Mining Policy An Amendment to the Land Use Plan-1983

DCM COPY DCM COPY
lease do not remove!!!!!
L.'visd-n of Coastal Management
MINING POLICY
AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
PLAN OF PAMLICO COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
W:K

MINING POLICY:
AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN OF PAMLICO COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
The preparation of this document was financed in part
through a 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 Zone Management,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
1983
1

COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Robert A. Paul
Patsy M. Sadler Vincent J. Sevenski
John W. Van Hook Don E. Lee, Jr.
C. Waddell Gaskill W. Bradford Rice
PLANNING BOARD
Clifton E. Stowe
Frank T. Willis William Gibbs, Jr.
J. David Simpson W. Odell Spain
Eugene Broughton, Secretary
Bernard B. Hollowell, Jr., Attorney
COUNTY MANAGER
William R. Rice
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Bernard B. Hollowell
COUNTY FINANCE OFFICER
Dorothy C. Avent
CONSULTANTS
David J. Brower
Charles D. Wyman
Kathleen Anne Blaha
Lee Mullis
Julie Ann Shambaugh
i

Table of Contents
Page
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I. Natural Resources
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. Agricultural Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
C. Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
D. Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
E. Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
F. Oil and Natural Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
G. Peat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
H. Phosphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
I. Land Ownership Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
II. Peat Mining
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A. Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
B. Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
C. Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.
Fiscal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 26
2.
Transportation . . . o o 0 0
0 27
3.
Water . . . . . . .
27
4 .
Air . . . . . . . . . o
30
5.
Wildlife Habitat and Natural Areas . . . . . .
. . . . 31
6.
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 32
7.
Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 32
iii

Page
III. Phosphate Mining
Introduction . . .
35
A. Mining and Processing Technology
. .
..
36
B. Market o
. . . . .
. .
40
C. Impacts
41
1. Employment
42
2. Fiscal . 9
42
3. Social .
43
4. Transportation . . . .
.
44
5. Water
45
6. Air
. . .
. . . .
47
7. Radiation . . . . . .
.
. .
48
8. Aesthetics
. . .
. . .
50
9. Wildlife . . . . . . .
. .
51
10. Land Use . . . . . . .
. . 0
51
11. Slurry Borehole Mining
. . . . .
. . . .
52
IV. Existing Legislation and Policy
Affecting
Peat
and
Phosphate Mining
Introduction . .
55
A. Federal Statutes . . . . .
. . . .
. . .
. . . .
55
B. North Carolina Statutes .
. . . . .
.
58
C. Pamlico County Policy . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . . .
. . . .
64
V. Mining Policy
Introduction . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. .
. . . .
.
65
A. Policy for Mineral Resource
Development
in
Pamlico
County
66
B. Options Available to Implement Mining
Policy
68
VI. Environmental Impact Statement
. . . . .
. . .
. . . .
. . .
71
iv

Page
VII. Regulation of Mining Impacts
A. County Authority to Adopt a Mining Ordinance . . . . . . . 77
B. State Regulation of Mining Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
C. Options for Pamlico County 81
VIII. County Taxation of Mining Operations
A. Property Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
B. License or Severance Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Selected Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Appendices
A. Environmental Impact Statement Ordinance . . . . . . . 107
B. Pamlico County Mining Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
C. Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
v

Maps
Number
Title
Page
1.
Significant Soil Types
5
2.
Commercial Forest
. . . .
. . . 7
3.
Primary Nursery Areas
9
4.
Peat Resources and Oil
Wells
14
5.
Thickness of Pungo River Formation
15
6.
Overburden Thickness
16
7.
Average Composition of
Rock Types
Within the Pungo River
Formation
17;
8.
Large Parcel Ownership
. . . . . .
. . . . 20
vi

INTRODUCTION
Pamlico County is blessed with a great many natural resources: clean
air, good agricultural land, a good water supply, forests, productive wetlands
and estuaries, varied wildlife, abundant natural beauty, and peat and phos-
phate deposits.
The economic, social and psychological well-being of the people of the
county has depended on sustaining the quality and quantity of these resources
since the county was first inhabited. This dependence is expected to con-
tinue, and probably to increase, as the rising demand for food leads to in-
creased agriculture, aquaculture and fishing in the county and as the rising
demand for recreational facilities increases second home development, recrea-
tional fishing and recreational boating in the county.
The development of each of these natural resources may have immediate,
serious, and long-lasting impacts on one or more of the others. Impacts on
the local economy can be easily measured in fiscal or monetary terms, but
impacts on the social and psychological well-being of the people may be of
equal or even greater importance even though they are difficult, if not
impossible, to measure in economic terms.
In recent years there has been growing interest in the commercial
potential of the county's peat and phosphate deposits. Development of these
deposits will not only be a source of economic development for the county, but
will also place further demands and stresses on the county's natural resource
base.
It is the purpose of this report to describe the natural resources of the
county, the methods by which peat and phosphate resources will probably be
1

mined, and existing federal, state and local policy regarding development
of these resources.
The report also contains a proposed statement of policy regarding the
development of these mineral resources for consideration by the County Board
of Commissioners and a discussion of various options available to the county
to implement this policy.
2

Chapter One
NATURAL RESOURCES
Introduction
Pamlico County depends on its natural resources for its economic and
social well-being. The major economic activities of the county --
agriculture, forestry, recreation, and fishing -- are all dependent on the
quality and abundance of these resources. It is the county's open lands and
miles of coast that make it attractive for recreation and wildlife habitat; it
is the undisturbed estuaries and clean waters that make commercial fishing
possible and profitable; and it is the rich soils that make it successful
farming country. In addition to supporting these economic activities, Pamlico
County's natural resources make the area an attractive and comfortable place
to live.
There are a number of competing uses for these natural resources, and the
pressures upon them continue to grow. Decisions to develop any of these
resources should take into consideration the impacts of development on other
resources and resource uses in the county and the irreversibility of the
development decision.
The remainder of this chapter presents a survey of these resources, their
location, abundance, and use.l
3

A. Agricultural Land
Agriculture is a major economic activity in Pamlico County. According to
the U.S. Census of Agriculture, 42,597 acres of land in the county (19.7
percent of the county total) were farmed in 1978, placing agriculture second
in rank only to forestry in area occupied. Average farm size was 245 acres,
and gross crop and livestock receipts totalled $10,761,000.
Two soil associations common in the county, Lenoir -Leaf and Portsmouth-
Woodington, are suitable for farming (see Map 1). Both associations consist
of nearly level, wet uplands and terraces underlain by clay or loamy
sediments.
Yield per acre for corn, soybeans, Irish potatoes, and tobacco, the major
cash crops, has historically been higher for Pamlico County than for the state
as a whole. Statistics for major crops in 1980 are:
Corn
Irish
Potatoes
Tobacco
Soybeans
Wheat
Pamlico's
Rank
North
Carolina
Pamlico
County
Among 100
Counties
Yield
Acres
Yield
Acres
Yield
Acres
Per Acre
Harvested
Per Acre
Harvested
Per Acre
harvested
60 bu
1,730,000
103 bu
10,300
1
45
133 CWT
16,700
130 CWT
2,600
17
2
2,011 lbs
378,800
2,080 lbs
690
29
61
18.5 bu
1,930,000
27 bu
22,400
4
36
35 bu
300,000
45 bu
4,600
3
31
4

Ul

B. Forests
Forestry, along with farming, is an important Pamlico County economic
activity. Four major commercial timber companies own land in Pamlico County:
Land in Acres
Weyerhauser 20,660.9
Pamlico Timber 16,336.0
International Paper 11,100.1
Taylor 14,051.2
Total 62,148.2
Forest plantations are becoming more prevalent as land clearing
increases. Tree farming is becoming popular with area farmers. When drained
and cleared, pocosin lands make suitable loblolly pine plantations.
Forest Service data for Pamlico County in 1974 (the date of the last
comprehensive survey) list a total of 147,115 acres of commercial forest land;
areas currently being managed for commercial production are shown in Map 2.
In 1979, Pamlico County lands yielded 4,149,000 board feet of sawtimber and
29,807 cords of pulpwood. Forestry income in 1980 (based on stumpage prices)
was estimated at slightly more than $3 million.
C. Water
Commercial fishing in Pamlico County produced a 1981 catch of 17.3
million pounds worth approximately $6.6 million (Table 1). Primary fishing
ports in the county include Bayboro, Hobucken, Lowland, Oriental, Pamlico,
Vandemere, and Whortonsville.
Of special importance in supporting these fisheries are the protection
of primary nursery areas (Map 3). Primary nursery areas are defined as
"those areas in which for reasons such as food, cover, bottom type, salinity,
6

V
i
r
o u„� jr
i
:ST

Table 1
Preliminary Fish Landings for Pamlico County, 1981
Species Pounds
Anglerfish
76,752
Bluefish
355,529
Butterfishes
33,606
Croaker
7229827
Flounders, Fluke, Unclassified
3,673,113
King Whiting
7,846
Mullet
63,957
Scups or Porgies
85,915
Sea Basses, Unclassified
34,654
Sea Trout, Grey
3,210,890
Sea Trout, Spotted
4,013
Shad
19,913
Snappers
1,937
Spot
131,869
Striped Bass, Unclassified
7,110
Sturgeons
4,555
Swellfishes
18,186
Whiting
125,389
Unclassified for Industrial
905,762
Other and Miscellaneous Finfish
192,870
Total Finfish
9,676,693
Crab, Blue, Hard
7,098,275
Crab, Blue, Soft
12,902
Shrimps (heads on)
428,129
Oyster (meats)
48,711
Squids
39,061
Miscellaneous Shellfish
3,354
Total Shellfish 7,630,432
County Total 17,307,125
H.
Value
30,546
48,410
7,714
227,540
2,3341721
2,187
10,560
19,558
19,245
947,669
1,767
14,431
2,568
31,935
10,667
1,546
5,129
12,709
32,934
109,279
3,871,115
1,720,822
19,654
965,896
55,865
9,192
1,283
2,722,712
6,643,827

.o
,AS
w
w

temperature and other factors, young finfish and crustaceans spend the major
portion of their initial growing season. Primary nursery areas [as distin-
guished from secondary ones] are those areas in the estuarine system where
initial post -larval development takes place. These areas are usually located
in the uppermost sections of a system where populations are uniformly very
early juveniles" (15 N.C.A.C. 3B .1402). State fishing regulations prohibit
the use of bottom -disturbing fishing gear in these areas, and the state
regularly denies permits for any type of bottom -disturbing activity here.
D. Recreation
Pamlico County has 348 miles of bay and estuarine shoreline, of which 51
miles are beach shoreline and the remaining 297 miles non -beach shoreline.
Two miles are classified as public recreation and ten miles for private
recreation. Twenty-nine bays, rivers, creeks, and streams are considered to
be public trust waters whose use is generally restricted to fishing and
boating.
The beauty of the county and the surrounding water attracts thousands of
visitors to the region year-round. The recreational use of these areas for
sport -fishing, pleasure -boating, waterfowl hunting and other water -oriented
activities is very important to the county. The ports of Oriental and
Minesott Beach attract sailors, water skiers, fishermen and other
vacationers.
Second home development has followed recreational development as people
choose to spend more and more time in the county. The county generally en-
courages second home development and tourism to the extent that it will not
damage the natural resources that attract the visitors.
10

E. Wildlife
Pamlico County supports an abundance of game and non -game wildlife.
Moderate numbers of deer occur throughout the county, and bear are found along
the northern county line in the vicinity of Mesic and Hobucken. Most North
Carolina game species occur in abundance, including quail, rabbits, squirrel,
dove, woodcock, snipe, raccoon, oppossum, and the.marsh-inhabiting furbearers:
mink, otter, muskrat, beaver, and nutria. A wide variety of waterfowl over -
winter in the Pamlico and Neuse Rivers, Pamlico Sound and associated marshes
and impoundments. The Goose Creek State Game Lands, managed by the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission for wildlife conservation and recreational
hunting, occupy two tracts in the northeast corner of the county.
One federally designated endangered species, the American alligator, is
known to occur in the county, and several others may occur, including the red -
cockaded woodpecker, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, cougar, and shortnose
sturgeon. The county may also support a variety of other species (including
plants, mollusks, insects and vertebrates) without special legal status but
also considered rare or endangered within the state.
An inventory of the natural areas and areas of ecological significance in
Pamlico County has recently been completed by the Natural Heritage Program of
the state's Department of Natural Resources and Community Development and
should be available by mid-1983.
Economic values of wildlife and wildlands are not easily quantifiable,
but evidence indicates that they contribute significantly to the economic base
as well as to the quality of life in Pamlico County. For example, the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission estimates trapping to be at least a $10
million business in North Carolina. Fur harvest reports show that the 12
coastal counties of Beaufort, Bertie, Carteret, Craven, Dare, Hyde, Jones,
11

Martin, Pamlico, Pitt, Tyrrell, and Washington produce 17 percent of the state
harvest of muskrat, 32 percent of the state's harvest of nutria, 16 percent of
the state's harvest of mink, and 15 percent of the state's harvest of otter.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with state wildlife re-
source agencies undertakes a national economic survey every five years. The
latest report, for 1975, showed that North Carolina hunters and fishermen
spent over $746 million in North Carolina during that year. Hunting and fish-
ing revenues for the 12 coastal counties contributed $90 million to local
economies; an additional $3.5 million is generated by hunters and fishermen in
state and local taxes within the coastal counties.
F. Oil and Natural Gas
Three exploratory wells were drilled east of Highway 55 near Gibbstown
by Carolina Petroleum in 1947, but no oil or gas deposits were discovered (see
Map 4). No wells have been drilled since 1947, and there is no indication
that reserves of oil or natural gas underlie the county.
G. Peat
North Carolina has roughly 1,000 square miles of peatland containing 600
million dry tons of peat. Most of these peat deposits are located in ever-
green shrub bogs called pocosins. Pamlico County contains one major peat
deposit and a portion of another. The Light Ground Pocosin peat deposit
located in the south central part of the County covers 9.26 square miles and
contains roughly 5.2 million tons of moisture -free peat ranging from 0 to 12
feet in thickness. The Bay City Pocosin straddling the border of Pamlico and
Beaufort Counties is approximately 6.8 square miles in area and contains peat
varying from 2 to 5 feet in thickness.
12

The Light Ground Pocosin is, by size, composition, and thickness, the
more valuable deposit (see Map 4). The peat averages 4.5 to 5 feet in thick-
ness, ash content is generally less than 5 percent, and heat value ranges from
9,300 to 10,900 btu/lb, with a median of 10,500.
The peat in the Bay City Pocosin is less likely to be mined. The deposit
is broad and shallow, its average depth ranging from 2 to 4 feet. The average
heating value is 9280 btu/lb, and ash content averages 10 percent.
H. Phosphate
Significant phosphate deposits occur in eastern North Carolina within a
sedimentary rock unit known as the Pungo River Formation. In general, both
the thickness of the formation and the depth to which it is buried beneath
younger sedimentary rocks increases as one moves to the east and north. Maps
5 and 6 show the thickness of the Pungo River Formation and its overburden,
respectively, in Pamlico County. For comparison, in the Aurora area where
mining is currently underway, the Pungo River Formation averages 60-80 feet in
thickness and lies under 60-80 feet of overburden.
The composition of the Pungo River Formation is not uniform, but varies
both vertically and horizontally, being composed of beds of clay, sand, and
carbonate of varying thickness and extent. If vertical variations are
ignored, it is possible to map the formation according to its average
composition`at each test well. In Pamlico County (Map 7), well cores from the
formation fall into four different categories:
1. 75-100 percent sand
2. 50-75 percent sand
3. 50-75 percent clay
4. roughly equal mixture of sand, clay and carbonate.
13

N t
r ` PEAT RESOURCES
OIL WELLS
(dry holes)

Ul
xm
as
as
�/■w■ INDN'S.
.iii•iiii I'lizii•ii••�Iai rr �r■
_ 1 jyiigap - ► iiii�r=!'•.aoy��ggsi: •:' 7 1
'"""'�R4J • � � •'+ �rr'• too,
far Cos..
RAI
All n
.40
f �fri w
f 'Eiger'
`�'T A� r�I •i ��'r 1
so

0
r
•l
OVERBURDEN
.: THICKNESS
Less than 50'
50-75'
®
75-100'
100-125'
125-150'
150-175'
• F777:9
175-200'
' o
Greater than 200'

o
c.
AVERAGE COMPOSITION
OF ROCK TYPES WITHIN
THE PUNGO RIVER FORMATION
71
Mixed clay, sand.
and carbonate
50-7f,l clay
50-1`-'l sand
Greater than 791 sand

Phosphate pellets occur in all rock types found in the Pungo River Formation,
but they are found in high concentrations only in the sands of the unit.
Thus, high concentrations are more apt to be found in areas 1 and 2, though
even 3 and 4 may contain beds of phosphate -rich sand.
The thickness of the formation, the depth to which it is buried beneath
overlying sedimentary rocks, and the concentration of phosphate in the ore are
all factors that determine the commercial potential of a site. The data
available for determining the quality, thickness and overburden of phosphate
in Pamlico County are based on 24 data points in a land area of approximately
335 square miles. To properly evaluate the potential of phosphate resources
in Pamlico County would require a study similar to that done by J.O. Kimrey in
Beaufort County (257 data points in a land area of approximately 830 square'
miles).
North Carolina Phosphate Company recently purchased a large tract of
which 2000 acres lie in Pamlico County, and Texasgulf owns 16,336 acres in
the northwest corner of the county. The potential for development of the
phosphate resources in these tracts or in other areas of the county must be
viewed within the framework of present economic conditions in the phosphate
market and advances in mining technology. Existing market conditions will
not support phosphate mining within the county. Officials of these companies
estimate that it is unlikely that mining will occur in Pamlico County within
20-30 years, given reasonable expectations regarding market conditions and
technological advances.
These conditions could change a great deal, however. Urban growth
pressures in Florida are forcing phosphate interests in that state to look
elsewhere, and eastern North Carolina appears very attractive. A change in
technology or economic conditions could lead one of the two established
18

companies to begin mining actively sooner than predicted or bring anew
company into the area.
I. Land Ownership Patterns
A relatively large proportion of the land area of Pamlico County is owned
by a relatively small number of owners (see Map 8). Other factors being
equal, these areas are easier to develop because a developer attempting to
assemble a large tract need only negotiate with a few landowners.
19

` O �
LARGE PARCEL
OWNERSHIP
500-2000 Ac.
2000-5000 Ac.
Greater than
10,000 Ac.
J
J
� G O
w
co

Chapter Two
PEAT MINING
Introduction
Peat is an accumulation of the partially decomposed remains of grasses,
trees, mosses and other marsh and swamp plants in a wet environment. Anaer-
obic (oxygen -less) conditions prevent insects, fungi and bacteria from decom-
posing the organic materials as they ordinarily would. Peat accumulates at a
rate of about three inches per century.
The extensive peatlands of eastern North Carolina are among the least
appreciated of wild lands and have generally been considered economically
worthless. Forestry and agriculture are almost impossible without proper
drainage, and even with drainage, the deep organic soils do not produce crop
yields comparable to those of shallow organic soils or of the mineral soil
underneath the peat. As a result these areas have usually been the last to be
developed, and consequently today comprise some of the last extensive natural
areas left in the coastal plain.
However, peat does have a high energy value. With the dramatic rise in
oil prices in the 1970s and the federal government's interest in developing
alternative fuels, energy companies and large farming corporations have shown
growing interest in mining the peat. Five state peat mining permits have been
issued (one in Pamlico County), and, though no firm market for peat currently
exists, one may be developing. Carolina Power and Light recently announced
plans to experiment with peat in some of its boilers, and with the approval of
federal price guarantees, plans for a peat -to -methanol conversion plant in
Washington County are now proceeding.
21

