts are positive or

             negative.

                 The demands placed on various local governments by new residents will vary
             in similar fashion.  It is estimated by PMA that Chowan and Washington Counties
             will receive most of the influx of new residents. Yet, Washington County will
             likely receive the largest share of revenue generated by the facility. Chowan
             County, and particulacly the City of Edenton where many new residents will
             probably reside, will receive much less.  Other examples could probably be

                                                   411

                 identified with further study. Thus, while a major issue is simply whether

                 long-term benefits of peat mining exceeds its costs, the distribution of those

                 costs and benefits is of equal importance to the citizens of the cities and

                 counties throughout the impacted area.

                      The PMA study generally cites an adequacy of public facilities and ser-

                 vices available to meet the demands of the new residents. This con-

                 clusion deserves a review for two reasons. First, the underestimate of total

                 employment generated by the peat mining facility suggests that the demand

                 placed upon public faciliti es and services is also underestimated. In some

                 cases, the excess capacity may be exhausted requiring new public investments.

                 For example, the increased number of students may require an additional school,

                 especially if the influx of students is concentrated in only two areas, Washing-

                 ton and Chowan Counties.  Further, even if facilities are adequate, several new

                 teachers will likely need to be hired, and each new pupil will need to be

                 supported.

                     The fiscal impacts of peat mining require an in-depth analysis of the

                 amount and distribution of costs and revenues between counties and cities

                 throughout the impacted area. Unequal distribution may lead to increased taxes

                 in some areas while at the same time providing great surpluses in others.

                 Cities especially may not fare well fiscally, because they can be expected to

                 .bear a large proportion of the demand for new services and facilities, yet

                 receive little property tax revenue because the mine will lie outside of their

                 taxing jurisdiction. However, full understanding of the potential for these

                 problems requires an in-depth analysis of state aid formulas and city and county

                 assessment policies and expenditure patterns.

                                                       412

                                             Short-run Impacts

                 Short-run impacts are more difficult to estimate than long-run impacts,

             because a year-by-year schedule of costs and benefits must be estimated rather

             than selecting a single year in the future as is the case for long-run impacts.

             However, the year-by-year assessment is essential, because tax revenue

             generally lags the demand for services and facilities, and cash flow problems
             for local government may result. For a large-scale facility such as planned,
             the short-run impacts can be significant, because the number of construction
             workers greatly exceeds permanent employment after the plant becomes opera-
             tional.  Thus, the number of employees peaks during the middle of the construc-
             tion period, while tax revenues peak after the plant becomes operational.
                As with the long-run economic impact, it is desirable to estimate both
             direct and indirect eaployment and income effects of facility construction.
             However, two key differences in the short-run and long-run impacts are (1) the
             short-run impacts must be calculated on a yearly basis and (2) the short-run
             employment and income multipliers are less than the long-run multipliers,
             because input supply and consumer service industries will not develop due to
             the short-term nature of the demand for their services.  It would not pay to

             invest in service facility construction if the number of workers would be

             greatly reduced in 2.5 to 3 years or less.

                 Data are not readily available to estimate the short-run multipliers

             necessary for estimating service employment and income to add to the direct

             impact of construction workers.  However, the proportional underestimate of

             the total economic effect is likely somewhat less than was the case for the

             long-run impact analysis.

                                                   413

                     Because of the large number of tax categories and because estimates of

                 direct plus indirect employment are unavailable, it is impossible to project

                 whether or not a short-run fiscal problem in certain areas may exist.    However,

                 conclusions reached by PMA that sufficient excess capacity exists in the area

                 to eliminate the need for large, new expenditures for many public services

                 appear reasonable in most cases. However, operating budgets for some services.

                 will increase while capital expenditures may need to be speeded up for others.

                 School budgets will need to be larger even though facilities may be adequate.

                 Improvement and expansion of sewer and solid waste disposal facilities may
                 require added funds in some localities based on data in PMA's study.

                     As with the long-run impact, the distribution of costs and benefits will

                 be important.  Some areas will experience revenue shortfalls, while others will

                 experience surpluses.

                     Estimation of demands for services requires an input-output or community

                 service impact model to determine the interrelationships between industries

                 and areas and the appropriate multipliers.

                                                       Summary

                      In summary, the socioeconomic impacts estimated for this study, while
                 they are the best that could be developed given the time available, should be

                 used with care.   In all cases, they should be considered preliminary estimates

                 because (1) they are based on secondary data currently available for the area or

                 (2) they are data developed in studies of mining in other areas of the country.
                 Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that peat mining will have substantial

                 social and economic i mpacts on a large portion of northeastern North  Ca rol i na,
                 especially because of potential inequalities in the distribution of benefits and

                 costs to different local areas.   Further, the framework required for a more in-

                 depth analysis, one that would provide the data needed, has been demonstrated.