There are a number of environmental problems associated with peat mining.
The roles of these wetland areas in sustaining wildlife and protecting fresh-
water and saltwater estuaries are only slowly becoming understood. Dr. Eville
Gorham, a wetlands specialist at the University of Minnesota, has called peat -
lands "the most delicate adjustment of vegetation to hydrology and water flow
known to man."
In this chapter a brief description of peat mining technology is pre-
sented, followed by a discussion of the environmental and socioeconomic
impacts of peat mining.
A. Technology
The technology of clearing and draining peatlands in preparation for
mining is similar to that used for peatland agricultural preparation. If
properly done the land can easily be converted to agricultural use after
harvest.
The first step in preparing peatlands for mining is to lower the water
table through artificial drainage. Drainage systems generally have three
components: primary drainage, secondary drainage, and grading. In the pri-
mary drainage system, large collector canals, spaced about a half mile apart,
empty into transportation or outfall canals, which in turn empty through a
local drainage outlet.
The secondary drainage system consists of a series of parallel field
ditches located perpendicular to the collector canals at intervals of about
160 feet. These ditches collect surface and subsurface waters and carry them
to the primary drainage system. The primary and secondary drainage system
canals delineate rectangular fields, which are leveled to remove potholes and
depressions and graded in two directions at a 0.5 percent slope away from a
22

crown in the center of the field toward the drainage ditches. This ensures
effective surface drainage.
Before the fields can be graded, though, the existing vegetative cover
must be removed. Commercial timber is harvested first, and the remaining
vegetation and any buried wood are pushed into windrows by bulldozers equipped
with blades and rootrakes. This material is periodically burned and repiled
until, after a number of years, it is eliminated. Alternatively, the woody
materials may be ground up and incorporated into the surface layer of the
peat.
Actual mining of the peat begins with lifting of a one -foot deep layer
and laying it on the ground to air dry to between 30 and 50 percent moisture
content. Two mining methods are used, depending on the condition of the land
and the amount of wood and brush present: (1) milling, whereby the top 4 to
10 inches are churned up and left to air dry for a few days, then picked up
with a vacuum or auger harvester 1 to 2 inches at a time; and (2) sod cutting,
whereby a wheel cutter removes (saws) chunks and extrudes them through an
auger back onto the field for drying and recovery. When the peat has dried
sufficiently, it is removed from the field and stockpiled. Either process can
remove about one foot of peat per year, thus requiring 4 to 5 years to mine
the 4 or 5 feet of usable peat in an average deposit.
In many cases, stripping the peat will create large shallow depressions.
These will often lie below the existing surface water table, causing the
ground to become inundated much of the year. The remedy is the continuous
pumping of water up to higher level canals where it can flow away by gravity.
This need for perpetual pumped drainage increases the costs of farming the
land after stripping is finished. This cost, though, may be offset by the
generally high agricultural productivity of the soils exposed by stripping.
23

In some areas it may be possible to lower the entire canal system and thereby
continue to drain by gravity alone. This is true in the Light Grounds deposit
in Pamlico County.
B. Market
Surveys have been conducted, products have been analyzed, and markets
reviewed in North Carolina to determine whether peat is a competitive source
of energy with a market in this region. Three state permits are currently
active. Clearly the peat in North Carolina can be mined. The question is
whether peat mining can show a profit within today's market conditions.
The value of peat cannot be based on market prices as a peat fuel market
does not presently exist in the United States. In Finland, where peat is com-
monly used as a fuel for generation of electricity, prices range from $12.00
to $14.00 per ton delivered. North Carolina peat has less moisture and a
higher BTU content than Finnish peat.1
A peat fuel price can be estimated by deriving a price at which peat
would be commercially competitive with high sulfur coal. Peat and high sulfur
coal are similar in that both are bulky, solid fuels and have high volume ash
residuals.
The cost of producing electricity using high sulfur coal has been esti-
mated to be $0.0308/kwh. Using this final production cost and taking the
estimates of fixed, operating and maintenance costs, and thermal efficiency
for each fuel, the price of peat fuel can be derived. The value of peat cal-
culated in this manner is $13.73/ton.2 Using this derived price to value peat
fuel, the annual benefits from mining sufficient peat to operate a 125 MW
peat -fired utility boiler, 92 tons per hour, is approximately $8.8 million per
year; on a per acre basis, the benefits of peat mining would be approximately
$13,000 per acre (benefit stream over five years discounted at 8 percent).
24

Concern has been expressed by First Colony Farms, Inc. (FCF) in Creswell,
North Carolina, that the above figures are low and do not adequately reflect a
real value for peat, although again, it is difficult to determine a value for
peat when no market exists. FCF has begun mining peat on an experimental
basis (300 acres).
Currently, only horticultural peat has found a steady market in North
Carolina. The most active plan for non -horticultural peat use is Peat Meth-
anol Associates' (PMA) proposal to convert peat into methanol at a plant to be
constructed near Creswell in Washington County. The project passed a major
hurdle in early December 1982, when it received federal loan and price guar-
antees from the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corporation. By 1984, the company hopes
to extract 156,000 gallons of methanol from 2,123 tons of peat supplied daily
by First Colony Farms.
Other, less imminent uses of peat include its use as fuel in electric
utility and industrial boilers. North Carolina peat is of sufficient quality
for use as an industrial fuel and can be used in wood -fired boilers with few
problems. While pound for pound peat is comparable to Eastern Bituminous coal
in energy content, rating between 10,000 and 10,500 BTU/lb, it is far bulkier
and more difficult to handle. Peat is wet and heavy when it comes out of the
ground, and even when dried to 50 percent water content (optimum 30 percent),
it creates shipping problems. Because of its bulk, transport is expensive,
and stockpiling and handling at the use point are cumbersome.
C. Impacts
Economic
The economic impacts of peat mining will be limited in Pamlico County due
to the existence of only one substantial deposit, the Light Ground Pocosin.
25

While there is peat in the Gum Swamp -Bay City Pocosin, it is found in amounts
which may not be economically feasible to harvest.
According to Peatco, estimates for employment at their peat mining site
are 30 direct jobs and 30 indirect jobs (trucking, etc). These figures are
based on a production rate of 400,000 tons of peat per year. Actual pro-
duction will depend on demand, of course, and production will probably not
occur at all unless a steady market for at least 100,000 tons of peat per year
develops. At that level direct employment would fall to 15-18 persons.
Both land clearing and peat mining activities will be continuous opera-
tions, and no distinction is made in the 30 direct jobs as to what activity
is associated with each position. The work is largely unskilled, and no job
training is anticipated. Employees are expected to come from within Pamlico
County according to Peatco.
Fiscal
Property tax consequences of land clearing, peat mining, and farming are
based on conversion of woodlands presently assessed at $80 - $150 per acre,
depending on.quality. Land now equipped with canals and roads adequate for
good forest drainage, fire control, and harvesting is classified "good",
less developed land is classified "fair," and undeveloped land with poor
drainage is classified "poor." After peat is removed from the land, the
farmable areas may be taxed as farmland, in which case the value will in-
crease by a factor of 2.5 to 5 times the current assessed value. Otherwise,
the land will be assessed as woodlands or wasteland. Some of the deep organic
buffer areas may be assessed as wasteland, but other parts of the buffer may
contain fair timberland.
26

Transportation
Pamlico County does not have an extensive primary road system. Access is
limited due to the confluence of the Neuse and Pamlico Rivers into Pamlico
Sound. Highways 55, 306, and 304 form the primary road network in the county,
of which the former two.serve as the major access roads to the Light Ground
Pocosin. At present the truck traffic on these two roads is mostly farming
equipment, trucks involved in the fishing industry, and trucks from light
industry in the area. Present traffic counts for these highways are 4600 and
2000 vehicles daily, respectively.
One of the deterrents to industrial development in the county, mentioned
in the 1980 land use plan, is the lack of a major north -south transportation
route. Ferries operating across the Pamlico and Neuse Rivers are not suitable
for heavy commercial traffic, and although interest has been expressed in
building bridges across these two rivers, construction in the foreseeable
future is unlikely.
The District Engineer for the county foresees no problems with increased
traffic on Highways 55 and 306, which would undoubtedly be used by Peatco to
move the harvested peat to market. Secondary roads could be more of a problem
since most roads leading out of the Light Ground Pocosin area are unpaved.
Maintenance and improvement of county roads is the responsibility of the
N.C. Department of Transportation and is funded by money allocated by the
General Assembly. Funding is based on the mileage of roads in the county, and
not on existing or anticipated traffic counts.
Water
Peat mining itself and the eventual use of the site for agriculture pose
a number of water quality and water management problems. The major. potential
27

effects on water resources of clearing and draining peatlands are fresh water
intrusion, pollution (including organics, nutrients, sediment, bacteria, and
toxics), and alteration of basic hydrology.
Fresh water intrusion: No aspect of coastal land conversion has stirred
more controversy than the generation of surges of fresh water into primary
estuarine nursery areas. The young of a number of commercially important
species (including shrimp, flounder, menhaden, spot and croaker) migrate
across the estuaries to these shallow, protected nursery grounds, where they
feed and grow for several months before re-entering the main estuaries as
older juveniles. The artificial drainage of peatlands as a result of land
clearing, grading and canal construction has resulted in greater freshwater
runoff to adjacent estuaries, and especially in greater variability of runoff,
including large pulses of freshwater inflow following storms. Recent studies
have shown that these changes appear to alter the salinity of adjacent brack-
ish nursery areas in ways. that reduce the abundance of shrimp and other
valuable species.3
Approximately 35 miles of canals have already been dug in the Light
Ground Pocosin to assist natural drainage. Most of the wetland drains north-
ward into the Bay River and Neal Creek, while a small amount of water flows
into Dawson Creek to the south and Greens and Trent Creeks to the east. The
drainage plan for Peatco's proposed mine will result in water runoff from the
peat fields being directed exclusively to Neal and Dawson Creeks. The
receiving waters of Dawson Creek are not officially classified as primary
nursery areas since they lie above the jurisdiction of the Division of Marine
Fisheries, although they are nevertheless known to be utilized by economically
important, juvenile estuarine organisms.
28

Pollution and Hydrologic Balance: Canals draining agricultural and for-
est lands speed the runoff of fresh water from the land into the estuaries.
Residential and commercial development, swamp drainage, channelization, road
construction, and other development activities in the major river basins
increase stream discharge.
As the rate of runoff from land is increased and as canals shunt water
quickly through swamps and marshes, the ability of these wetlands to filter
nutrients and pollutants from the runoff is reduced. In addition, fertilizers
and pesticides used by agricultural and forestry operations are also carried
into the estuaries. It is probably safe to say that short-term pollution
problems from clearing, ditch construction, and even mining are not as severe
as the continuing pollution from agricultural operations. A variety of pol-
lutants from farmlands, tree farms, forest harvest operations, and peat mine
sites are released continuously in significant amounts, including nutrients
(nitrogen and phosphorus) and pesticides.
A recently discovered source of concern is the high levels of mercury
found in waters draining some peatlands. How widespread this phenomenon may
be, what dangers it presents, and what control options are available are still
being investigated.
Sediment load also increases with increased freshwater runoff. This
results in suffocation of eggs and larvae as well as filling of nurseries.
The canal networks draining agricultural and peat lands periodically must be
dredged to remove the sediment generated by upland erosion, windborne erosion,
and local clearing activity.
Where drainage systems are developed, the water table in the pocosin is
generally lowered about three feet, from an average position about one foot
below land surface to an average position about four feet below land surface.
29

Available data show that the water budget for the area remains essentially the
same under natural and drained conditions. There is a significant difference,
however: the runoff element of the water budget before development consists
of sheet flow over the land surface, while after development, it consists of
outflow through the artificial canals. While this artifical drainage aids in
drying organic soils for mining or agricultural purposes, it alters water
quality in a manner not yet completely understood. In addition, as a result
of drainage, organic soils may shrink and subside and can dry irreversibly as
the ground surface cracks, forming clods that will not rewet.
Air
The major air quality impact expected as a result of peat mining is an
increase in ambient levels of particulates. This increase will be generated
by two sources: (1) dust particles from the mine site (known as fugitive
emissions), most of which will be stirred up by vehicular traffic at the mine,
but some of which will come from normal wind erosion of the bare peat surface
and from the peat during transport, and (2) burning of windrows of debris, a
common practice during farmland and forestland clearing throughout eastern
North Carolina. State and federal standards for particulate levels exist, but
establishing a causal relationship between a particulate source (such as the
mine site) and a standards violation can be very difficult. A new permit
system administered by the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development (N.C.G.S. §113-60.24), intended to reduce the hazards of forest
fires and air pollution from open burning, establishes requirements for
burning debris associated with land clearing. Requirements pertain to the
timing and location of burning, contents of the debris, and meteorological
conditions.
30

In addition, pollutants such as nutrients or pesticides attached to soil
particles can be carried by the wind into adjacent bodies of water. In cer-
tain cases, these pollutants may reach significant levels. Several steps can
be taken during land clearing and reclamation to reduce wind erosion and
thereby ameliorate this problem.
Wildlife Habitat and Natural Areas
The rapid clearing and draining of coastal lowlands for peat mining and
agricultural activity is eliminating habitat for game and other wildlife
species. Because pocosins have been the last major tracts of land in the
coastal plain to be developed, they have served as a last refuge for
wide -roaming species such as bear and bobcat, and these species may disappear
altogether as these pocosins are developed. With the removal of vegetation
and eventual conversion of these lands to agriculture or pine plantations, a
number of other game species such as deer will also decline in numbers,
thereby reducing recreational hunting opportunities.
There exists a strong possiblity of the loss of unique biotic communi-
ties. Existing populations of the endangered red -cockaded woodpecker, bald
eagle, and possibly cougar could be further reduced. Windrows, tree belts,
areas retained in forestland and other planned management practices are pre-
scriptions for using the land to protect these species.
Aesthetic or visual satisfaction is another value provided by pocosins.
The scenic diversity and contrast which this unique landscape offers has psy-
chological impacts which can be reflected in social and economic benefits.
Peat mining would completely change the character of the wetland and disrupt
the natural diversity this habitat provides.
A value should also be placed on the potential future use of pocosins.
Leaving pocosins in their natural state does not foreclose the option of their
31

conversion in the future. Pocosin lands have values in and of themselves and
as the remaining portion of a rapidly diminishing resource. As more is
learned about these lands, future generations may value them in their natural
state more highly. Given uncertainty about the role pocosins play in the
coastal ecosystem in North Carolina, the irreversible commitment of these
natural areas that conversion represents must be carefully weighed.
Agriculture
Once the peat is removed from a pocosin, the mineral soils left are well
suited to corn and soybean production, though approximately 5 to 6 tons of
limestone per acre must be added to the soils. Agricultural yields on these
rich soils are higher than state averages: 105 - 130 bushels/acre for corn
and 32 - 40 bu/acre for soybeans on well developed soils, compared with 60-
80 bu/acre for corn and 18 - 24 bu/acre for soybeans statewide.
The detrimental effects of land clearing and row cropping in coastal
lands includes long-term pollution from pesticides and fertilizers, higher
fecal coliform concentrations from animal pastures, and increased sedimen-
tation. Alteration of land use and lowering of the land level have a sig-
nificant effect on the character of the area. A system of canals must be
maintained to provide adequate drainage, and the drainage monitored and
regulated to prevent major changes in freshwater flows into coastal estuaries.
Row cropping also provides little forage, cover and habitat diversity for
wildlife.
Forestry
Forestry or silviculture is an alternative to agricultural use after the
peat has been harvested from a pocosin. Intensive forest management would
require much the same preparation as required for row crop farming, including
32

artificial drainage and peat removal. Though foresters have limited experi-
ence with silviculture on North Carolina's wet soils, companies like
Weyerhauser expect extensive site preparation and management to produce a
high yield of pine sawtimber and pulpwood over time. Burning of the woody
materials that have been cleared from the land is presently the only eco-
nomical method of removing these residues. Energy costs to remove, chip,
and transport this material presently exceed its value as a fuel.
Management of pocosins for timber production is not as detrimental as
agriculture to wildlife, but similar problems occur. Pocosins that have been
cleared, fertilized, and planted in pine are very productive of wildlife for
the first 4 to 5 years, providing abundant forage for deer, and grasses that
give food and cover to small game. This situation changes, however, after the
pines obtain dominance and shade out understory vegetation.
33

Chapter Three
PHOSPHATE MINING
Introduction
Interest in phosphate ore in Beaufort County and surrounding Pamlico and
Hyde counties first arose in 1951 when American Metals Company started explor-
ation for phosphate and obtained mineral leases from the state. Two years
later the company cancelled the leases, having failed to discover any com-
mercial body of phosphate ore. During the rest of the decade, several other
companies investigated the possibilities of phosphate mining in Beaufort
County and then withdrew, for the same reasons.
In 1961, Sun Oil brought the first tonnage quantity of phosphate ore to
the surface using an experimental hydraulic mining technique. The method was
a failure, but the ore obtained was used to develop a processing technology
for the phosphate. In that same year several companies, including Texas Gulf
Sulphur (now Texasgulf), showed renewed interest in the deposits. Texas Gulf
succeeded in acquiring sufficient land and in developing the necessary tech-
nology, and began commercial operations at Lee Creek, near Aurora, in 1966.
There were two main stumbling blocks to the development of the North
Carolina phosphate deposits. The first problem was trying to dry -pit mine a
deposit which lies below sea level, near an ocean -connected waterway, and
directly above a major artesian aquifer, the Castle Hayne Formation. The
solution adopted by Texas Gulf was to pump large quantities of groundwater
from around the mine, depressurizing the underlying aquifer and drying out
the mine area.
35

The second problem was the production of a high grade phosphate concen-
trate from the ore without dilution by sand, shell, and limestones which are
found in some sections of the ore. Studies at the Asheville Minerals Research
Laboratory in the early 1960s led to development of a commercially viable
concentration process that solved this problem. As a result, Texasgulf's
Beaufort County operations have grown to the point where in 1980 they yielded
4.3 million tons of phosphate worth $107.5 million.
Pamlico County contains phosphate deposits, but the thickness of the
rock, the depth to which it is buried, and its distribution make its present
mining uneconomical. While it is likely these deposits will someday be
mined, how soon will depend on future market conditions and technological
developments.
The following discussion centers on present mining techniques and the
impacts of these techniques, and on the new mining methods currently under
development. The account will focus heavily on operations in Beaufort County,
as they provide the best indications available of how development might pro-
ceed in Pamlico County.
A. Mining and Processing Technology
site:
Three different sets of activities may take place at or near the mine
a) mining of the phosphate ore;
b) beneficiation of the ore; and
c) use of the beneficiated product in fertilizer. manufacture.
Whether or not a Pamlico County mine has associated beneficiation and ferti-
lizer production facilities will depend on a number of factors, including the
companies involved and the distance to and available capacity at existing
facilities in Beaufort County. Since all three activities are closely
36

associated and are often located together (as they are at Texasgulf's Beaufort
County operations), all three are briefly described below..
Mining
Currently the only commercially feasible method of mining North Carolina
phosphates is open -pit or strip mining. The first step is to remove the over-
burden to expose the ore body; this can be accomplished in several ways.
Texasgulf, for instance, floods the site and uses a barge-mountedhydraulic
dredge to remove the top thirty-five feet; the land is then drained and the
remaining overburden removed by large draglines. North Carolina Phosphate
Corp. (NCPC), on the other hand, plans to remove all of the overburden by
dragline. The ore itself is then scooped up by draglines and piled on the
bench of the mine. High pressure water jets are used to form a slurry of
the ore, which is transported by pipeline to the beneficiation plant.
Beneficiation
The phosphate in the Pungo River Formation occurs as small pebbles mixed
in with unconsolidated sands, clays, shells and other carbonates. For the
phosphate to be of any value, these additional, inert materials must be
separated from the phosphate pebbles, a process known as beneficiation.
In the first stage of beneficiation, the ore slurry is passed through a
series of screens, mills, and washers to separate the pebble -sized fraction
from both the oversized particles and the clays and silts. These materials
are returned to the mine site, the former as landfill, the latter to settling
ponds (known as slime ponds).
The next step is flotation, a process whereby quartz sand is separated
from the phosphate sand. The quartz sand and silt are also returned to the
mined area as landfill. The phosphate sand -- now known as phosphate
concentrate -- is either dried or calcined.
37

Calcining is sometimes done on phosphate rock which is high in organic
content or which will be used in processes requiring higher phosphate content.
It involves roasting the concentrate at about 1500°F, which upgrades the ore
by driving off organic compounds, carbon dioxide, and water.
The concentrate may then be used as feedstock for the company's own.
fertilizer plants (as Texasgulf does), or it may be sold to customers in bulk
(as NCPC plans to do).
Fertilizer Manufacture
The phosphate fertilizer industry uses nine separate processes in pro—
ducing a variety of phosphate fertilizers, including superphosphoric acid,
triple superphosphate, and diammonium phosphate. The basic building block of
most of these fertilizers is phosphoric acid, and its production, along with
that of sulphuric acid which is used to produce phosphoric acid, are the two
most common and important of these processes.
Sulphuric acid is produced by burning elemental sulfur and then absorbing
the sulfur dioxide gas into water. Texasgulf produces sulfuric acid at its
Lee Creek facility and maintains a tank farm at Morehead City, where liquid
sulfur enroute to Lee Creek is stored.
The phosphate pebbles in the beneficiated phosphate rock consist largely
of the mineral fluorapatite, a compound made up of phosphate, calcium, and
fluorine. To produce phosphoric acid, this mineral must be broken down and
the phosphate separated out. The standard method to do this in the fertilizer
industry is to use sulfuric acid to attack the rock. The sulfuric acid com
bines with the calcium to form gypsum, while the fluorine reacts in various
ways and much of it leaves the slurry as a gas. The resulting phosphoric acid
is subjected to additional processes to further concentrate it and remove
38

impurities and is then used as feedstock in producing various fertilizers.
The solid gypsum by-product is pumped to a settling pond and then stockpiled.
Borehole Mining
Hydraulic borehole mining, also known as slurry mining, is an experi-
mental process for mining phosphate that is showing considerable promise. A
tool incorporating a water jet cutting system and a downhole slurry pumping
system mines minerals through a single, narrow (16") borehole drilled from the
surface to the buried mineralized rock. Water jets shot from the mining tool
erode the ore and form a slurry. The slurry flows into the inlet of a slurry
pump where it is lifted to the surface and into an ore bin. The bin collects
the ore while allowing the water to flow into a pond. This pond acts as a
source of water for a series of pumps which supply water to the cutting jet
and the downhole slurry pump. Alternatively, the ore slurry can be piped
directly to a processing plant, and the water and waste material returned by a
second pipeline.
Hydraulic borehole mining is an outgrowth of U.S. Bureau of Mines
research begun during 1973. To date this method has been used on an experi-
mental basis to mine coal, uranium sands, oil sands, and phosphate. It is not
yet in commercial use.
One of the major benefits of borehole mining is that small or erratic
deposits can be mined, whereas it might be cost -prohibitive to stripmine these
areas. A second major benefit of the system is its relatively minor environ-
mental impact. The method minimizes the surface disruptions, waste rock
piles, damage to ground water quality and hydrology, and surface water pol-
lution normally associated with mining operations. One potentially serious
problem, subsidence of the ground above the mine cavity, can be ameliorated
somewhat by backfilling of the cavities.
��e

During the summer of 1980, this borehole mining technique was success-
fully demonstrated by Flow Technology Company (with assistance from Agrico
Mining Company, the parent of NCPC) in St. Johns County, Florida. In this
demonstration, 1700 tons of phosphate ore were mined from three boreholes at
depths of 230-250 feet. During mining of the first two holes, ground water
was pumped out of the cavity, and roof collapses occurred. In the third hole
excavation was completed entirely underwater, and the cavity roof remained
intact. All three cavities were backfilled with surface materials.
B. Market
Phosphate is an essential ingredient in fertilizer. Phosphate -based
fertilizers are produced by combining phosphate rock with sulphuric acid.
Texasgulf reports that the fertilizer industry consumes 70% of all phosphate
production, including virtually all of North Carolina's production. The
marketing operations of Texasgulf (TGI) and North Carolina Phosphate Corpor-
ation (NCPC) are discussed here, as they are presently the two miners of
phosphate in North Carolina and both own phosphate reserves in Pamlico
County.
Rail cars are the principal carrier of products leaving the phosphate
operations of Texasgulf in Beaufort County. Self -unloading barges carry
dry phosphate materials down the Pamlico River and through the Intracoastal
Waterway to Morehead City, where the phosphate is stored and loaded onto
ocean-going vessels for export. Phosphoric acid is also shipped to export
markets through the Morehead City port.
In the last 20 years the worldwide consumption of phosphate fertilizer
has more than tripled to 33.6 million tons in the 1978-79 fertilizer year.
The demand for phosphate is expected to increase by 50 percent by 1990. The
40

latest expansion of phosphate operations in Beaufort County will raise produc-
tion to about 1.9 million tons of marketable phosphate products annually.
Agrico's marketing territory encompasses the entire eastern two-thirds of
the country, an area accounting for about 80 percent of total U.S. fertilizer
consumption. Special emphasis is placed on the midwestern and southwestern
corn and wheat belts.
Improved prices for both fertilizer products and phsophate rock, combined
with record worldwide fertilizer sales volumes, caused Agrico's revenues to
increase by 28 percent in 1980. In early 1981, a 50-50 partnership formed by
Agrico and a French fertilizer company acquired 19 percent of the North
Carolina mine. The French company will purchase 700,000 tons of the mine's
annual production.
The major concern facing fertilizer companies is anticipated cost
increases, particularly for energy and raw materials such as sulphur. Phos-
phate mining and the value of phosphate -based fertilizers will be dependent
on fertilizer use, particularly overseas, and the fluctuating value of the
dollar.
C. Impacts
Any discussion of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of phos-
phate mining in Pamlico County must be prefaced by the fact that technologies
are changing; impacts now associated with mining activity may be eliminated in
the next 10 - 30 years and/or new impacts generated by new techniques. It is
also important to keep in mind that the impacts incurred will depend on the
amount of processing done in conjunction with the mining.3
41

Employment:
The best example for Pamlico County is the ongoing activity just to the
north in Beaufort County. In 1981, employment at the phosphate mine and
chemical operations of Texasgulf in Beaufort County totaled more than 1,500.
An expansion underway, costing $180 million, will bring the employment total
to 1,700 with an annual payroll of more than $32 million.
In starting up, North Carolina Phosphate will employ about 800 workers.
After the construction period, this number will gradually decline to a
permanent workforce of nearly 500 employees, with an annual payroll of
approximately $5.4 million, based on an average hourly wage of about $5.50.
In addition, Research Triangle Institute has estimated that about two to four
jobs will be generated in Beaufort, Craven and Pamlico Counties and the port
at Morehead City for every ten jobs created at the mining site. When combined
with indirect employment created elsewhere in the state, as many as 660
indirect jobs will be generated by the project during construction and 320
during operation. Almost half of these jobs will occur in Beaufort and
surrounding counties.
Fiscal:
Texasgulf presently pays $1.3 million annually in property taxes to
Beaufort County. NCPC has estimated that, upon completion, their facility
will yield $1 million annually in property tax revenue. Land holdings of NCPC
should generate an additional $15,000 in annual taxes.
The one percent local share of sales tax that is levied by Beaufort
County could yield an additional $65,000 in revenues during construction and
nearly $20,000 annually during operation from NCPC.
Land being held by the mining companies but not in active use is valued
at about $800/acre in Beaufort County. Improved farmland has a value of about
42

$2000/acre. Land being mined is valued at between $2,000 to $3,000/acre. No
mineral taxes are levied because it is difficult to determine the amount and
value of phosphate in the ground.
Intergovernmental transfers from state and federal governments to
Beaufort County have increased slightly as a result of mining endeavors. Most
grants are made on the basis of county population, school enrollment, highway
miles, local taxes collected, or poverty incidence.
It is not clear, and will not be clear until firm plans are made to
develop the phosphate deposits in Pamlico County, where the minerals will be
processed. With large capital investments now in place in Beaufort County, it
is reasonable to. assume that Texasgulf and NCPC would attempt to utilize their
existing processing plants and simply transport the minerals to Beaufort
County for processing. In this event, the fiscal and economic benefits for
Pamlico County will be far less than those experienced in Beaufort County.
Social:
In general, the labor force in the coastal counties is capable of
absorbing employment opportunities generated by mining companies. Again,
the experiences of Texasgulf and NCPC in Beaufort County are instructive.
NCPC estimated that, for their proposed facility near Aurora, relocation
into the three -county area (Beaufort, Pamlico and Craven) would total 220
workers (670. people, including families) at the peak of construction, and 70
workers (245 people, including families) during full operation. These
estimates are based on the assumptions that workers relocating from outside
the county would comprise 20 percent of the long-term construction crew, 40
percent of the short-term construction crew, and 15 percent of the permanent
workforce. These figures do not include expected internal migration within
43

the three -county area by workers wishing to relocate closer to the project
site.
Population increases of this magnitude in rural areas will at least
temporarily stress the housing supply and public services near the project
site. In Richland Township (Aurora) in Beaufort County, for instance, there
is virtually no vacant housing available. About 20 percent of TGI workers
questioned live in mobile homes, and NCPC estimated that new mobile home parks
would be developed to house their workers. In addition, local police and fire
services, health facilities, water and sewer systems, and school facilities
may require augmentation to handle the additional population.
Texasgulf and NCPC currently hold property in the northwest and northern
sections of Pamlico County. The administration of mining activity in these
areas would be centralized in already established offices in Beaufort County.
Some growth pressure on the surrounding area, particularly Bayboro and
Alliance, could occur.
On the other hand, if phosphate deposits in Pamlico County are not
developed until after the Beaufort County resources are depleted, then little
or no population growth will occur since most of the present employees would
commute to the new site or sites.
Transportation:
Texasgulf Corporation ships phosphate products by barge to Morehead City,
from which point shipments are made to foreign and domestic producers, and by
rail via the Norfolk Southern and other rail systems. North Carolina Phos-
phate Corporation will soon be following much the same pattern. Both barges
and rail service are used to deliver equipment and materials to the site.
NCPC plans construction of a rail spur off the existing Southern Railway line
that leads to the Texasgulf facility. In addition, on -site road construction
44

and some improvement of off -site roads is necessary to handle the increased
traffic, as.some delivery of materials is made by truck.
Depending on the location of facilities in Pamlico County, some com-
bination of these three modes of transport -- barge, rail, and truck (and
possibly pipelines) -- will be used to transport materials to the site and
carry products away. Use of any of these modes of transport will require that
new facilities be built and/or existing facilities upgraded. Barge transport
will require loading facilities to be built and a channel dredged to the
nearest existing channel capable of handling barge traffic. A single line of
the Norfolk Southern Railway serves the county, and construction of a spur
from this line or the line to Aurora will be necessary to provide rail
service. Highway 306 is the major road between Pamlico County and Beaufort
County and also the location of Texasgulf and NCPC regional offices. It is
likely that these offices will remain central to mining activity in the
region. Highway 306 may act as the major transportation route for mining
employees and materials travelling between the two areas of activity.
Water
Groundwater: Since 1965, Texasgulf has been mining phosphate at its Lee
Creek Mine in Beaufort County. In order to keep the open pit dry, water is
pumped from a series of wells surrounding the mine to lower the water table
beneath the pit floor, thereby depressurizing the Upper Castle Hayne Aquifer
(the major source of water for the area) and significantly affecting the
groundwater regime for hundreds of square miles surrounding the mine. There is
concern about the.potential damage to groundwater resources in Beaufort County
by pumping of such large amounts of water, including the potential for salt-
water intrusion from the Pamlico River.
45

The average withdrawal from the Upper Castle Hayne Aquifer by Texasgulf
is over 60 million gallons per day (MGD). The decline in water levels
throughout a 1,400 square mile region required the replacement of about 800
shallow well pumps in the early 1970s, most of the cost of which was volun-
tarily borne by Texasgulf.
Groundwater is moving vertically and laterally from all directions toward
the pumping center at Lee Creek. High chloride water is moving toward the
pumping center, but there is disagreement as to the rate of movement and its
impact.
The Environmental Management Commission granted a revised permit to
Texasgulf in 1976 to withdraw a total of 67 MGD and NCPC to withdraw 35 MGD
from the Upper Castle Hayne. The total authorized maximum pumping at the
operating Texasgulf and NCPC mine sites will be 102 MGD.
Surface Water: The action which has the most significant hydrologic
effect on surface waters is the clearing of large mining blocks in preparation
for actual mining. Depending on the lag time between clearing and mining,
this action can produce increased runoff, floodflows, and erosion.
When the mine pit is first opened, a clay pond is constructed for use as
a settling basin, in order to dewater the waste slimes in preparation for
reclamation. Discharges from the clay pond to surface waters could produce
increases in nutrients, dissolved solids, and flotation process chemicals
(fuels, oils, fatty acids). After 5-6 years the clay pond is no longer used
and the clay slurry is directed to the mined -out pits. Water from the slurry
is discharged with the depressurized water from the mine site into nearby
streams.
46

The mine depressurization water, pumped in order to dry out the mine
site, varies by season in temperature, dissolved solids, and salinity. This
causes some fluctuation in water quality at the discharge point.
Process waters from milling operations are piped to settling ponds for
cooling and settling of suspended solids (particularly gypsum). Generally all
of the wastewater is recycled back to the plant for further use, and dis-
charges occur only during wet weather, periods of water balance misadjust-
ments, or by accident. Untreated wastewaters contain a number of harmful
pollutants, including phosphorus, fluorides, ammonium, radium, and various
metals, as well as being highly acidic. Treatment to acceptable levels before
discharge is required by EPA, but there is always the possibility of acci-
dental release of untreated waste. Texasgulf was recently fined $6000 for
discharging phosphoric acid and sulfuric acid into the Pamlico River.
Air
Operations during site preparation and plant construction produce partic-
ulate and gaseous emissions. Road traffic, land clearing, burning of residue,
and equipment operation will combine to increase ambient pollutant levels, but
these levels should not be sufficient to affect nearby vegetation.
As a result of the production of sulfuric and phosphoric acids, gaseous
fluorides, sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid mists are emitted as wastes from
the milling plants. Calcium sulfate (gypsum) is also produced, and in con-
junction with the accompanying gypsum wastewater ponds constitutes another
source of air pollution.
In March of 1982, Texasgulf was fined $37,000 by the State of North Caro-
lina for 38 violations of clean air requirements by exceeding the sulfur diox-
ide emission limitations. The processing complex regularly emits about 21,000
tons of sulfur dioxide a year but had been emitting in excess of this. The
47

violation was predicted by computer modeling and detected by monitoring
devices surrounding the plant, but the investigation was triggered when damage
to vegetation around the plant was observed. This was the largest air pol-
lution penalty ever levied by the State and took into consideration "the
gravity of the violation, degree and extent of harm, cost of rectifying the
damage and the amount of money saved by the violator by not complying with
pollution control requirements."
North Carolina Phosphate Corporation has been required by the state's
Division of Environmental Management to pass an extensive air quality permit
review in order to operate in Beaufort County. As required by federal law,
NCPC cannot generate significant emissions of sulphur dioxide from its pro-
cessing operations because the Texasgulf emissions in the same air quality
control region have already used up a substantial portion of the total
allowable increment. Consequently NCPC has had to design its plant for
minimal emissions in order to comply with ambient air quality standards for
the region.
Radiation
Phosphate deposits contain appreciable concentrations of uranium and
other radioactive nuclides. Mining and processing of these ores redistributes
this radioactivity among the waste slimes, sand tailings, gypsum, process
wastewater and various fertilizer products and results in the dispersal of
much of this radioactivity into the surface environment. There is some con-
cern that such redistribution may lead to increased public exposure to these
naturally occurring radionuclides, particularly in drinking water and on
reclaimed land.
48

of the various radionuclides, radium is particularly toxic and is the
primary focus of concern in surface and ground waters. Studies in the exten-
sive Florida phosphate mining district have found no significant widespread
differences in ground water radium concentrations between mined and unmined
areas, although many scientists feel there is not sufficient data to conclude
mining has had no'effect.4 However, local contamination may occur, par-
ticularly as a result of spills or seepage from gypsum ponds and slime ponds
and leachate from gypsum piles, and the design of these systems to prevent
radioactivity release is important.
Radon, a gaseous decay product of radium, is the major concern on
reclaimed lands. It diffuses up through the soil and through foundations into
buildings, where it may accumulate. In Florida, radon levels in buildings on
phosphate lands (whether previously mined or not) were significantly higher
than those in other parts of the state, exposing their inhabitants to higher
risks of lung cancer.5 Where the depth of overburden is greater, as in North
Carolina, mining may increase radon release from the soil. Building design
modifications that reduce radon diffusion into structures and radon residence
time within them are being field tested elsewhere in the county and should be
considered for phosphate lands.
A study was conducted recently at the Texasgulf site in Beaufort County
to evaluate radium and radon concentrations in nearby ground and surface
waters.6 Results indicated that the majority of wells sampled contained very
small concentrations of these isotopes, although four wells exceeded EPA
standards for radium. Pamlico River water both above and below the plant site
contained only minute concentrations of radium, though the concentrations
downstream were consistently and significantly higher than those upstream of
the facility: Since no tests were made of radium and radon levels in the area
49

before mining and milling operations began in the mid-1960s, it is difficult
to determine whether the Texasgulf operations have caused any net increase in
the environmental concentrations of these elements. Due to the abundance of
phosphate ore in the area, high concentrations of radium and radon may occur
naturally.
The Radiation Protection Section of the state's Department of Human
Resources is continuing to monitor the Texasgulf site and has begun moni-
toring at the NCPC site. Their work also includes soil and air sampling in
conjunction with the Division of Environmental Management.
Aesthetics
Surface mining of phosphate leaves behind a scarred landscape. Strip-
mining peels away the vegetation, topsoil and overburden resting over the
phosphate ore. While land reclamation programs can reduce mining's impact
on the land, reclamation cannot restore the land to its virgin state.
During the mining process, sands, clay slimes, wastewater, and radio-
active byproducts are discarded. According to the EPA, approximately 3,250
pounds of sand tailings and 2,110 pounds of waste clay slimes on average are
generated in producing one ton of marketable phosphate rock.
The sand tailings impounded will result in the creation of an area which
will be available for primary succession but will be difficult to revegetate.
The absence of organic matter to act as a binding material and retain water
and minerals among the sand particles will result in the rapid loss of these
components from the surface layer of tailings.
The storage of clays during the initial years of mining will result in
the creation of a layer of these materials up to 25 feet thick. Due to the
drastic difference in physical and chemical properties between clays and the
original sandy soils, it is unlikely that the natural communities that develop
50

on these reclaimed soils will be similar in structure and composition to the
original biota.
The reuse of these basin lands is generally restricted to agricultural
pursuits because of the limited bearing strength of the reclaimed soils.
wildlife
Some of the wildlife problems created by peat mining operations are also
associated with the mining of phosphate. Foremost among these is the exten-
sive loss of habitat during site preparation and plant construction; secondary
impacts on wildlife populations include water and air pollution and increased
activity adjacent to surviving natural areas. The extent to which native
wildlife can relocate to suitable empty habitat nearby will determine their
survival.
Several species on the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife
may occur in the region where NCPC and Texasgulf are situated, including the
Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, Brown Pelican, Red -Cockaded Woodpecker, American
Alligator, and Shortnose Sturgeon. A number of additional species recognized
within North Carolina as endangered or threatened also occur in the project
area.
Reclamation of mined lands will make these areas available for pasturing,
but these pastures will not provide the habitat requirements of most native
species of wildlife.
Land Use
During the clearing'operations preceeding any mining activity, marketable
trees are salvaged by timber companies. Forest resources harvested on the
NCPC property in Beaufort County, for instance, are estimated to be worth
$2.8 million. Unmarketable vegetation is -burned in accordance with state
regulations.
51