                                                         414

                                                 References

                  Stinson, Thomas F., Lloyd D. Bender and Stanley W. Voelker,   Northern
             Great Plains Coal Mining: Regional Impacts, Agriculture Information Bulletin
             No. 452, Economic Development Division, Economic Research Service, U. S. Depart-
             ment of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., July 1982.                   1
                  Peat Mining Task Force, Peat Mining Task Force Report, North Carolina
             Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, January 1983.
                  Peat Methanol Associates, Socioeconomic Analysis, May 1983.

                                                   415

                    10.10 Abbreviations Used in the Report

                    Table 10.10A Abbreviations used in the report

                    ac              acre
                    ac-ft           acre-foot
                    Ag              silver
                    AP              American Peat Company
                    As              arsenic
                    BACT            bacteria
                    Be              beryllium
                    BMP             Best Management Proctice
                    BOD             biochemical oxygen demand
                    BOD5            biochemical oxygen demand      fuve day
                    BTu             British Thermal unit
                    bu              bushel
                    Ca              calcium
                    CAMA            North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act
                    Cd              cadmium
                    C.F.R.          Code of Federal Regulations
                    cfs             cubic feet per second

                    Cl              chloride
                    cm              centimeter

                    CN              cyanate
                    Co              cobalt
                    Co              carbon monoxide
                    COD             chemical oxygen demand
                    Cos             carbonyl sulfide
                    Cr              chromium
                    Cu              copper
                    DEM             Division of Environmental Management
                    DMF             Division of Marine Fisheries
                    DO              dissolved oxygen
                    DS              total dissolved solids
                    ECU             East Carolina University
                    Elev.           elevation
                    EPA             U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
                    ESE             Environmental Science and Engineering
                    evapotr.        evapotranspiration
                    Fe              iron

                    Fl              fluoride
                    ft3             cubic feet
                    gal             gallon
                    gpd             gallons  per day
                    G.S.            General  Statutes
                    ha              hectare
                    HEP             Habitat  Evaluation Procedure
                    Hg              mercury
                    hr              hour
                    HSI             Habitat  Suitability Index
                    HS              hydrogen sulfide

                                                    4-16

                in             inch
                IWW            Intracoastal Waterway
                kg             kilogram
                Kjeld-N        Kjeldahl nitrogen (total nitrogen)
                1              liter
                LD 50          lethal dose (50% mortality)

                LQ             Land Quality Section, Division of Land
                 3             Resources, NRCD
                M              cubic meter
                max            maximum
                Mg             magnesium
                mg             milligram
                mg/l           milligrams per liter
                mgd            million gallons per day
                Mgt/mgmt       management
                mgy            million gallons per year
                mi             mile
                mi2            square mile
                ml             milliliter
                Mn             manganese
                MSL            mean sea level
                -4tg           microgram
                N              nitrogen
                Na             sodium
                NC             North Carolina
                NCSU           North Carolina State University
                Neg            negligible
                NH3            ammonia
                NH4            ammonium

                Ni             nickel
                NNE            north-northeast
                No./100 ml     number per 100 milliliters
                NO2            nitrite
                NO3            nitrate

                NPDES          National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
                NRCD           North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
                               and Community Development
                NWR            National Wildlife Refuge
                Ortho-P        orthophosphate
                P              phosphorus
                Pb             lead
                perm           permanent
                PF             Peat Fuels, Inc.
                pH             a measure of acidity
                PMA            Peat Methanol Associates
                PNA            drimary nursery area
                PO4            phosphate

                ppb            parts per billion

                                              417

                    PPM             parts per million
                    PSD             Prevention of Significant Deterioration
                    R               river
                    RR              railroad
                    Rte             route
                    Sat             saturation
                    Sb              antimony
                    SCN             thiocyanate
                    Se              selenium
                    S.E.            standard error
                    so2             sulfur dioxide
                    so 4=           sulfate

                    so              sulfur oxides
                      x

                    SSE             south-southeast
                    SSW             south-southwest
                    T               time
                    temp            temporary
                    TN              total nitrogen
                    tons/yr         tons per year
                    Tot. Org. N     total organic nitrogen
                    TP              total phosphorus
                    TPY             tons per year
                    TSS             total suspended solids
                    UNC             University of North Carolina
                    U.S.C.          United States Code
                    U.S.G.S.        U. S. Geological Survey
                    WTF             Whitetail Farms
                    yr              year
                    Zn              zinc

                                                     418

                                                                 CEIP PUBLICATIONS

                                  1.  Hauser, E. W. , P. D. Cribbins, P. T. Tschetter. arid R. D. Latta. Coastal Energy
                                      Transportation Needs to Support Major Energy Projects in North Carolina's Coastal Zone.
                                      CEIP Report #1. September 1981. $10.