The mining and milling of phosphate ore generates a volume of waste
material greater than that of the mined out pits, resulting in an increase in
ground levels for reclaimed land of as much as 50-100 feet above original
contours. The disposal of these waste materials (particularly slimes) in ways
that will least encumber future land use is a major concern. Conventional
methods for disposing of waste slimes in Florida involve large settling areas
(30-60 percent of mined lands). The slow rate at which slimes dewater
severely limits the bearing strength of the soil, and -the land may not support
structures larger than single-family dwellings for decades. Methods of
reducing such impacts of slime ponds, by dry beneficiation or by techniques
that reduce settling time, are under investigation.
As experience in Florida bears out, reclaimed land is suitable for timber
production or grazing. With appropriate fertilization the land should support
row crops.
Thus far, the land holdings of Texasgulf and NCPC in Pamlico County are
minimal (apporoximately 20,000 acres), and the effect of withdrawal of those
lands now in agricultural and silvicultural use would not be great. A larger
impact would occur if other mining firms acquire interests in additional land
within the county.
Slurry Borehole Paining
Slurry borehole mining, described earlier, has a number of potential
environmental impacts: habitat destruction and land use changes caused by the
construction of access roads, slurry ponds, and ore piles; surface subsidence
above the mining cavity; and tailings piles. In general these impacts are far
smaller than those associated with surface mining activity. Furthermore, the
latter two can be substantially reduced by injecting the ore tailings back
into the mining cavity.
52

Environmental monitoring of ground water quality, land surface eleva-
tions, and radiation levels was carried out as part of the phosphate ore
hydraulic mining demonstration conducted by Flow Technology Company in
Florida.7 A series of ground surveys were performed before, during, and after
mining to determine the amount of subsidence occurring. The change in ele-
vation was found to be between 1/8 and 1/4 inch, a negligible amount con-
sidering that this could be due to soil compaction by the heavy vehicles and
mining equipment used.
A series of wells were drilled to monitor water level and quality
changes. Water levels immediately above the mining cavities showed marked
fluctuations, presumably as a result of roof collapses. Water quality was
altered only in the mining zone itself; the changes were ascribed to the
quality of injected cutting jet water. The radiation study found radiation
levels comparable to those produced by surface mining, but predicted that
backfilling of wastes into mine cavities would greatly reduce residual surface
radioactivity.
53

Chapter Four
EXISTING LEGISLATION AND POLICY AFFECTING
PEAT AND PHOSPHATE MINING
Introduction
Until a major phosphate deposit was developed in Beaufort County in the
mid-1960s, officials did not consider North Carolina a mining state. Con-
sequently little attention was paid to the strengths and weaknesses of exist-
ing mining regulations and taxation. It is only recently that the scale of
mining has increased such that its impacts -- economic and environmental --
merit our full attention.
There are a number of federal and North Carolina statutes that regulate
or otherwise influence the conduct of mining operations. It is within the
bounds established by these statutes that future peat and phosphate mining
operations will be conducted, and the strengths and weaknesses of these
statutes should be considered in formulating county mining policy. In the
sections below, each of these statutes is briefly described.
A. Federal Statutes
There are no federal statutes concerned specifically with the environ-
mental degradation accompanying surface mining on non-federal lands, with the
exception of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-
87, 30 U.S.C. §1201 et seq.), which is restricted in scope to coal mining
operations only. There are, however, a number of broad environmental statutes
to which peat and phosphate mining operations in the county may be subject,
including:
W

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.):
NEPA requires that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared by the
responsible federal agency for every major federal action "significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment." Several of the federal
permits listed below may constitute such major federal actions. While the EIS
process does not entail adoption of specific substantive environmental safe-
guards, it does ensure that public officials consider the environmental con-
sequences of their decisions, and it does open up their deliberations to
public scrutiny. In recent years, the proposed developments of both N.C.
Phosphate and Prulean Farms have required EIS's, and it is expected that any
large phosphate or peat mining operation in Pamlico County, if it required one
of the federal permits below, would also require an Environmental Impact
Statement.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500,
33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.): Also known as the Clean Water Act, this statute
established three permit programs to which peat and phosphate mining opera-
tions may be subject. Under Section 402 of the Act, a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required for any pollutant
discharge to surface waters. North Carolina's permit program has met EPA
criteria for state administration of the NPDES program, and since 1974 the
state's water quality permit has served as the NPDES permit as well. Under
Section 401, any person who engages in an activity that may result in a dis-
charge to navigable waters, and which requires a federal permit, must obtain a
401 Water Quality Certification. This document certifies that the discharge
is in compliance with state water quality standards. Finally, under Section
404 of the Act, a permit must be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers for
"the discharge of dredged or fill material" into U.S. waters. Most types of
W

dredging, canal construction, fill placement, and wetland alteration require
404 permits, and this is the most common federal permit for land disturbing
activities such as surface mining and drainage.
Section 10 of The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1599 (33 U.S.C. §403): This
provision requires that a permit be obtained from the Corps to excavate, fill,
erect a structure or otherwise modify navigable waters. The construction of a
large canal and loading docks for the transport of phosphate products, for
instance, would require a Section 10 permit. The jurisdictions of the Section
10 and 404 programs overlap considerably, but where an activity would require
both permits, the Corps usually considers them together under one application.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (P.L. 95-95, 42 U.S.C. §7401 et
seq.): This statute established national ambient air quality standards and
created several programs designed to ensure that these standards are obtained
and maintained. Two programs are particularly relevant. In areas that have
attained the national standards (including Pamlico County), the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration of air quality (PSD) program is in effect. New
facilities require a PSD permit if either (1) they will emit more than 100
tons of any regulated pollutant per year and are among the sources designated
in the federal regulatiops, which include phosphate rock processing plants,
or (2) they will emit more than 250 tons of a regulated pollutant per year.
Standards and requirements are attached to the PSD permit to ensure that air
quality will not deteriorate significantly. In addition, EPA has issued air
pollution emission standards, known as New Source Performance Standards, for a
number of industrial facilities, including fossil -fuel fired boilers, sulfuric
acid plants, and various phosphoric acid and phosphate plants and storage
facilities.
57

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. §661 et seq.): This
statute was enacted "to provide that wildlife conservation shall receive equal
consideration and be coordinated with other features of water —resource devel—
opment programs." It requires consultation by the responsible federal agency
(and in practice, by the private applicant) with both the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the state fish and game agency (in North Carolina, the
Wildlife Resources Commission) regarding any federally funded or licensed
activities in streams and other water bodies, for the purpose of conserving
and improving wildlife resources on the project site.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq.): Under this
statute, no federal action (ouch as issuance of any of the permits described
above), may jeopardize any of the species listed on the federal list of
threatened and endangered species. The list contains several species that may
occur in Pamlico County, including the American alligator and red —cockaded
woodpecker.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
§470): This provision requires that every federal agency consider the impacts
of its actions on any site that is included in or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. The Act goes on to specify the consultation
process that is required. Only one site in Pamlico County is currently on
the Register: the China Greve House east of Janeiro on State Road 1302.
B. North Carolina Statutes
By far the most significant state law regulating the impacts of peat and
phosphate mining is the North Carolina Mining Act of 1971. In addition, there
are a large number of environmental statutes and several revenue measures that
will influence mining activity. Some of these are referenced directly in the
58

Mining Act, but regardless, all may be applicable to some phase of peat or
phosphate mining activity in Pamlico County.
The Mining Act of 1971 (N.C.G.S. §74-46 et seq.): The Mining Act was
passed in response to the poor environmental performance of some mine opera-
tors; it establishes provisions for protection of the environment surrounding
the mine site and for reclamation of the land affected by mining. Under the
Act, virtually all surface mining operations (including peat and phosphate)
more than one acre in size require a mining permit from the Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development. Applications must meet two major
requirements to be approved: the operations must not result in significant
adverse effects on a range of environmental features (including fish and
wildlife, air quality, water quality, sedimentation levels, parks, and neigh-
boring properties), and an acceptable reclamation plan must be submitted,
including provisions for revegetation and completion of reclamation within two
years of the end of mining activity. Peat and phosphate mining operations
both would be subject to the terms of this Act.
Water Quality Control Statutes (N.C.G.S. §143-214.1 et seq.): Under
these provisions, a permit is required from the Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) for any of a number of actions involving pollutant dis-
charges, including the discharge of any waste to state waters in violation of
state water quality standards or effluent standards. As mentioned earlier,
DEM is now authorized to administer the federal NPDES program within North
Carolina, and the permit issued under state law also serves as the NPDES
permit. All discharges at peat and phosphate mining operations, including
aquifer depressurization water and process, cooling, and domestic wastewater
at phosphate facilities, and drainage water from peat mines, are subject to
permit requirements.
59

Water Use Act of 1967 (N.C.G.S. §143-215.11 et seq.): The Water Use Act
authorizes the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to designate capacity
use areas "where it finds that the use of groundwater or surface water or both
require coordination and limited regulation for protection of the interests
and rights of residents or property owners of such areas or of the public
interest." One such capacity use area has been designated, encompassing all
of Pamlico, Beaufort and Washington Counties and portions of Carteret, Craven,
Hyde, and Tyrell. Within this area, a permit is needed to withdraw or utilize
water in excess of 100,000 gallons per day, a limit that phosphate mining
operations would easily exceed.
In addition, within this area approval is needed from the EMC for "any
project involving the excavation of any single area in excess of five acres
to any depth below the highest natural level of groundwater" (15 N.C.A.C. 2E
.0205). Both peat and phosphate mines would be subject to this latter pro-
vision, but the requirement for "approval" rather than a permit may offer
less scope to the EMC to protect water resources, as it is unclear whether
conditions can be attached to such an approval.
Well Construction Act of 1967 (N.C.G.S. §87-83 et seq.): Under this
statute the Environmental Management Commission is empowered to adopt rules
regulating the location and construction of wells and installation of pumps
so as to protect public health and the groundwater resources of the state.
Within the capacity use area mentioned above, a permit is needed from the EMC
to construct any water well or well system, regardless of capacity, except
wells constructed for individual domestic water supplies. Wells constructed
at phosphate mines for aquifer depressurization or ore processing would
require such permits.
RICi

Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (N.C.G.S. §113A-50 et seq.):
Designed to control erosion and the resulting sedimentation of streams, lakes
and other waters, this act requires that a public agency or private developer
submit a sedimentation control plan to the Division of Land Resources (or
authorized local government) for approval prior to engaging in any land dis-
turbing activity that involves uncovering more than one contiguous acre.
Activities regulated under the Mining Act of 1971 are specifically exempted
from these provisions, but they would apply to any peripheral activities of
peat and phosphate mine operators not covered under the Mining Act.
Dam Safety Law of 1967 (N.C.G.S. §143-215.23 et seq.): Under this act,
dams greater than 15 feet in height and whose impoundment capacity is greater
than 10 acre-feet must receive approval from the Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development. The law was enacted to help ensure dam
safety and the maintenance of minimum stream flows of adequate quantity and
quality below dams. The construction of dikes for settling ponds at phosphate
mining; operations will require such a permit.
Air Quality Control Statutes (N.C.G.S. §143-215.105 et seq.): The
Environmental Management Commission is authorized to establish air quality
standards and emission control standards for use in controlling and abating
air pollution. To help ensure that these standards are met, a permit is
needed from the EMC to operate any air contaminant source, or to operate any
equipment which may result in emission of air contaminants or which is likely
to cause air pollution. Standards for particulates would apply to both peat
and phosphate mining operations, while other standards would govern emissions
from the calcining operation and steam boilers at phosphate processing
facilities.
61

Regulation of Open Fires (N.C.G.S. §113-60.21 et seq.): These provisions
were enacted in 1981 to protect the public from the hazards of forest fires
and air pollution, particularly in connection with land -clearing operations in
the eastern coastal plain (including Pamlico County). They require that a
special permit be obtained from the Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development for open burning of any debris resulting from ground -
clearing operations and involving more than five contiguous acres. Conditions
are specified in the act. Peat and phosphate mining operations will require
open burning permits for their ground -clearing activities.
North Carolina Radiation Protection Act (N.C.G.S. §104E-1 et seq.):
Although primarily concerned with the regulation of radioactive materials used
in the energy and medical fields, many of this Act's provisions are applicable
to the low-level radioactive materials processed during phosphate mining and
milling. The Radiation Protection Commission is authorized to adopt rules
regulating the handling and disposal of these materials, but to date has
declined to do so, largely because monitoring studies in the Texasgulf
vicinity have not indicated a compelling need for such regulation.
Coastal Area Management Act of 1971 (N.C.G.S. §113A-100 et seq.): Under
CAMA, development activities occurring wholly or partially in Areas of
Environmental Concern require CAMA development permits. Both peat and phos-
phate mining operations will qualify as major developments, as defined in the
Act, since both will require permits from the Mining Commission; CAMA permits
for major developments are obtained directly from the Coastal Resources
Commission. CA14A directs the Commission to consider the following criteria in
making permit decisions: (1) the State Guidelines for AECs promulgated under
CAMA; (2) local land use plans; (3) general policy guidelines for the coastal
62

area promulgated by the Commission; and (4) any other criteria listed in G.S.
§113A-120. Of course, mining activities may not occur within any Areas of
Environmental Concern, in which case they would not be subject to CAMA's
regulatory program.
State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (N.C.G.S. §113A-1 et seq.): The
State Environmental Policy Act has three major provisions. First, it declares
environmental protection to be official state policy, and directs state
agencies to conduct their affairs (including permit decisions) accordingly.
Secondly, it requires every state agency which proposes a project involving
the expenditure of state funds for actions which will significantly affect the
quality of the environment to write an environmental impact statement (EIS).
Since peat and phosphate mines do not require public funds, no EIS will be
required under this provision. Finally, the Act authorizes local governments
to require that developers of major development projects (which could be
defined by the local government to include peat and phosphate mining opera-
tions) submit an EIS to them. Several local units of government in the state
have availed themselves of this opportunity, though Pamlico County is not
currently one of them.
Dredge and Fill Act (N.C.G.S. §113-229): This statute requires that a
permit be obtained from the Office of Coastal Management before any dredge and
fill activities may be undertaken in estuarine waters, tidelands, marshlands
or state-owned lakes.
Archives and HistoEL Act (N.C.G.S. §121-1 et seq.): Section 121-12(a) of
the Act requires that every state agency consider the effects of any under-
taking funded, operated or licensed by it on any structure, site or district
listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Though comparable to the
63

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (discussed earlier), the scope of
the North Carolina act is far more limited, in that only sites in the National
Register must be considered, and not those merely eligible for it. Projects
subject only to the state law therefore are not required to undertake the
thorough field examinations for undiscovered sites required under federal
law. Two recent laws, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (N.C.G.S.
§70-10 et seq.) and the Unmarked Human Burial and Human Skeletal Remains
Protection Act (N.C.G.S. §70-26 et seq.) provide an additional measure of
protection for archaeological resources on state-owned lands and human
skeletal remains, respectively.
C. Pamlico County Policy
Pamlico County currently does not have any land use or development regu-
lations that would govern the location or conduct of mining operations. The
county also chose not to adopt a statement of mining policy for the 1980 Land
Use Plan. There are, however, a number of policy statements in the plan
relating to the development of natural resources in the county, and to
industrial development generally, that may influence mining operations. These
include policies supporting the preservation of the county's agricultural,
forestry and fishery resources, and policies encouraging the development of
relatively small, clean, light industry while discouraging the location of
large, environmentally damaging, heavy industrial plants.
It is within this matrix of federal, state, and county policy that county
mining policy will be made and implemented. In the following chapter, a pro-
posed natural resource development policy for the county is presented.
Following that, several options for implementation of that policy are briefly
described.
64

Chapter Five
MINING POLICY
Introduction
The peat and phosphate deposits that exist in the county are likely to be
developed.at some point in time. Peatco, a company based in Edenton, North
Carolina, has already received a permit from the state to harvest peat in the
Light Ground Pocosin. Phosphate mining interests within and outside North
Carolina have shown interest in the phosphate known to exist in the county.
New mining techniques will increase the value of these deposits by making
their extraction simpler.
In making a decision to mine these resources there are a number of trade-
offs to consider: How will peat and phosphate mining affect the land, air
and water resources in the county? Will the economic benefits of peat and
phosphate development be offset by losses in other natural -resource -based
industries because of environmental degradation?
Present competing uses of coastal lands include peat mining, agricultural
production, seafood harvest, silviculture, phosphate mining, recreation, and
wild land preservation. An increase in one of these uses is bound to have an
effect on others. Increasing use of lands for agriculture and mining, for
instance, will limit the amount of land available for recreation and wild land
preservation.
The preceding chapters depict some of the environmental effects that peat
mining and phosphate mining will have on other land uses and activities. They
point up the need for a good understanding of both the environmental and
socioeconomic impacts of development of coastal lands. There are a number of
65

intangible impacts large-scale land developments have on communities. These
are less easy to define and quantify. They include the interests of future
generations, community cohesion, sense of place, and generally, the social
fabric of communities.
A. Policy for Natural Resource Development in Pamlico County
Pamlico County is blessed with a great many natural resources: clean
air, good agricultural land, a good water supply, forests, productive wetlands
and estuaries, varied wildlife, abundant natural beauty, and peat and phos-
phate deposits.
The economic, social and psychological well-being of the people of the
county has depended on sustaining the quality and quantity of these resources
since the county was first inhabited. This dependence is expected to con-
tinue, and probably to increase, as the rising demand for food leads to
expansions in agriculture, aquaculture and fishing in the county, and as the
rising demand for recreational facilities generates more second home develop-
ment and recreational fishing and boating activity.
The development of each of these natural resources may have an immediate,
serious, and long-lasting impact on one or more of the others. Impacts on the
local economy can be easily measured in fiscal or monetary terms, but impacts
on the social and psychological well-being of the people may be of equal or
even greater importance even though they are difficult, if not impossible, to
measure in economic terms.
It is the policy of Pamlico County to encourage the development of the
natural resources of the county, provided that such development will not have
a serious negative impact on other natural resources and resource uses. It is
especially important that the development of a non-renewable resource does not
66

hinder the development or continued use of a renewable resource, such as farm
land, forest land, or the estuaries.
The development of natural resources should also make a positive contri-
bution to the economic, social and psychological well-being of the people of
the county.
Thus, the development of peat and phosphate deposits in the county will
be encouraged only if such development will not hinder the development or
continued use of other natural resources and will contribute to the economic,
social and psychological well-being of the people of the county in both the
near and distant future.
Specifically this means that:'
1. the adjacent natural environment and human activities should not be
adversely affected to an unreasonable degree, including such
features as:
a. water quality and quantity, both of surface waters and ground
waters;
b. the natural function of streams, wetlands and estuaries;
c. air quality;
d. wildlife and fish populations;
e. the natural beauty of the county; and
f. farming, fishing, tourism, forestry, and other economic
activities.
2. the development of the resource should have a positive economic and
fiscal impact on the county in both the short- and long-term; and
3. once the peat or phosphate is removed, the site should be restored
to a condition either approximating its original natural state, or
capable of supporting productive uses of the land which are
compatible with the land use plan.
67