                                  2.  P. D. Cribbins. A Study of OCS Onshore Support Bases and Coal Export Terminals. CEIP
                                      Report #2. September 1981. $10. (NTIS # PB82-202912)
                                  3.  Tschetter, P. T. , M. Fisch, and R. D. Latta. An Assessment of Potential [mpacts of
                                      Energy-Related Transportation Developments on North Carolina's Coastal Zone.         CEIP
                                      Report #3. July 1981. $10. (NTIS # PB83-203042)

                                  4.  Cribbins, P. S. An Analysis of State and Federal Policies Affecting Major Energy
                                      Projects in North Carolina's Coastal Zone.      CEIP Report #4.   September 1981,     $10.
                                      (NTIS   PB82-202920)

                                  5.  Brower, David, W. D. McElyea, D. R. Godschalk, and N. D. Lofaro. Outer Continental
                                      Shelf Development and the North Carolina Coast: A Guide for Local Planners.          CEIP
                                      Report #5. August 1981. $10. (NTIS # PB82-196304)

                                  6.  Rogers, Golden and Halpern, Inc., and Engineers for Energy and the Environment., Inc.
                                      Mitigating the Impacts of Energy Facilities: A Local Air Quality Program for the
                                      Wilmington, N. C. Area. CEIP Report #6. September 1981. $10. (NTIS # PB82-197872)

                                  7.  Richardson, C. J. (editor). Pocosin Wetlands: an Integrated Analysis of Coastal Plain
                                      Freshwater Bogs in North Carolina. Stroudsburg (Pa): Hutchinson Ross. 1981. 364 pp.
                                      $25. Available from School of Forestry, Duke University, Durham, N. C. 27709. (This
                                      proceedings volume is for a conference partially funded by N. C. CEIP.)

                                  8.  McDonald, C. B. and A. N. Ash. Natural Areas Inventory of Tyrrell County, North
                                      Carolina. CEIP Report #8. October 1981. $10. (NTIS # PB83-209072)

                                  9.  Fussell, J. 0. , III, and E. J. Wilson. Natural Areas Inventory of Carteret County,
                                      North Carolina. CEIP Report #9. June 1983. $10.

                                 10.  Nyfong, T. D. Natural Areas Inventory of Brunswick County, North Carolina.           CEIP
                                      Report #10. October 1981. $10. (NTIS # PB83-234039)

                                 11.  Leonard, S. W. , and R. J. Davis. Natural Areas Inventory for Pender County, North
                                      Carolina. CEIP Report #11. October 1981. $10. (NTIS # PB83-209106)

                                 12.  Cribbins, Paul D. , and R. Daniel Latta.       Coastal Energy Transportation Study;
                                      Alternative Technologies for Transporting and Handling Export Coal.. CEIP Report #12.
                                      January'1982. $10. (NTIS # PB83-203067)

                                 13.  Creveling, Kenneth.   Beach Communities and Oil Spills: Environmental and Economic
                                      Consequences for Brunswick County, N. C. CEIP Report #13. May 1982. $10@ (NTIS
                                      PB83-209064)

                                 14.  Rogers, Golden and Halpern, Inc., and Engineers for Energy and the Environment. The
                                      Design of a Planning Program to Help Mitigate Energy Facility-Related Air Quality
                                      Impacts in the Washington County North Carolina Area. CEIP Report # 14. September
                                      1982. $10. (NTIS # PB83-234021)

                                 15.  McDonald C. B. , A. N. Ash, and John Fussell. Natural Areas Inventory of Craven County,
                                      North Carolina. CEIP Report #15. December 1981. $10. (NTIS # PB83-234021)

                                 16.  Frost, Cecil C. Natural Areas Inventory of Gates County, North Carolina. CEIP Report
                                      #16. April 1982. $10. (NTIS # PB83-209098)

                                 17.  Stone, John R. , Michael T. Stanley, and Paul T. Tschetter.           Coastal Energy
                                      Transportation Study:    Impacts of Increased Rail Traffic on Communities in Eastern
                                      North Carolina. CEIP Report # 17. August 1982. $10. (NTIS # PB83-203075)

                                 18.  Kazarian, Jacqueline S.    Newport River Estuary Dye Study:      An Analysis of Water
                                      Movement. CEIP Report # 18. March 1983. $10.00. (NTIS # PB84-222397)

                                 19.  Pate, Preston P., and Robert Jones. Effects of Upland Drainage on Estuarine Nursery
                                      Areas of Pamlico Sound, North Carolina. CEIP Report #19. December 1981. $1.00. (UNC,
                                      Sea Grant Working Paper 81-10). (NTIS # PB83-168096)

                                 20.  Carraway, R. J., and L. J. Priddy. Mapping of Submerged Grass Beds in Core arid Bogue
                                      Sounds, Carteret County, North Carolina, by Conventional Aerial Photography. CEIP
                                      Report #20. November 1983. $10.                                                       8/84

                                                                      CEIP PUBLICATIONS

                           22.  Epperly, Sheryan P. The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Computerized
                                Biological Monitoring Database: System Description and User's Manual. CEIP Report
                                #22. May 1984. Available as photocopy for reproduction charge.