B. Options Available to Implement Natural Resource Development Policy
Several options are available to the county for the implementation of
this resource development policy. The mere adoption of such a policy by the
county as an amendment to the County Land Use Plan results in its incorpora—
tion into the state's coastal management plan. The effect of this is to
extend the consistency requirements for state agencies (under Executive Order
No. 15) and federal agencies (under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972)
to include consideration of county policy in the decisions of these agencies.
More positive action may be needed in three areas if county mining policy
is to be fully implemented. Needs exist for: 1) acquisition of better and
more accurate information on proposed mining operations and their likely
impacts, so as to permit the county to better protect the health, safety, and
welfare of its citizens and plan its own activities; 2) regulation of mining
operations to eliminate foreseeable adverse impacts on land and water uses and
the general health and welfare; and 3) tax revenues sufficient to offset the
public costs of mining development.
One approach the county may take is to propose changes in state legis—
lation, regulations, and policy. The state plays a major role in.regulating.
the impacts of mining activities, as described in Chapter 4. Where the county
perceives deficiencies to exist in state regulations and statutes, or where
additional measures might better serve the needs of county residents, the
county, through its representatives to the General Assembly and through
actions of the Board of Commissioners, could propose and support appropriate
changes in existing laws and regulations.
There are also several legislative and administrative measures the county
itself can adopt to meet the three needs outlined above. These are:
68

1. Local Environmental Impact Statement. As mentioned earlier, the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. §113A-1 et seq.) authorizes
local governments to require environmental impact statements from developers
of major development projects. An'EIS ordinance could be adopted by Pamlico
County, which would include'peat and phosphate mining activities within the
scope of its jurisdiction. It should be remembered, however, that an environ-
mental impact statement is an informational document and neither includes nor
binds the developer to any specific environmental standards.
2. County land use regulations. Under the terms of N.C. General Statute
§153A-121, "[a] county may by ordinance define, regulate, prohibit, or abate
acts, omissions, or conditions detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare
of its citizens and the peace and dignity of the county . . ." Tne authority
to regulate mining operations is clearly included. Such regulation could be
accomplished by a special ordinance requiring a permit to mine, with con-
ditions attached by the Board as appropriate. Alternatively, the same effect
could be achieved through a zoning amendment. Manatee County, Florida, for
instance, has used a special treatment overlay district to help regulate
phosphate mining.
3. Taxation. Under current .law, property taxes are the only tax
measures counties are authorized to levy on mining operations. Minerals
traditionally have not been assessed as real property because of the dif-
f iculty in determining their worth, although improvements associated with
mining operations, such as phosphate rock processing plants and upgraded
farmland left by peat mines, do provide additional property tax revenues.
Other potential sources of revenue for offsetting the increased costs of
public services accompanying development include license and severance taxes,
69

but changes in state law would be required before these tax measures would be
available to counties.
Each of these options would achieve a different purpose, and it is
necessary to decide whether the exercise of one or more of these options would
meet county priorities. In the following chapter, these options are described
in greater depth, and their advantages and disadvantages discussed.
70

Chapter Six
MIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
One of the most basic needs of the county in implementation of a mining
policy is for accurate and timely information regarding mining operations.
While some state and federal environmental statutes do not require that the
county be consulted.prior to issuing permits, in practice the county is
usually given the opportunity to comment on major federal and state actions.
Permit applications, however, rarely contain a full discussion of the envi-
ronmental ramifications of a proposed activity, and full-scale federal and
state Environmental Impact Statements are written for relatively few projects.
The best way to ensure that the county will receive full and accurate infor-
mation on a proposed mining operation is a local Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) ordinance.
The N.C. Environmental Policy Act, passed_ in 1971, authorized local gov-
ernments to enact such an ordinance. The relevant provisions of the Act are:
§113A-3. "The governing bodies of all cities, counties, and towns acting
individually, or collectively, are hereby authorized to require any special-
purpose unit of government and private developer of a major development
project to submit detailed statements, as defined in G.S. 113A-4(2), of the
impact of such projects."
§113A-4(2). "Any State.agency shall include in every recommendation
or report on proposals for legislation and actions involving expenditure of
public moneys for projects and programs significantly affecting the quality
of the environment of this State, a detailed statement by the responsible
official setting forth the following:
71

"a. The environmental impact of the proposed action;
"b. Any significant adverse environmental effects which cannot be
avoided should the proposal be implemented;
"c. Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the impact;
"d. Alternatives to the proposed action;
"e. The relationship between the short-term uses of the environment
involved in the proposed action and the maintenance and enhancement -
of long-term productivity; and
"f. Any irreversible and irretrievable environmental changes which would
be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented."
§113A-9(1). "The term 'major development project' shall include but is
not limited to shopping centers, subdivisions and other housing developments,
and industrial and commercial projects, but shall not include any projects of
less than two contiguous acres in extent."
Several local governments in North Carolina have taken advantage of this
enabling legislation, including two (Holden Beach and Chapel Hill) whose .
ordinances will be briefly described here. Holden Beach's ordinance uses the
same language as the state act to describe the required contents of an EIS,
namely the six items listed in §113A-4(2) above. The ordinance includes two
more examples to further define "major development projects," and also lists
several examples of projects "significantly affecting the quality of the
environment," which the state act does not do. A public hearing on the.EIS,
with advertised notice, is required. The ordinance is enforced by making
compliance with the ordinance a prerequisite for obtaining other permits.
The Chapel Hill ordinance is more comprehensive and arguably oversteps
the authority granted in the enabling statute. First, the two -acre exclusion
in the definition of major development project is applied only to residential.
72

projects. Second, the ordinance requires information not specifically
mentioned in the state statute. Information required includes:
• a description of the land and its present use along with the expected
impacts on other land within one-half mile of the development in the
following categories: traffic, stream quality, wildlife, noise pol-
lution, impoundment of water, energy and other utility use, and other
significant impacts
• a description of impact on scenic, historical, or cultural qualities of
the town
• description of impact on wildlife, natural vegetation, erosion, and
sedimentation
• description of efforts proposed to minimize adverse impacts
• a statement reflecting intention to comply with all ordinances appli-
cable to the development
• comments from all agencies with jurisdiction or expertise in areas to
be affected by the development (apparently solicited by developer)
• description of methods proposed by developer to minimize energy
consumption.
Despite the "extra" requirements, the ordinance goes on to say that an HIS
prepared under state or federal law will be deemed adequate under the ordi-
nance. Notice of receipt of the HIS must be published, but a public hearing
is not required. The ordinance is enforced by making receipt of the HIS,
along with published notice and a review period, prerequisites to the letting
of any other necessary permits or approvals. There are several exceptions to
the ordinance, most notably single family and duplex dwellings.
.The basic consideration for Pamlico County or any other local government
in deciding whether or not to adopt an HIS ordinance is whether the advantages
of environmental disclosure to elected officials and the public outweigh the
disadvantages of such disclosure, at least for some types of projects. The
advantages and disadvantages might be listed as follows:
73

Advantages:
- Full disclosure to county of scope and impacts of proposed project,
allowing county to plan for needed increases in county services, and to
respond to potentially adverse impacts on public resources, neighboring
land uses, and the general public health, safety, and welfare.
-*Full disclosure to public of scope and impacts of proposed project, so
as to permit public review and input, identify problems, and avoid
misunderstandings.
Disadvantages:
- Cost, in time and effort, for developer to prepare and secure approval
for EIS.
- Cost to county in administering ordinance.
Should a county decide to adopt an EIS ordinance, several questions must
be addressed in the drafting -stage:
1) For what types of projects should an EIS be required? Sections 113A
9(1) and 113A-8 of the state act, quoted above, together describe for what
projects a developer can be required to submit an EIS. The only limitations
are (1) that the developer be a special-purpose unit of government or private
developer (i.e., not the state or federal government), and (2) that no proj-
ects "of less than two contiguous acres in extent" are included. A local
government can further limit the class of actions by, for instance, increasing
the acreage exemption or restricting the list of eligible activities. The EIS
requirement could even be limited solely to mining operations.
2) What should an EIS contain, and what standards for approval should be
used? Section 113A-4(2) of the state act seems fairly clear regarding what
types of information must be inclued in an EIS. It is not clear from the act
whether additional information can be required. Certainly requirements that
further define or elaborate on these six categories would be permissible, and
it is reasonable to assume that information needed to understand and interpret
this data (such as a description of the project itself) could also be
required.
74

In addition to content requirements, other standards for EIS approval by
the county can also be included. These might relate to style (e.g., written
in terms understandable to laymen, no technical jargon, etc.) or format.
3) What Procedures should be used in reviewing an EIS? Who should
review the EIS? What time limits should be placed on county action? Should a
public hearing be held? How should amendments to an. EIS be handled? An EIS
ordinance should specify these procedures.
A draft Environmental Impact Statement ordinance for Pamlico County is
attached as Appendix A. It was designed to meet the requirements of the law
and to provide the greatest amount of useful information to the county and
public white minimizing the burdens on both the developer and county
government.
75

Chapter Seven
REGULATION OF MINING IMPACTS
Given the potential impacts of mining operations described in Chapters 2
and 3, a basic question confronting the county is: what action, if any,
should the county take to control or minimize these impacts? Before con-
sidering this matter directly, however, some preliminary questions need to be
addressed. First, what courses of action, and in particular what regulatory
measures, can the county legally adopt? What is the source of county author-
ity to regulate mining activity, and what bounds are placed on this authority?
Second, to what extent is the state already regulating mining activity, and
thereby possibly making county regulation unnecessary?
A. Count Authority to Adopt a Mining Ordinance
The general delegation of police power to county governments is contained
in North Carolaa General Statute §153A-121. That act provides that: "A
county may by ordinance define, regulate, prohibit, or abate acts, omissions,
or conditions detrimental'to the health, safety, or welfare of its citizens
and the peace and dignity of the county; and may define and abate nuisances."
The authority granted would clearly include regulation of mining activities
where mining would otherwise adversely impact the county's natural resources
and the health and welfare of its citizens.
Regarding activities such as mining where extensive state regulation
already exists, however, the question arises as to whether state action pre-
empts the county from enacting regulatory controls of its own. General
Statutes §153A-121 is silent on this question. The comparable delegation of
police power to municipalities (N.C.G.S. §160A-174), on the other hand, does
77

contain some limitations. The act lists several instances in which a muni—
cipal ordinance would be invalid, the most relevant of which is that "[tjhe
ordinance purports to regulate a field for which a State or federal statute
clearly shows a legislative intent to provide a complete and integrated regu—
latory scheme to the exclusion of local regulation." The act also states,
however, that "[t]he fact that a State or federal law, standing alone, makes a
given act, omission, or condition unlawful shall not preclude city ordinances.
requiring a higher standard of conduct or condition."
The relevance of these statutory provisions to the county is that,
because the delegations of police power to counties and municipalities are
comparable, the North Carolina courts have chosen to judge county ordinances
as well in terms of the .limitations listed in §160A-174.1 In applying this
statute, the general rule adopted by the North Carolina courts appears to be
(1) that a county may not enact an ordinance that meets any of the criteria
listed in N.C.G.S. §160A-174(b),2 and (2) that a county may by ordinance regu—
late activities not regulated by the state, or may apply stricter standards
than the state to activities already regulated, but it may not regulate the
same conduct already covered by'state statute in the absence of a specific
grant of authority to the contrary.
The Mining Act appears to contain just such a grant of authority. The
Act states: "No provision of this Article shall be construed to supersede or
otherwise affect or prevent the enforcement of any zoning regulation or ordi—
nance duly adopted by an incorporated city or county or by any agency or
department of the State of North Carolina, except insofar as a provision of
said regulation or ordinance is in direct conflict with this Article."3
Taken together, these considerations suggest the following regarding a
county's authority to regulate mining:
Vl:3

1) Conduct not regulated by any state statute is clearly subject to a
county ordinance that does not exceed the general grant of authority in
N.C.G.S. §153A-121.
2) Conduct regulated only by the Mining Act may also be regulated by a
county ordinance to the extent that it is not in "direct conflict" with the
Act. "Direct conflict" is slightly ambiguous, but a reasonable interpretation
would be that it refers only to requirements that are mutually incompatible,
where compliance with the county ordinance requires violation of the state
statute, or vice versa.
3) State air pollution laws make provision for counties to adopt their
own air pollution control programs, but the statute specifies standards and
procedures for approval of county programs.4 The act goes on to prohibit any
other type of local air pollution control regulations. Thus air pollution
control of mining operations by the county is distinctly prohibited unless the
county develops and receives approval for a complete program of air pollution
control, an undertaking probably beyond the means and interest of the county
at this time.5
4) It is arguable whether a "legislative intent to provide a complete
and integrated regulatory scheme to the exclusion of local regulation" exists
with regard to state regulation of water use and water pollultion.6 A
stronger case against local regulation can probably be made regarding pollu-
tion controls under the water quality control statute (N.C.G.S. §143-214.1 et
seq.) than under the Capacity Use Act (§143-215.11 et seq.), but in neither
case is the matter of legislative intent clear.
B. State ke ulatton of Mining Impacts
Table 1 shows .how the state environmental laws in Chapter 4 relate to the
impacts of peat and phosphate mining described in Chapter 2 and 3. Several
79

Co
M
TABLE 1. POTENTIAL MINING IMPACTS AND STATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
EXISTING STATE AUTHORITY
PERMITTING
MAJOR POTENTIAL IMPACT
TO REGULATE?
AGENCY
AIR
point source
AQCS
DEM
fugitive emissions
AQCS
DEM
WATER
changes in groundwater levels
WUA
DEM
salt water intrusion
WUA, WQCS
DEM
fresh water inflow to estuaries
WQCS; MA; CAMA and D&F (new outlets
DEM, DLR, OCM
only)
discharge of pollutants to
WQCS (MA by reference)
DEM
surface waters
discharge of pollutants to
WQCS (MA by reference)
DEM
ground waters
turbidity and sedimentation
WQCS; MA
DEM, DLR
LAND USE
failure to reclaim land properly
MA
DLR
adverse impacts on neighboring
MA (nearby structures and
DLR
properties
public lands only)
WILDLIFE
MA
DLR
NATURAL AREAS
MA
DLR
RECREATION
MA
DLR
AESTHETICS
MA
DLR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
AHA (advisory; sites in
DAH
National Register only)
TRANSPORTATION
noise, dust from trucks
barge channel and dock construction CAMA; D&F
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
impacts on: population, employment,
housing, taxes, public services
ABBREVIATIONS STATUTES: AHA Archives and History Act (5121-1 et seq.)
AQCS. Air Quality Control Statutes (4143-215.105 et seq.)
CP�!A Coastal Area Management Act (3113A-100 et seq.)
D&F Dredge and Fill Act (4113-229)
11A !fining Act (474-46 et seq.)
110CS [later Quality Control Statutes (5143-214 et seq.)
11UA. Rater Use Act 0143-215.11 et seq.)
OCM
ARE STANDARDS DEVELOPED,
CLEAR AND ENFORCEABLE?
yes
ambient air quality standards only;
difficult to prove contraventions
standards for limiting withdrawals
not developed
standards for limiting withdrawals
not developed
salinity standards being developed by
DEM; Mining Act regs do not address
yes
standards exist, difficult to enforce
yes; Mining Act regulations vague
standards vague
non -numerical standards
non -numerical standards
standards vague
non -numerical standards
non -numerical standards
yes, but see qualifications on
authority
yes?
AGENCIES: DAH Division of Archives and History
DEM Division of Environmental Management
DLR Division of Land Resources
OCM Office of Coastal Management

conclusions are apparent. First, state administrative agencies (primarily the
various divisions and offices of the Department of Natural Resources and Con-:
munity Development) have been granted the authority to regulate most of the
environmental impacts of peat and phosphate mining. The only major areas left
exposed are the socioeconomic impacts of mining development. Second, the -
rigor and clarity with which DNRCD does or can implement this authority varies
considerably. Some impacts, such as fugitive emissions, are very difficult to
control within the confines of present law; for other impacts, such as major
water withdrawals within capacity use areas, the state has not chosen to exer-
cise regulatory authority available to it. For some impacts, particularly
many of those regulated under the Mining Act, the standards in both the Act
and the regulations are vague, giving the county little guidance as to what
specific conditions and standards the state will apply in a given situation.
C. Options for Pamlico Count
Given these considerations, what sensible options are available to the
county? The simplest course of action, one that does not involve legislative
action, is to monitor administration of state and federal environmental pro-
grams within the county. Many of the permit programs to which mining opera-
tions are subject are required by law to give notice of and accept comments on
permit applications, either in formal hearings or through other channels.
The county can and should take advantage of these procedures to register its
recommendations. If a local Environmental impact Statement ordinance is
enacted, the EIS would give the county the inforamtion needed to respond
knowledgeably and effectively in these situations. In addition, where the
county feels that existing regulations and statutes are inadequate to protect
the public interest, it can encourage the various regulatory commissions and
agencies and the Generaly Assembly to adopt more stringent standards.
81

A second measure open to the county is to adopt a regulatory mining
ordinance of its own. The ordinance could be as limited or as comprehensive
as the county chooses, within the limits of the law discussed above. At one
extreme, the county could choose to establish strict standards for every type
of impact within its power to regulate. At the other extreme, there may be
only one or two types of impacts the county is particularly concerned about,
and the ordinance could address just these. A third approach would be to
examine how thoroughly the state regulates mining impacts (Table 1, above),
and to choose to regulate those impacts of interest to the county where the
protection afforded by state action is not complete.
There are two additional considerations that should guide the drafting of
any county ordinance. First, the ordinance should be simple to administer.
Particularly in a county the size of Pamlico, complex standards requiring
frequent monitoring or special expertise to interpret are simply not prac-
tical. Second, the burden on the developer, particularly the administrative
burden, should be minimized to the greatest extent consistent with the purpose
of the ordinance. One way to reduce the cost of compliance, for instance, is
to make the application and any reporting requirements identical to the
states, so that the developer need only fill out one set of forms.
A proposed mining ordinance for the county is attached as Appendix B. in
the following pages, the sections of that ordinance are briefly described.
82

PAMLICO COUNTY MINING ORDINANCE
Title and Purpose
An official title for the ordinance allows it to be easily referred to
without ambiguity in other legislation, in resolutions, and in discussions. A
description of the legislative intent of the Board in enacting the ordinance
is also important and should be included, to provide guidance to the County in
administering the ordinance and, if the need arises, to the courts in inter-
preting it.
Definitions
At a minimum, the ordinance should define mining activity, the operator,.
and the area to which the ordinance will apply. Definitions used in the
Mining Act are recommended.
Permit Application and Review
Somewhere the ordinance must contain a statement requiring the operator
to obtain a mining permit; this need not be more than a single sentence.
Procedures for the filing and county review of applications are also
needed. It is suggested that the state regulations for permit applications
under the Mining Act be incorporated almost verbatim into the county
ordinance, allowing the mine operator to merely submit a copy of his state
application to meet county requirements.?
Standards
This is the heart of the ordinance, and is the section in which the
county specifies what conduct will be regulated and what standards must be met
for permit approval. The range of possibilities is large, and no attempt will
be made to discuss them all here. Careful consideration needs to be given to
the standards chosen and to how the operator's application and activities will
83

be reviewed in terms of those standards. The most common approach is to
choose standards that can be easily interpreted and enforced by county
employees, although simple, easy to interpret standards may prove to be
inflexible ones. A second approach is for the county (perhaps in conjunction
with like-minded counties) to hire a natural resources expert to administer
the ordinance. A third option would be to require the operator to submit
statements from expert consultants hired by the operator and approved by the
county. These statements could either be reviews of how well the operator's
plans meet the standards of the ordinance, or certification that the plans are
sufficient to meet the standards. The state already uses a similar procedure
with respect to the revegetation/reforestation element of the reclamation
plan. 8
One of the elements that may cause the greatest concern is the reclama-
tion plan. There has been very little experience so far with reclamation of
peat mines and some of the more objectionable features of phosphate mines,
such as slime ponds. The county may well want to consider more stringent
standards than the state uses for plan approval. Options to consider (not
mutually exclusive) are:
1) Require the operator in the reclamation plan to specify any permanent
or long-term restrictions on the use of the reclaimed land, such as perpetual
pumping, bearing strength limitations, radiation levels, etc.
2) Require that the technology for reclamation be proven, either on a
pilot scale or in operations elsewhere, and that the plan be shown to be
technically and economically feasible on an operational scale.
3) Require that the fertility, bearing strength, and other character-
istics of the land be restored to pre -mine conditions within a period of time
(10 years?), or that best available (or practicable) technology be used to
approach that standard.
84