                           23.  Epperly, Sheryan,P. Fishes of the Pamlico-Albemarle Peninsula,   N.C.: Area Utilization
                                and Potential Impacts. CEIP Report #23. Jointly published as Division of Marine
                                Fisheries Special Scientific Report #23. July 1984. $10.
                                                                      1
                           24.  Stoll, Evans, Woods & As"qiotes. Railroad Induced Vibrations, New Bern, North
                                Carolina, August, 10 & 11, 11983. CEIP Report #24. March 1983. $1.00. (NTIS # PB83-
                                233221)

                           25.  Wang Engineering Co., Inc. Analysis of the Impact of Coal Trains Moving Through
                                Morehead City, North Carolina. CEIP Report #25. October 1982. $10. (NTIS # PB83-
                                200865)

                           26.  Anderson & Associates, Inc. Coal Train Movements Through the City of Wilmington, North
                                Carolina. CEIP Report #26. October 1982.    $10. (NTIS # PB83-200857)

                           27.  Peacock, S. Lance and J. Merrill Lynch. Natural Areas Inventory of Mainland Dare
                                County, North Carolina. CEIP Report #27.   November 1982. $10. (NTIS # PB83-208736)

                           28.  Lynch, J. Merrill and S. Lance Peacock.    Natural Areas Inventory of Hyde County, North
                                Carolina. CEIP Report #28. October 1982. $10.
                                MIS # PB83-208728)

                           29.  Peacock, S. Lance and J. Merrill Lynch. Natural Areas Inventory of Pamlico County,
                                North Carolina, CEIP Report #29. November 1982. $10. (NTIS # PB83-209114)

                           30.  Lynch, J. Merrill and S. Lance Peacock. Natural Areas Inventory of Washington County,
                                North Carolina. CEIP Report #30. October 1982. $10. (NTIS # PB83-209080)

                           31.  Muga, Bruce J. Review and Evaluation of Oil Spill Models for Application to North
                                Carolina Waters. CEIP Report #31. August 1982. $10. (NTIS # PB83-209056)

                           32.  Lukin, C. G., and L. L. Mauger. Environmental Geologic Atlas of the North Carolina
                                Coastal Zone.-  Dare, Hyde, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties.        CEIP Report #32.
                                November 1983. $10.

                           33.  Sorrell, F. Yates and Richard R. Johnson. Oil and Gas Pipelines in Coastal North
                                Carolina: Impacts and Routing Considerations. CEIP Report #33. December 1982. $10.
                                MIS # PB83-233973)

                           34.  Roberts and Eichler Associates, Inc. Area Development Plan for Radio Island. CEIP
                                Report #34. June 1982. $10. (NTIS # PB83-200873)

                           35.  Cribbins, Paul D. Coastal Energy Transportation Study: The Potential for Wide-Beam,
                                Shallow-Draft Ships to Serve Coal and Other Bulk Commodity Terminals along the Cape
                                Fear River. CEIP Report #35. August 1982. $10. (NTIS # PB83-203380)

                           36.  DNRCD Peat Mining Task Force. Peat Mining and Natural Resources. CEIP Report #36.
                                March 1983. $10. (NTIS # PB83-172049)

                           37.  Vandenberg, J. J. , and K. R. Knoerr. The Deposit of Airborne Materials in the Lake
                                Phelps, N.C. , Region. CEIP Report #37. March 1983. $10. (NTIS # PB83-234054)

                           38.  Wyman, C. D. , D. J. Brower, and R. M. Kessler. Oil and Gas Leasing of North Carolina's
                                Submerged Lands. CEIP Report #38. March 1984. $10.

                           39.  N.C. Division of Environmental Management.        Water Quality Monitoring in the
                                Pamlico/Albemarle Peninsula. CEIP Report #39. March 1984.
                           40.  Gale, Judith A. , and David A. Adams (eds -) - Cumulative Impacts of Peat Mining. Final
                                Project Report. CEIP Report #40. August 1984. $20.
                           41.  Gregory, J. D., R. W. Skaggs, R. G. Broadhead, R. H. Culbreath, J. R. Bailey, and T.
                                Foutz. Hydrologic and Water Quality Impacts of Peat Mining in the Coastal Zone of North
                                Carolina.   CEIP Report #41. Jointly published as N.C. Water Resources Research
                                Institute Report #214. September 1983. $8 (available from WRRI) -

                                                                                                                      8/84

                                                                                                    DATE DUE

                                                                                  GAYLORDINo. 2333                            TI@MTED IN U S A

                                                                                            3 6668 14106 1921