4) Specify revegetation standards. Proposed use of non-native vegeta-
tion should be approved by an independent agronomist or forester. A Manatee
County, Florida, ordinance specifies standards of plant diversity and ground
cover to be achieved on reclaimed phosphate mine lands within certain periods
of time.
5) Require a realistic bond. The Mining Act places a limit of $25,000
on the bond required of the operator. For operating mines that may cover
hundreds of acres, and particularly for deep, open -pit mines, the cost of
reclamation may exceed that amount by 10 or 50 times. A more realistic
approach would be either to (1) establish a set price per acre, or (2) recog-
nizing that the costs of reclaiming different types of mined lands vary
greatly, provide for an independent estimate of reclamation cost and use that
to set the bond amount. The amount of the bond need not limit participation
of small firms if provision is made for operators to post bond for only that
portion of the permitted area disturbed at any one time, and to roll over the
bonded acreage so that as land is reclaimed, mining can begin on new land.
Annual Report
The state's Mining Act requires an annual report from mine operators that
serves to inform the state of the progress of mining and reclamation efforts.
The county could include an identical requirement, with the only burden on the
operator being to run off an extra copy for the county.
Other Provisions
There are a number of other provisions that should be included in the
ordinance. These relate to: the time limit of the permit and procedures for
renewal, procedures for modification at the instigation of either the operator
or the county, standards and procedures for release of the bond, procedures
85

for permit suspension or revocation and bond forfeiture, and enforcement and
penalties. These are all relatively straightforward.
86

Chapter Eight
COUNTY TAXATION OF MINING OPERATIONS
There are two potential sources of tax revenue from mining operations
available to counties: 1) the property tax, and 2) the business or license
tax, which, when it is assessed based on the amount or value of natural
resources removed, is often called a severance tax. Only the first of these
is immediately available to counties; a license or severance tax on wining
operations currently cannot be levied by county governments without state
enabling legislation.
A. ±Lo22.qX Tax
Counties and municipalities are authorized by the state to levy property
taxes "to meet the general and other legally authorized expenses of the taxing
units."l Guidelines and procedures for the assessment of property taxes are
laid out in the North Carolina Constitution and General Statutes. The basic
principle to be followed, except for a few specifically defined exemptions and
classifications, is that all property within a jurisdiction should be subject
to the same standards of valuation and the same rate of assessment. North
Carolina General Statutes §105-283 provides that:
All property, real and personal, shall as far as practicable be appraised
or valued at its true value in money. When used in this Subchapter, the
words "true value" shall be interpreted as meaning market value, that is,
the price estimated in terms of money at which the property would change
hands between a willing and financially able buyer and a willing seller,
neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having
reasonable knowledge of all the uses to which the property .is adapted and
for which it is capable of being used.
Section 105-284 goes on to require that all property within a jurisdiction be
assessed, based on market -value appraisals, at a uniform rate.
87

The Legislature has also provided procedures for conducting appraisals.
Prior to periodic property revaluations, uniform schedules of values, stand-
ards and rules to be used in appraising real property must be compiled and
made available for public review.2 The law further provides that:
. . . It shall be the duty of the person making appraisals: (1) in
determining the true value of land, to consider as to each tract, parcel,
or lot separately listed at least its advantages and disadvantages as to
location; zoning; quality of soil; waterpower; water privileges; mineral,
quarry, or other valuable deposits; fertility; adaptability for agricul-
tural, timber -producing, commercial, industrial, or other uses; past
income; probable future income; and any other factors that may affect its
value except growing crops of a seasonal or annual nature. . .3 [emphasis
added]
While the law requires that these enumerated factors must be considered in
appraising each parcel, other relevant factors may also be considered, and the
weight given to each is left to the judgment and discretion of the appraiser.4
Mining operations may generate property tax revenues in several ways:
(a) through assessments on mine -related buildings, vehicles, and other facil-
ities and equipment; (b) through assessment on the mined product stored on
site, as inventory; and (c) possibly through higher valuation of the reclaimed
land once reclamation is complete, if the land is put to more productive use
than before mining began (it is also possible, of course, that the land's
value following mining will be less than previously). Taxation of these
categories of property is common and presents no real difficulties for the tax
administrator.
The land prior to and during mining operations also constitutes taxable
real property, but determining an equitable value of this land for tax pur-
poses has been a troublesome issue, not only in North Carolina but throughout
the country. The state act quoted above makes clear that mineral deposits are
to be considered in the valuation of real property, and courts in many juris-
dictions have consistently held that unmined mineral deposits constitute

taxable real property.5 The standard approach to valuation of land with
mineral deposits.involves a two-step procedure: first, the value of the
surface is estimated as if no valuable mineral deposits existed underneath,
and then the value of the mineral deposits, if known, are added. Where the
surface rights and mineral rights are owned separately, each owner is taxed
based on the value of his interest.
The valuation of surface rights is relatively straightforward, but val-
uation of the mineral rights is not. The greatest difficulty lies in not
knowing the quantity and quality of the mineral deposits, and for this reason
unmined minerals in North Carolina have traditionally not been valued or
valued only nominally. This difficulty is not as severe in the case of peat,
as it occurs in shallow deposits on the land surface and can be easily tested.
The recent surveys of Professor Ingram of The University of North Carolina at
Chapel :sill and Professor Otte of East Carolina University may, in fact, pro-
vide a sufficient data base to permit a reasonably accurate appraisal of these
deposits. Deeply buried deposits such as phosphate, on the other hand, are
far more difficult to appraise.
The easiest situation to appraise is where a tract of land has recently
exchanged hands, as sales price can be estimated by the value of stamps bought
to record the transaction. Such information does not necessarily indicate
market value -- the two parties may have had different information regarding
the property, the tract may have been that final strategic property needed to
assemble a tract large enough to mine, or the seller may have been in a forced
sale situation.6 But.in the absence of indications to the contrary, sales
price is a good estimator of the market value of mineral lands.
Where a property has not recently exchanged hands, appraisers generally
rely on one of three standard methods of real estate valuation: comparable
89

sales, income capitalization (used commonly for rental properties), and repro—
duction or replacement cost minus depreciation.7 While the latter is not
applicable to mineral land appraisal, each of the former two has been applied
to this problem.
Comparable sales may be used where a basis exists for comparing the
mineral deposits of the property to be appraised and other, recently sold
properties. In the absence of information about the minerals underlying the
property to be appraised, however, the method is of no value, and will not
stand up in court. The N.C. Court of Appeals, for instance, recently
declared invalid an Avery County appraisal of mineral rights that was based
solely on appraisals and sales of nearby properties, without any attempt to
consider the specific qualities of the mineral deposits being appraised.$
A second approach, the use of capitalized income to estimate market
value,.has a long history of use in the mineral industry and is probably the
method of choice today (though it would be more accurate to call it the lesser
of available evils). Using this.method, the stream;of net income from a
mining property is estimated for -the life of the mine, and the present value
of this stream is calculated using an appropriate discount rate. In West
Virginia, where coal seams have been mapped fairly accurately by the U.S.
Geological Survey, capitalized income is the bass for a statewide program of
coal lands appraisal now being,developed.9 However, the accuracy with which
West Virginia coal reserves are known is the exception rather than the rule in
the mineral industry. Recognizing this, and recognizing that the future
market value of the mineral product can only be known once it is actually
extracted, some have suggested that the value of mineral deposits should be
assessed only once production begins.10 Operators could.be required to supply
an estimated mining schedule and annual production data to the county, from

which an income stream and capitalized value could be estimated. Of course,
the value of the land begins declining as soon as production begins, so
adjustments for this decline would have to be made as. mining proceeds.
In practice, counties, particularly those with small tax departments and
few mineral properties to appraise, have eschewed sophisticated methods in
favor of rough estimates of sale value and potential profit. In North
Carolina, for instance, Cleveland County has appraised mineral rights at $25
per acre, based on discussions with local mining companies. In [Mitchell
County, the mineral rights of the two mining companies are appraised at $50
per acre for inactive mines and $1000 per acre for active mines, based on
discussions with the companies, geologists' reports, and the improved value of
the mineral once a mine is opened. In Beaufort County, the Tax Supervisor has
chosen not to attempt appraisal of un►ained phosphate depositswhich underlie
most of the county at varying depths, thicknesses and qualities. Instead,
Texasgulf's Lee Creek mine is appraised based on the acreage in each of
several stages of mining (cleared, water -filled for dredges, dry hole,
reclaimed, etc.), with value based roughly on the increased value of the
phosphate ore once improvements such as overburden removal are made..
Only two court.cases testing county appraisals of mineral rights have*
reached the appellate level in North Carolina.t1 In both cases, the N.C. Court
of Appeals applied the basic rules of law laid down by earlier courts for
other types of property appraisals.12 These principles are:
1) Ad valorem tax assessments are presumed to be correct, and the burden
of proof is on the taxpayer to show that they are not.
2) In order to rebut the presumption of correctness of the tax assess-
ment, the taxpayer must produce "competent, material and substantial
evidence" that both (a) the county tax supervisor used an arbitrary
91

or illegal method of valuation, and (b) theassessment substantially
exceeded the true value in money of the property.
Such principles accord counties a large degree of freedom in their attempts to
determine equitable appraisals of difficult -to -value -properties:
A practical concern that arises is that if in -place mineral deposits are
appraised, farmers, foresters, and -other owners -of small parcels -will receive
higher tax bills along with the mining companies. In addressing this concern,
there are several factors to consider. First, the distribution of undisturbed
mineral deposits that can be accurately appraised (probably peat, probably not
phosphate) may be such that most are owned by a few, large landowners.
Second, North Carolina law does allow.for appraisal at "use value" (below
market value) for agricultural, horticultural, and forest lands meeting -the
criteria for eligibility.13 Third, -it should be noted that who're an equitable
appraisal method .is available, the law does not really give the county a
choice, but actually compels the county to appraise and tax all real
property.
While there is no way for a county to tax deposits underlying a mining
company's land but not those under farmers' lands, several good arguments can
be advanced for taxing mineral deposits only once production begins. The best
argument, mentioned above, is that mineral deposits cannot'be accurately
appraised until they are recovered. A second argument is that, since mining
cannot begin until various state permits are obtained, and since these permits
may contain costly stipulations and conditions (or may not be obtainable at
all), the uncertainty in value of these depositsbefore the permits are
granted makes accurate appraisal impossible.
There is no question that appraisal of mineral -deposits is one of the
thorniest issues in the property tax field. Many counties simply don't have
92

the resources to undertake the job. Recognizing this, several states (e.g.,
West Virginia) have undertaken mineral lands appraisal at the state level. In
the West, a number of states set the value of mineral properties for ad
valorem tax purposes by statutory formulae that calculate value based on the
annual production of a mine. One state (Wyoming) has avoided the difficulty
altogether by imposing a severance tax in lieu of ad valorem taxes.
Property taxation of mineral deposits may have non -revenue effects that
counties should realize. Annual taxation of unmined deposits creates an
incentive to mine the deposits earlier than a company otherwise might, an
effect the county may not wish to encourage. Likewise, property taxes encour-
age operating mines to mine the deposits faster. However, some commentators
believe that other factors are far more important in determining the rate of
mining activity and that this effect has been overstated.14
A final comment is that the question of property taxation of mineral
deposits in Pamlico County is, for the present, somewhat irrelevant. Phos-
phate deposits in the county will probably not be developed for at least
twenty years, and it would be almost impossible to estimate future market
conditions and the present value of the deposits today. While peat may be
developed much sooner, there is currently no market for Pamlico County peat,
and until one develops, it is difficult to affix a value to the deposits.
Given the above considerations, what courses of action might Pamlico
County take?
1) First, regarding peat, the county should consider whether the in -
place deposits can be equitably taxed, and whether the county should try to do
SO. Does sufficient information exist to classify land as to the depth and
quality of its peat reserves? Does uncertainty regarding state and federal
93

permits make appraisal prior to permit issuance impossible? Do peat reserves
currently have any value at all?
2) Second, once mining begins, the county should establish "uniform
schedules of values, standards, and rules" for valuation of mineral deposits
under development. While the capitalized income method is probably the best
choice, it may be beyond the means of the county. At the least, the county
should ensure that whatever method is adopted meets the standards of the state
statutes (§105-283 and §105-317) and the principles enunciated above by the
court.
3) For assistance in establishing equitable appraisal standards before
or during mining, the county should consider either (a) asking the state to
establish such standards, either by statute or administratively within the
Department of Revenue, or (b) collaborating with other counties to develop
standards all of them could easily apply.
B. License or Severance Tax
A license tax (also known as a business, privilege, or excise tax) is a
fee or tax on the privilege, granted by public authority, of conducting a
business or trade. The state has the power to levy franchise and/or license
taxes on various businesses and occupations. North Carolina General Statutes
§105-33 through §105-102.3 list the businesses on which such taxes may cur-
rently be levied. Mining operations are not mentioned.
Counties are authorized to tax businesses to the extent authorized by
N.C. Gen. Stat. §105-33 et seq.,15 although it should be noted that many of
these statutes provide for a state tax of the particular business while spe-
cifically prohibiting any .local tax of that business. Since mining operations
are not mentioned by §105-33 et seq., counties are presently unauthorized to
levy a business tax upon them. Legislation would be necessary for counties to
94

impose such a tax. (Cities, on the other hand, are authorized to levy privi-
lege or license taxes on all trades and businesses carried on within the
city,16 and would need no state enabling legislation to tax mining operations
within their jurisdictions.)
License taxes may take one of two different forms. The assessment may be
a single fee regardless of business size, as, for example, the $25.00 license
tax imposed on all campgrounds within North Carolina. The assessment may also
be graduated, with the fee schedule based on population size, customer capac-
ity, value of product, or some other factor. The severance tax, one of the
latter,.type, is of particular interest in considering mining taxation.
A severance tax is levied upon the person or company extracting a non
renewable natural resource from the ground and is imposed at the time and
place of extraction.17 Most severance taxes take one of two forms: (1) a
specific or per unit tax of a set dollar amount on each unit (ton, barrel,
etc.) of the resource mined, or (2) an ad valorem tax of a set percentage of
the sales price of the mined resource.18 The basic theory of severance taxes
is that the current and future costs of resource development, including asset
replacement costs, should be borne by the users of the resource. Severance
taxes are therefore enacted to compensate state and local governments for the
provisign of additional public services required by resource development, for
ensuring adequate reclamation of mined areas, and for other costs.
License taxes based on the amount of the product mined have been upheld
in the courts in a variety of states.19 While the North Carolina General
Assembly has never approved a severance tax, there is no reason to believe
such a tax would meet with judicial opposition. The N.C. Supreme Court has
held that a license tax based on gross sales is constitutional.20 It has also
held that uniformity in taxation between the trades is not a constitutional
95

requirement, thus allowing the state to tax one business at- a different rate
than another as long as the rates are uniform within each business classifi-
cation. All that is required is that the classifications be reasonable rather
than arbitrary. Which businesses the governmental authority chooses for
taxing is generally a discretionary decision given wide latitude by the
courts.21
Depending on the legislative authorization, counties could benefit from a
severance tax on mining operations in.one of.several ways: (1), through
direct and unrestricted receipt of a portion of. state severance tax revenues,
as directed in the legislation; (2) through indirect receipt of severance tax
revenues via funds established for reclamation efforts or expanded public
services; and (3) through authorization for counties to adopt their own.sever-
ance tax measures.
One of the great advantages of a severance tax is the ease with which it
can be administered. Given the difficulties inherent in levying a property
tax on mineral resources, the county might consider requesting the General
Assembly to replace local mineral property taxes with a locally administered
severance tax. Such a tax need not conflict with any additional severance tax
the state may wish to levy. Wyoming has taken this approach. Its major draw-
back, of course, is that tax revenues then fluctuate with mine production.
Resources from severance taxes are used for a variety of purposes around
the nation. In Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, a share of the coal
severance tax is channeled to communities where mines are under construction
but are not generating tax revenues to fund the expanded public services.they
require. Florida uses part of its 10.percent tax on phosphate.for mine recla-
mation. The State of Kentucky has authorized counties to impose a license tax
of one percent of value produced upon oil producers to meet general county
96

revenue needs. A North Carolina severance tax bill, calling for a four per-
cent tax on the gross value of all minerals at the time they are removed from
the ground, was introduced in the last session of the Legislature but died in
committee.
Resolutions
As initial steps in acting on the findings and conclusions of this
chapter, two proposed resolutions have been drafted for the Board's consider-
ation and are included as Appendix C. The first requests state legislation
authorizing a local severance tax. The second, on which the Board may wish to
postpone consideration until after the General Assembly has considered sever-
ance tax legislation and the peat and phosphate deposits have attained some
positive value, declares it to be county policy to tax mineral resources at
their mar'<et value and directs the tax supervisor to take the steps necessary
to do so.
97

FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER ONE
1. Sources for material in this chapter include the following:
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. "1978 Census of
Agriculture: Preliminary Report, Pamlico County, N.C." Washington, D.C.:
Bureau of the Census. 1980. 4 pp.
North Carolina Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Agricultural
Statistics 1981. Raleigh: N.C. Crop and Livestock Reporting Service.
76 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Map of North Carolina. Published for SCS by the U.S. Army
Topographic Laboratories. 1974. 1 p.
General Soil
Engineer
Richard L. Welch and Herbert A. Knight. Forest Statistics for the
Northern Coastal Plain of North Carolina 1974. USDA Forest Service
Resource Bulletin SE-30. Asheville, N.C.: Southeastern Forest
Experiment Station, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1974. 33 pp.
Frank B. Barick and T. Stuart Critcher. Wildlife and Land Use Planning
with Particular Reference to Coastal Counties. Raleigh: Wildlife
Resources Commission. 1975.~-
Exploratory Oil Wells of North_ Carolina, 1_925-1976. Raleigh: Geology
and Mineral Resources Section, N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and
Community Development.
Lee J. Otte and Roy L. Ingram. 1980 Annual ReEort on Peat Resources of
North Carolina. Report to the N.C. Energy Institute and U.S. Dept. of
Energy. Chapel Hill, N.C.: The University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill. 1980. 59 pp.
James A. Miller. Stratt;�raphy, Structure and Phosphate D_Mosits of the
Pungo River Formation of North Carolina_. N.C. Geological Survey Bulletin
No. 87. Raleigh: Division of Land Resources, N.C. Dept. of Natural
Resources and Community Development. 1982. 32 pp.
CHAPTER TWO
1. Henrick J. Harwood and Philip S. McMullan, Jr. "Peat Energy for north
Carolina: An Economic Analysis." In: Curtis J. Richardson, ed. Pocosin
Wetlands: An Integrated Analysis of Coastal Plain Freshwater Bogs in
North Carolina'. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Hutchinson Ross Pub. Co., p. 265.
99

2. Ibid., p. 267.
3. Preston P. Pate, Jr., and Robert Jones. Effects of Upland Drainage on
Estuarine Nursery Areas of Pamlico Sound, North Carolina. Working Paper
81-10. Raleigh: UNC Sea Grant College Program. 1981. 24 pp.
CHAPTER THREE
1. This introductory section relies heavily on Immo H. Redeker, "North
Carolina Phosphate Concentration: Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. Project,"
Transactions of the Society of Mining Engineers, AIME, Vol. 250, March
1971, pp. 71-80.
2. Lowell E. Scott. Borehole Mining of Phosphate Ores. Bureau of Mines
Open File Report 138-82. Prepared by Flow Technology Company.
Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Mines, U.S. Dept. of Interior. August 1981.
218 pp.
3. A substantial amount of the discussion in the following pages,is drawn
from:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, North Carolina Phosphate Corporation. 1976. Various
pagi ngs .
Don R. McCombs, James C. Barber, and Richard Bonskowski., Environmental
Impact Guidelines for New Source Phosphate Fertilizer Manufacturing
Facilities. EPA-130/6-81-003. Prepared by WAPORA, Inc., for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.: U.S.E.P.A. 210 pp.
4. Robert F. Kaufmann.and James D. Bliss. Effects of Phosphate
Mineralization and the Phosphate Industry on Radium-226 in Ground Water
of Central Florida. EPA/520-6-77-010. Las Vegas, Nevada: Office of
Radiation Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977.
pp. 111, 3-6.
5. Richard J. Guimond, William H. Ellett, Joseph E. Fitzgerald, Jr., and
others. Indoor Radiation Exposure Due to Radium-226 in Florida Phosphate
Lands. EPA 520/4-78-013. Washington, D.C.: Office of Radiation
Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. p. 24.
6. Charles D. Strain, .James E. Watson, Jr., and Siu-Wing Fong. "An
Evaluation of 226Ra and 222Rn Concentrations in Ground and Surface Water
Near a Phosphate Mining and Manufacturing Facility." Health Physics
Vol. 37 (December 1979), pp. 779-783.
7. Scott, Borehole Mining of Phosphate Ores.
100

CHAPTER SEVEN
1. State v. Tenore, 280 V.C. 238, 185 S.E.2d 644 (1972)
2. The full text of §160A-174 is:
(a) A city may by ordinance define, prohibit, regulate, or abate
acts, omissions, or conditions, detrimental to the health, safety, or
welfare of its citizens and the peace and dignity of the city, and may
define and abate nuisances.
(b) A city ordinance shall be consistent with the Constitution and
laws of North Carolina and of the United States. An ordinance is not
consistent with State or federal law when:
(1) The ordinance infringes a liberty guaranteed to the people by
the State or federal Constitution;
(2) The ordinance makes unlawful an act, omission or condition
which is expressly made lawful by State or federal law;
(3) The ordinance makes lawful an act, omission, or condition
which is expressly made unlawful by State or federal law;
(4) The ordinance purports to regulate a subject that cities are
expressly forbidden to regulate by State or federal law;
(5) The ordinance purports.to regulate a field for which a State
or federal statute clearly shows a legislative intent to
provide a complete and integrated regulatory scheme to the
exclusion of local regulation;
(6) The elements of an offense defined by a city ordinance are
identical to the elements of an offense defined by State or
federal law.
The fact that a State or federal lay:, standing alone, makes a given act,
omission, or condition unlawful shall not preclude city ordinances
requiring a higher standard of conduct or condition.
3. N.C. Gen. Stat. §74-65
4. N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-215.112
5. In addition, enactment of local air pollution controls in order to
establish standards more stringent than the state's would be futile.
The Hardison amendment to the state's air pollution control legislation
states that "(i]t is the intent of the General Assembly that the air
quality rules, regulations and procedures promulgated by the Environ-
mental Management Commission or any other State or local regulatory body
under the General Statutes of North Carolina shall be no more restrictive
than those adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency."
(N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-215.107(f)) Since state regulations must be at
least as stringent as EPA's for the state program to obtain EPA approval,
local air regulations by necessity must be identical to the state's for
regulated emissions. A local board is free to adopt standards more
stringent than the state's for pollutants not regulated by EPA.
101

6. N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-211 states: "It is the intent of the General
Assembly, through the duties and powers defined herein, to confer
such authority upon the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development as shall be necessary to administer a complete program
of water and air conservation, pollution abatement and control and to
achieve a coordinated effort of pollution abatement and control with
other jurisdictions. Whether or not this statement or the regulatory
provisions of the acts themselves are sufficient evidence of the
required "legislative intent" is an open question. The courts have
provided no clear guidelines for application of this provision.
7. These may be found at N.C. Gen. Stat. §74-49 and 15 N.C.A.C. 5B .0004
8. "(b) Information required in the reclamation plan shall include:...
(10) plan for revegetation and reforestation or other surface
treatment of the affected areas which plan must be approved
in writing by one of the following prior to submission of the
application:
(A) Authorized representatives of the local soil and water
conservation district having jurisdiction over lands in
question;
(B) Authorized representatives of the division of forest
resources, Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development;
(C) County agricultural extension chairmen or research and
extension personnel headquartered at North Carolina State
University in the school of agriculture and life sciences;
(D) North Carolina licensed landscape architects;
(E) Private consulting foresters referred by the division of
forest resources, Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development;
(F) Others as may be approved by the department;"
(15 N.C.A.C. 5B .0004)
CHAPTER EIGHT
1. N.C. Gen. Stat. §105-347
2. N.C. Gen. Stat. §105-317(b)
3. N.C. Gen. Stat. §105-317(a)
4. Fi. Lewis, The Property Tax in North Carolina - An Introduction, 3rd ed.,
Institute of Government, Chapel Hill (1978), p. 30
5. 84 C.J.S. Taxation §411(g)
6. D. Bondurant, A New Technique for Evaluating Coal Property for Ad
Valorem Tax Assessment," 76 W. Va. L. Rev. 337 (1974)
102

7. C.L. Harriss, Property Taxation in Government Finance, Research
Publication No. 31, Tax Foundation, Inc., New York (1974), p. 26
8. In re Land and Mineral Co., 49 N.C.App. 605, 272 S.E.2d 878 (1980).
See note 11 below.
9. Bondurant, note 6 above, -and J.R. ?Melton, "Coal Reserves Should Be
the Subject of Equitable Ad Valorem Taxation," 76 W. Va. L. Rev. 325
(1974)
10. A.G. Ferraro, "Valuation of Property Interests for Ad Valorem Taxa-
tion of Extractive Industry and Agricultural Realty: Problems and
Solutions," Chapter 7 in A.D. Lynn, ed., The Property Tax and Its
Administration, Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison (1969), p. 126
11. In re Land and 'Mineral Co., 49 N.C.App. 529, 272 S.E.2d 6 (1980),
In re Land and Mineral Co., 49 N.C.App. 605, 272 S.E.2d 878 (1980).
In the former case, a :Mitchell County appraisal of $50 per acre on
mineral rights was upheld as not exceeding their true value, based
on the statement of the company president that the company was
asking $150 per acre. In the latter case, an Avery County appraisal
of the same amount was thrown out because 1) the county had used
only appraisals in neighboring counties and sales of nearby parcels to
set the value, without any -consideration of the particular qualities
of the property being appraised (as required in N.C. Gen. Stat.
§105-317(a)), and 2) the county presented no evidence to rebut the
testimony of a company employee that the property was worth consider -
'ably less.
12. In re Appeal of Amp, Inc., 287 N.C. 547, 563, 215 S.E.2d 752,762
(1975). —
13. N.C. Gen. Stat. §105-277.3 through §105-277.7
14. J. Thompson, "State and Local Taxation of the Bituminous Coal Industry,"
76 W. Va. L. Rev. 297 (1974).
15. N.C. Gen. Stat. §153A-146 and §153A-152
16. N.C. Gen. Stat. §160A-211
17. L. Peters, "An Outline for Development of Cost -Based State Severance
Taxes," 20 Nat. Res. J. 913 (1980).
18. Ibid.
19. 58 C.J.S. 11ines and Minerals §238
20. Nesbitt v. Gill, 227 N.C. 174, 41 S.E.2d 646, aff'd 332 U.S. 749, 68
S.Ct. 61, 92 L.Ed. 336 (1947).
21. Coca-Cola v. Shaw, 232 N.C. 307, 59 S.E.2d 819 (1950); Lenoir Fin. Co.
v. Currie, 254 N.C. 129, 118 S.E.2d 543 (1961).
103

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Listed below are some suggestions for further reading on the topics
covered in this report. Public documents may sometimes be obtained by writing
to the publishing agency. In many cases, these reports are also available,
for a fee, from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). If so,
the document's NTIS order number is included with each entry. The address is:
National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Springfield, VA 22161.
CHAPTER ONE
Ingram, Roy L., and Lee J. Otte. Peat Deposits of Light Ground Pocosin,
Pamlico County, North Carolina. Prepared for the North Carolina Energy
Institute and U.S. Department of Energy. Chapel Hill: Department of
Geology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 1980. 24pp.
(NTIS: DOE/ET/10159-T4)
Miller, James A. Stratigraphy, Structure and Phosphate Deposits of the Pungo
River Formation of North Carolina. N.C. Geological Survey Bulletin No.
87. Raleigh: Division of Land Resources, N.C. Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development. 1982. 32pp. + maps.
CHAPTER TWO
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Peat Mining
Task Force. Report of Peat Iiining Task Force. Raleigh: DNRCD. 1981.
11 + 60 pp.
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Peat Mining
Task Force. Peat Mining and Natural Resources. Raleigh: DNRCD. 1983.
33 pp.
Reed, R.M., L.D. Voorhees, and P.J. Mulholland. "Overview --Using Peat for
Energy: Potential Environmental Constraints." Paper prepared by
Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, TN. 1981. 35 pp. (NTIS: CONF-811217-1)
U.S. Department of Energy. Peat Prospectus. Washington, D.C.: U.S.D.O.E.
77 pp. (NTIS: DOE/ET/10159-T6; also available free of charge from U.S.
Dept. of Energy, Division of Fossil Fuel Processing, flail Stop F-305,
Washington, DC 20545)
CHAPTER THREE
Augenstein, David M. Air Pollutant Control Techniques for Phosphate Rock
Processing Industry. EPA-450/3-78-030. Prepared by PEDCo Environmental,
Inc., for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, NC: U.S.E.P.A. 1978. 25 pp. (NTIS: PB-286170)
105

Boscak, Vladimir G. Evaluation of Control Technology for the Phosphate
Fertilizer Industry. EPA-600/2-79-169. Prepared by the Research Corp.
of New England for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, NC: U.S.E.P.A. 1979. 187 pp. (NTIS: PB80-102247)
Flow Technology Company. Borehole Mining of Phosphate Ores. Bureau of Mines
Open File Report 138-82. Washington, DC: Bureau of Mines, U.S.
Department of Interior. 1981. 217 pp. (NTIS: PB82-257841)
McCombs, Don R., James C. Barber, and Richard Bonskowski. Environmental
Impact Guidelines for New Source Phosphate Fertilizer Manufacturing
Facilities. EPA-130 6-81-003. Prepared by WAPORA, Inc., for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: U.S.E.P.A. 210 pp.
(NTIS: PB82-123522)
Nyers „ J.M., G.D. Rawlings, E.A. 1lullen, and others. Source Assessment:
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry. EPA-600/2-79-019c. Prepared by Monsanto
Research Corp. for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, NC: U.S.E.P.A. 1979. 203 pp. (NTIS: PB-300681)
Texasgulf Chemicals Company. "So That the Land May Feed Us." Brochure.
28 pp. Available from: Texasgulf Chemicals Co., P.O. Box 48, Aurora, NC
27806.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. The Florida Phosphate Slimes Problem: A Review and a
Bibliography. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8668. Tuscaloosa,
AL: Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of Interior. 1975. 46 pp. (NTIS:
PB-240686)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Areawide Environmental Impact
Statement, Central Florida Phosphate Industry. 2 vols. EPA
904/9-78/026(A) and (B). Atlanta, GA: U.S.E.P.A. 1978. 87 pp, 184 pp.
(NTIS: PB 295562, PB 295563)
CHAPTER EIGHT
Lewis, Henry L. The Property Tax in North Carolina -- An Introduction. 3rd
ed. Chapel Hill: Institute of Government, The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. 1978. 97 pp.
Peters, Lee. "An Outline for Development of Cost -Based State Severance
Taxes." Natural Resources Journal. Vol. 913. 1980. pp. 913-931.
Sajgo, Gloria. "Should North Carolina Impose a Severance Tax?" Popular
Government. Vol. 48, No. 3 (Winter 1983). pp. 45-50.
Starch, Karl E. Taxation, Mining, and the Severance Tax. Bureau of Mines
Information Circular 8788. Washington, DC: Bureau of Mines, U.S.
Department of Interior. 1979. 65 pp.
106

Appendix A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ORDINANCE
SECTION ONE: TITLE
This ordinance shalt be known as and may be referred to as the "Pamlico
County Environmental Impact Statement Ordinance."
SECTION TWO: PURPOSE AND INTENT
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes 113A-1 et seq., providing for
the establishment of policies at the local level to identify environmental
changes and impacts which will be detrimental to the health, safety and wel-
fare of the residents of the County, the Board of Commissioners of the County
of Pamlico hereby declares the following policy, in order to:
(1) encourage the wise and productive use of the natural resources
within the county;
(2) encourage a public and governmental awareness of the environment and
the consequences of actions which affect it;
(3) insure that full disclosure is made as to the anticipated effect of
proposed actions on the resources of the county; and
(4) permit and facilitate full enforcement of all statutes, ordinances,
regulations, and policies concerning the environment in an effi-
cient, coordinated and comprehensive manner.
The intent of this ordinance is to:
(1) require full disclosure of the nature, extent, rationale, methods,
and impacts of major development projects in the County;
(2) encourage the mitigation.of any adverse impacts and the reclamation
of land, if necessary; and to
(3) make such information publicly available so that the members of the
community may be aware of, comment on, and take appropriate action
concerning development issues before they become moot.
107

By considering the information disclosed in the Environmental Impact
Statement, it is hoped that decisions which affect development will be made so
as to best serve the needs of the public, including adequate protection of the
environmental quality and natural resources of Pamlico County.
SECTION THREE: DEFINITIONS
"Major Development Project" includes industrial and commercial projects,
material or mineral extraction projects, and any project involving substantial �.
grading or vegetation clearance or any project that would have a substantial
impact on the hydrology of the county or its environs; but does not include
any projects involving the development of less than two contiguous acres,
unless part of a development which will eventually comprise more than two
contiguous acres.
SECTION FOUR: PERSONS AND FIRMS AFFECTED
All persons and corporations (applicants) who must apply to the county or
the State for a permit of any kind to initiate or alter a major development
project in Pamlico County shall submit with the application for that permit an
Environmental Impact Statement approved by the Board of Commissioners.
SECTION FIVE: APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
To have an EIS approved by the Board of Commissioners, ten copies of the
EIS must be submitted to the County Manager at least 45 days prior to the
Board's monthly meeting where consideration is desired. To be considered
adequate and sufficient for approval, the EIS must:
A. Give a decision maker or concerned member of the public enough
information to adequately understand the causes of all potentially
significant impacts on the environment, the advantages and dis-
advantage of methods available for reducing adverse impacts, and the
feasibility of alternatives to the proposed project.
108

B. Be written in language understandable to lay persons so the decision
makers and the public can readily interpret the Environmental Impact
Statement.
C. Be accurate, contain no contradictory statements, and support
conclusions with facts or references.
Also, to be considered adequate and sufficient the Environmental Impact
Statement must not:
A. Be padded with unnecessary information whose relevance to the project
is not explained.
B. Be presented in a form which requires the reader to do additional
work or supply additional information in order to interpret.
To be considered adequate and sufficient the Environmental Impact Statement
must include:
A. A description of the project area, its environs, and the present use
thereof. This information shall include information regarding
existing traffic, water quality, air quality, existing land drainage
systems, and the relationship of the development location or its
impacts on areas of environmental concern including but not limited
to estuaries, primary estuarine nursery areas, and vital habitat
areas, and any other significant impacts anticipated by the
developer.
B. The complete rationale for undertaking the proposed project.
C. A complete description of the entire process, operation or project
which would take place within the boundaries of the site should the
proposed project be undertaken. For any project that extracts a
substance from the site, this description must include the rate,
quantity and duration of extraction.
D. A description of the anticipated impacts on natural vegetation and
wildlife and fish populations in or adjacent to the project area.
E. A description of the anticipated impact of the development on air
quality.
F. A description of the anticipated hydrologic impacts, including anti-
cipated effects on the quantity, quality, timing, and duration of
runoff to estuarine waters as compared to the natural preexisting
state, the effect on the existing water table and the quality and
quantity of ground water, and anticipated erosion and sedimentation.
G. A description of the anticipated impact of the development on the
scenic, historical or cultural qualities of the county.
109

H. A description of the impact on any transportation system affected by
preparation, construction or operation of the proposed development
including but not limited to highway, rail or water transport
systems.
I. A description of the anticipated impact on various socio-economic
characteristics of the county, including population, housing,
employment and income, and the supply and use of public services.
J. A description of the relationship between the short-term uses of the
environment involved in the proposed action and the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity.
K. A description of any irreversible and irretrievable environmental
changes which would occur if the proposed development should be
undertaken.
L. A description of the steps to be taken by the developer or others to
mitigate anticipated adverse impacts of the development including but
not limited to those impacts on ground water and surface water qual
ity and quantity and the quality of impacted coastal waters. This
description must also contain a discussion of practicable technology,
including "state of the art" technology for mitigating anticipated
adverse impacts and the rationale for choosing certain techniques for
mitigation over other available techniques.
M. A description of the steps to be taken to reclaim the land should
reclamation be necessary.
If a federal or state agency has prepared an Environmental Impact State-
ment for the proposed project, the applicant may substitute that document for
the statement required under this ordinance to the extent that that document
meets the requirements of this ordinance and to the extent that the applicant
accepts the authoring agency's findings and conclusions.
SECTION SIX: PROCEDURE: NOTICE, HEARING, APPROVAL
A. Within ten (10) working days of submission of an Environmental Impact
Statement to the County Clerk, the Clerk will publish a notice of the
receipt of the Environmental Impact Statement.
B. The Board of Commissioners shall hold a public hearing on the Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement prior to or as part of the meeting at
which approval of the Environmental Impact Statement is considered.
Notice of the hearing shall be published in one or more newspapers of
general circulation within the area no less than one (1) week prior
to the date of the hearing.
110

C. Within ninety (90) days of receiving a proposed Environmental Impact
Statement, the Board of Commissioners must approve, disapprove or
request clarification (as provided in paragraph F below) of the Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement based on the standards in Section Five of
this ordinance, or else the Statement will be deemed approved.
D. If the Commissioners approve the Environmental Impact Statement it
will be considered as accepted in its present form and will complete
the developer's requirement for submittal of an Environmental Impact
Statement.
E. If the proposed Environmental Impact Statement is disapproved, the
Commissioners shall provide the applicant with the specific findings
and reasons for their determination.
F. The Board of Commissioners may request clarification or correction of
the facts on matters in question in the Environmental Impact State-
ment (or for additional comments on matters not included in the
original submittal but which bear substantially on the proposed
development). In such an event, the Board must approve or disapprove
the Environmental Impact Statement, as revised, within 45 days of
resubmittal.
G. The Building Inspector shall not issue any building permit or cer-
tificate of occupancy or compliance for any structure within a major
development project except upon a finding by the Board of Commis-
sioners that the requirements of this ordinance have been met. Nor
shall any approval, permit license, certificate or filing provided
for by any zoning ordinance, subdivision control ordinance or other
land use control be granted or allowed by the Board of Commissioners,
the Building Inspector or any other town official or body except upon
a finding by the Commissioners that the requirements of this ordi-
nance have been met.
H. Once an Environmental Impact Statement is approved, any substantial
deviation from the plans and practices described therein, including
any actions that would intensify the project's significant adverse
environmental impacts, will require that the developer submit an
amendment to the existing Statement. The amendment must meet all of
the standards of Section Five of this ordinance with respect to the
proposed changes in the plans and practices described in the original
Statement. The amendment will be reviewed in accord with the pro-
cedures of this section as if it were a Statement undergoing review
for the first time.
111

Appendix B
PAMLICO COUNTY MINING ORDINANCE
SECTION ONE: TITLE
This ordinance shall be known as and may be referred to as the
"Pamlico County Mining Ordinance."
SECTION TWO: INTENT
In enacting this ordinance, Pamlico County implements the policies
contained in the County's Mining Policy. The development of peat, phos-
phate, and other non-renewable resource deposits in the County will be
encouraged only if doing so will not hinder the development or continued
use of other natural resources and will contribute to the economic, social,
and psychological well-being of the people of the County in both the near
and distant future. The standards contained within this Ordinance provide
a means to effectuate the desire of the County to protect the environment
while allowing the development of mineral resources. More specifically,
the purpose of this Ordinance is to promote the health, safety and general
welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Pamlico County by ensuring
that:
(A) once resources are mined, every effort is made to leave the
affected area in such a condition that it can be used for other
activities benefitting the County or can be returned as near as
possible to its original natural state;
(B) the removal of water from the site is done in a way that will not
interfere with the natural function of wetlands and estuaries,
including their function as habitat and nursery areas for fish and
other marine animals;
(C) the quality and quantity of ground water is not affected;
(D) every, effort is made to ensure that the aesthetic beauty of the
County is protected both during and after the development process;
and
(E) adjacent landowners are protected from the adverse impacts of mining
activities..
Each purpose listed above serves to balance the interests of the general
public of Pamlico County and those of individual property owners.
SECTION THREE: DEFINITIONS
When used in this Ordinance. the following terms shall have the meanings
described below:
Affected Area: the area of the mine, meaning the surface area of land that
is mined, the surface area of land on which overburden and waste is
112

deposited, and the surface area of land used for processing or treatment
plants, stockpiles, and settling ponds.
Board: the Board of Commissioners of Pamlico County.
Mining or mining activity:
a. The breaking of the surface soil in order to facilitate or accom-
plish the extraction or removal of minerals, ores, or other solid
matter,
b. Any activity or process constituting all or part of a process for
the extraction or removal of minerals, ores, soils, and other
solid matter from its original location, or
c. The preparation, washing, cleaning, or other treatment of minerals,
ores, or other solid matter so as to make them suitable for
commercial, industrial or construction use.
It shall not include those aspects of deep mining not having signifi-
cant effect on the surface, where the affected land does not exceed
one acre in area. It shall not include mining operations where the
affected land does not exceed one acre in area. It shall not include
plants engaged in processing minerals produced elsewhere and whose
refuse does not affect more.than one acre of land. It shall not
include excavation or grading when conducted solely in aid of on -site
farming or of on -site construction for purposes other than mining.
Removal of overburden and mining of limited amounts of any ores or
mineral solids shall not be considered mining when done only for the
purpose and to the extent necessary to determine the location, quantity,
or quality of any natural deposit, provided that no ores or mineral
solids removed during such exploratory excavation or mining are sold,
processed for sale, or consumed in the regular operation of a business,
and provided further that the affected land resulting from any such
exploratory excavation does not exceed one acre in area.
Mining Coordinator: a person designated by the Board to represent them in
matters pertaining to the implementation and enforcement of this
Ordinance and who shall have the responsibilities described herein.
Operator: any person or persons, any partnership, limited partnership, or
corporation, or any association of persons, engaged in mining opera-
tions, whether individually, jointly, or through subsidiaries, agents,
employees, or contractors.
SECTION FOUR: MINING PERMIT
After June 1, 1983, no operator shall engage in mining in Pamlico
County without having first obtained from the Board an operating permit
which covers the affected land and which has not terminated, been revoked,
been suspended, or otherwise become invalid.
SECTION FIVE: PERMMIT APPLICATION AND REVIEW
All applications for permits shall be made in writing to the Mining
Coordinator and shall include a legal description of the parcel(s) for
which the permit is sought, a mining plan, a reclamation plan, and maps as
113

described below:
(A) Mining Plan. The mining plan shall include information on:
(1) materials to be mined;
(2) method of mining;
(3) expected depth of mine;
(4) size of the mine, including acreage for: tailings ponds, stock-
piles, waste piles, processing plants, and mine excavation;
(5) anticipated mining schedule, with acreage to be disturbed each
year;
(6) maximum area to be disturbed at any one time; and
(7) anticipated effect on: wildlife; freshwater, estuarine, and
marine fisheries; the quality and quantity of surface and
ground waters; neighboring land; recreational activities and
opportunities; aesthetic beauty of the County; and cultural
resources; and the measures to be taken to ensure that the
actions of the operator will have no net significant adverse
effect on these resources.
(B) Reclamation Plan. Information -required in the reclamation plan
shall include:
(1) intended plan for overall mine reclamation, subsequent land
use and the general methods to be used in reclaiming;
(2) any restrictions, limitations, or hazards regarding use of the
land that will persist more than fifteen (15) years after
completion of mining, including, but not limited to, reduced
bearing strength of the soil, the lowering of ground surface
beneath the seasonal high water table, and elevated radiation
levels;
(3) intended methods to prevent or eliminate conditions hazardous
to animal or fish life in or adjacent to the affected areas;
(4) intended methods of rehabilitation of settling ponds;
(5) intended methods of restoration or establishment of stream
channels and stream beds to a condition minimizing erosion,
siltation and other pollution;
(6) intended measures to stabilize slopes;
(7) intended measures to provide for safety to persons and adjoin-
ing property in excavation in rock;
(8) intended measures of disposal of mining refuse and control of
contaminants;
(9) provisions to prevent collection of noxious, odious, or foul
water in mined areas;
(10) plan for revegetation and reforestation or other surface treat-
ment of the affected areas, provided that areas expected to be
in use beyond the permit period, such as processing plants or
stockpiles, do not require a specific revegetation plan;
(11) time schedule of reclamation that provides that reclamation
activities be conducted simultaneously with mining operations
whenever feasible and in any event be initiated at the earliest
practicable time after completion or termination of mining on
any segment and completed within two years.
(C) Maps. Two copies of a county map showing the mine location and two
copies of a mine map, correlated with the mining and reclamation
plans, shall be submitted. Mine maps should be accurate drawings,
114

aerial photographs or enlarged topographic maps of the mine area and
must clearly show the following:
(1) property lines or affected area of mining operation;
(2) outline of,pits;
(3) outline of stockpile areas;
(4) outline of overburden disposal areas;
(5) location of processing plants (processing plants may be de-
cribed as to location and distance from mine if sufficiently
far removed);
(6) location and name of streams and lakes;
(7) outline of settling ponds;
(8) location of access roads;
(9) map legend, including name of company, name of mine, north arrow,
scale, date prepared, and name and title of person preparing map..
The approximate areas to be mined during the life of the permit should
be clearly marked. If reclamation is to be accomplished concurrently
with minin', then segnents that are to be nined and reclaimed during, each
year of the permit should be shown. Drawings should be aaaed showing
typical sections or cross -sections and layout of proposed reclamation
where such drawings will assist in describing reclamation.
Copies of an application submitted under the North Carolina Paining Act
(N.C. General Statutes §74-46 et seq.) and/or an approved Environmental
Impact Statement may be substituted for the documents required in this
section to the extent that they meet the requirements listed above.
The application shall be accompanied by a signed agreement, in a form
specified by the Board, that in the event a bond forfeiture is ordered
pursuant to this Ordinance, the Board and its representatives and its con-
tractors shall have the right to make whatever entries on the land and to
take whatever actions may be necessary in order to carry out reclamation
which the operator has failed to complete.
The application shall be accompanied by a non-refundable application
fee of $2000 to cover the costs of County review of the application.
Within ten (10) working days of submission of the application to the
Mining Coordinator, the application will be reviewed for completeness and,
if complete, will be forwarded on to the Board for their review. Within
the same period of time the Coordinator will notify the County Clerk to
publish a notice of the receipt of the application in a local newspaper of
general distribution. The Board may hold a public hearing on the permit
application.
The Board must grant, grant with conditions, or deny the permit within
ninety (90) business days of submission, along with appropriate findings of.
fact in case of denial. The permit shall be granted for such term as the
Board sees fit.
To obtain approval, an applicant must demonstrate that the proposed
operations are in the best interests of the County. Specifically this means
that, with respect to the resources listed below, the applicant must demon-
strate the following:
115 .

(1) Water. The surface and ground waters of the County and adjacent
estuaries provide a variety of services to County residents and visitors,
as sources of clean drinking water, as habitat for fish and other aquatic
organisms that provide sources of food and economic livelihood, as a loca-
tion for recreational activities, and as an important component of the
County's aesthetic beauty. The applicant must demonstrate that his use of
ground and surface waters will not significantly and adversely affect these
other uses, both during and after the period of active mining.
(2) Wildlife. The wildlife of Pamlico County are a source of enjoy-
ment, sport, and sustenance for the County's residents and visitors. The
applicant must demonstrate that the proposed activities will not signifi-
cantly and adversely affect public opportunities for the observation or
hunting of wildlife and will not threaten the continued existence in Pamlico
County of any species of wildlife.
(3) Neighboring Land. Damage to neighboring land.and the uses to which
it might be put, including deposition of wind-borne particulates, generation
of disturbing noise levels, the creation of threats from subsidence or
landslides, or the disruption of previously available supplies of water, by
nearby mining operations is hereby defined to constitute a nuisance. Appli-
cants must demonstrate that proposed mining activities will not constitute
a nuisance to neighboring landowners.
(4) Recreation and Aesthetics. The wide vareity of recreational oppor-
tunities available in the County is one of its most prized attributes and is
a major reason for the sizable and growing tourist and vacation -home indus-
tries in the County. Part and parcel of these high quality recreational
experiences is a beautiful landscape, for which the County is widely appre-
ciated. The applicant must demonstrate that proposed mining activities_ will
not significantly and adversely affect the quality or quantity of recreational
opportunities available in the County or the quality of the visual landscape.
(5) Cultural Resources. Like most people, the residents of Pamlico
County have an appreciation for and interest in their past, and a high regard
for the physical remains of former settlements and ways of life. The appli-
cant must demonstrate that the proposed mining activities will not signifi-
cantly and adversely affect prehistoric and historic artifacts, structures,
and other evidence of former human activity.
(6) Reclamation. The County has a legitimate interest in ensuring that
mined land will be reclaimed to original; natural conditions and/or productive
uses. To that end, the applicant must demonstrate that:
(a) the technology for reclamation proposed in the reclamation plan
has been proven, either on a pilot scale or in operations else-
where, and that the plan is technically and economically feasible
on an operational scale;
(b) the fertility, bearing strength, and other characteristics of.the
land will be restored to pre -mine conditions within fifteen (15)
years of the cessation of mining, or that best available tech-
nology will be used to approach this standard; and
(c) the revegetation measures provided for in the plan are feasible
and practical, and will provide for either an economically_
productive plant community or a diverse, natural plant community
116

in a timely manner.
A necessary component of any successful demonstration of no signifi-
cant and adverse impact, as required in paragraphs 1-6 above, is the presen-
tation of statements to that effect by professionals competent in each of
the subject fields mentioned.
Any permit issued shall be expressly conditioned upon compliance with
all requirements of the approved mining and reclamation plans and with
such further reasonable and appropriate requirements and safeguards as may
be deemed necessary by the Board to assure that the operation will comply
fully with the requirements and objectives of this Ordinance.
SECTION SIX: PERFORMANCE BOND
Upon approval of a permit application, the applicant shall file with
the Alining Coordinator and shall maintain in force a bond in favor of
Pamlico County, executed by a surety approved by the North Carolina Commis-
sioner of Insurance, in the amount established below. The bond must be
continuous in nature and shall remain in force until released by the Board.
The bond shall be conditioned upon the faithful performance of the
requirements set forth in this Ordinance and in the permit itself. Liability
under the bond shall be maintained as long as reclamation is not completed
in compliance with the approved reclamation plan unless released by written
notification from the Board. Notification shall be given upon completion
of compliance or acceptance by the Board of a substitute bond. In no event .
shall the liability of the surety exceed the amount of the surety bond
required by this section.
In lieu of the surety bond required by this section, the operator may,
file with the *lining Coordinator a cash deposit, negotiable securities, a
mortgage of real property acceptable to the Board, or an assignment of a
savings account in a Pamlico County bank, in the same amount as required for
the surety bond.
The amount of the surety bond or other security shall be calculated as
follows: The applicant shall state, with the application, the largest amount
of land within the area to be mined that will be disturbed at any one time;
this maximum will be included as a permit condition. The County will then
engage an appraisal firm, competent in matters related to mining, to examine
the applicant's mining and reclamation plans and estimate the likely maximum
cost of reclamation for the amount of area to be disturbed at any one time.
This amount, less the amount of any bond required under North Carolina
General Statutes §74-54, will be the amount of the bond or security required
to be filed under this section. The applicant may appeal the established
amount by presenting evidence to the Board from other competent appraisal
firms; after hearing this evidence, the Board may reduce the amount of the
bond established above.
The applicant shall have sixty (60) days following the mailing of notifi-
cation of the amount of required security to deposit with the :lining Coordina-
tor the required security or bond, or to appeal the amount. Upon timely
receipt of the bond or acceptable security in the required amount, the mining
117

permit will be issued.
SECTION SEVEN: ANNUAL REPORT
Within thirty (30) days after completion or termination of mining on
an area under permit or within thirty (30) days after each anniversary of
the issuance of the operating permit, whichever is earlier, and each year
thereafter until reclamation is complete and approved, the operator shall
file a report of activities completed during the preceding year with the
Mining Coordinator, which report shall:
(1) identify the mine, the operator, and the permit number;
(2) state acreage disturbed by mining in the last 12-month period;
(3) state and describe amount and type of reclamation carried out in
the last 12-month period;
(4) state the amount of the resource removed from the mine in the last
12-month period;
(5) estimate acreage to be newly disturbed by mining in the next 12-
month period;
(6) provide a mine map showing the outlines of areas described in items
2, 3, and 5 above.
Submission of a copy of the reclamation report required by N.C. General
Statutes §74-55 will be deemed sufficient to meet the requirements of items
1, 2, 3, and 5 above.
SECTION EIGHT: INSPECTION AND APPROVAL OF RECLAMATION: BOND RELEASE AND
FORFEITURE
At any reasonable time the Mining Coordinator may choose, or at the
request of the operator, the Mining Coordinator will inspect the permit area
to determine whether the operator has complied with this Ordinance, the
mining plan, the reclamation plan, and the terms and conditions of the
permit. The Coordinator shall have the right at all reasonable times to
enter upon the land subject to the permit for the purpose of making such
inspection and investigation.
Following inspection, the Mining Coordinator shall give written notice
to the operator of any deficiencies noted. The operator shall commence
action within thirty (30) days to rectify these deficiencies and shall
diligently proceed until they have been corrected. The Coordinator may
extend this period for delays clearly beyond the operator's control, but
only in cases whi•re the Coordinator finds that the operator is making every
reasonable effort- to comply.
When the 'lining Coordinator finds that reclamation has been properly
completed or has progressed sufficiently on an area, he shall notify the
operator and the Board, who may then release the operator from those
obligations regarding such area that have been fulfilled. At the same time
the Board, having calculated the proportion that the cost of the completed
reclamation activities bears to the whole, shall release that proportion
of any performance bond or other security which the operator has posted
under this Ordinance, or permit him to begin operations on an appropriate
amount of undisturbed land.
If at any time the Mining Coordinator finds that reclamation of the
permit area is not proceeding in accordance with the reclamation plan and that
the operator has failed within thirty (30) days after notice to commence
corrective action, or if the Coordinator finds that reclamation has not been
118

properly completed within the time specified after termination of mining on
any segment of the permit area, he shall so notify the Board, and the Board
shall initiate forfeiture proceedings against the bond or other security
filed by the operator under this Ordinance. In addition, such failure shall
constitute grounds for suspension or revocation of the operator's permit, as
provided for in Section Ten.
SECTION NINE: PERMIT MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL
The operator must notify the Mining Coordinator, in writing, at least
sixty (60) days prior to any proposed deviation from the mining or reclamation
plan. The Coordinator will respond within ten (10) days, in writing, noti-
fying the operator that either (1) the proposed deviation is an insubstantial
one, and that the operator may proceed with the change, or (2) the proposed
deviation is a substantial one (within the meaning of the Environmental
Impact Statement Ordinance as well), and that the operator must apply for a
modification of his operating permit, as well as submit an amended EIS.
An operator applying for a permit modification will submit such items
specified in Section Five as require amendment under the proposed modifica-
tion. The procedure to be followed and standards to be applied in considering
a permit modification shall be the same as those for issuing a new permit,
with the exception that the application fee will be $100.
If at any time it appears to the Coordinator from his inspection of the
affected land that the activities under the mining plan, reclamation plan,
and other terms and conditions of the permit are failing to achieve the
purposes and requirements of this Ordinance, he shall so notify the Board.
If the Board concurs in his finding, it shall give the operator written
notice of these findings, of its intention to modify the mining plan, recla-
mation plan, and other terms and conditions of the permit in a stated manner,
and of the operator's right to a hearing on the proposed modification at a
stated time and place. The date for such hearing shall be not less than
thirty (30) nor more than sixty (60) days after the date of the notice unless
the Board and the operator shall mutually agree on another date. Following
the hearing the Board shall have the right to modify the mining plan, recla-
mation plan, and other terms and conditions of the permit in such manner as
it deems appropriate in view of the evidence presented at the hearing.
An operator with a valid mining permit may apply to the County for
renewal of the permit at any time within two years of the permit's expiration
date. The applicant will submit such items specified in Section Five as
require amendment from his original application or application for permit
modification. The procedure to be followed and standards to be applied in
renewing a permit shall be the same as those for issuing a permit, except
that the application fee will be $100, and provided, however, that in the
absence of any changes in legal requirements for issuance of a permit since
the date on which the prior permit was issued, the only basis for denying a
renewal permit shall be an uncorrected violation of which the operator has
been notified pursuant to Sections Eight or Ten, or failure to submit an
adequate reclamation plan in light of conditions then existing.
119

SECTION TEN: PER11IT SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION
Whenever the Board shall have reason to believe that a violation of
this Ordinance or the terms and conditons of a permit, including the
approved mining plan or reclamation plan, has taken place, it shall so
notify the operator, in writing, specifying the facts constituting such
apparent violation and informing the operator of his right to a hearing at
a stated time and place. The date for such hearing shall be not less than
thirty (30) nor more than sixty (60) days after the date of this notice,
unless the Board and the operator mutually agree on another date. The
operator may appear at the hearing, either personally or through counsel,
and present such evidence as he may desire in order to prove that no violation
has taken place or exists. If the operator or his representative does not
appear at the hearing, or if the Board following the hearing finds that there
has been a violation, the Board may suspend the permit until such time as
the violation.is corrected or may revoke the permit where the violation
appears to be willful. The effective date of any such suspension or revoca-
tion shall be sixty (60) days follo:ing the sate of the recision. An a^teal
to superior court shall stay such effective date until the date of the
superior court judgement. However, where the Board finds that an imminent
*peril to life or danger to property or to the environment exists, the Board
may immediately suspend the permit pending the outcome of the hearing and
any subsequent appeal.
SECTION ELEVEN: APPEALS
An appeal may be taken to the Superior Court of Pamlico County from
any decision or determination of the Board refusing, modifying, suspending,
revoking, or terminating an operating permit or reclamation plan, or imposing
any term or condition on said permit or reclamation plan, or assessing a
civil penalty pursuant to Section Twelve.
SECTION TWELVE: PENALTIES
(A) Civil Penalties. Any operator who violates any of the provisions
of this Ordinance or any of the terms and conditions of his mining permit
shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than two thousand dollars
($2000.00), depending on the severity of the infraction. Each day of a
continuing violation shall constitute a separate violation. Prior to the
assessment of any such civil penalty, written notice of the violation shall
be given. The notice shall describe the violation with reasonable particu-
larity, shall specify a time period reasonably calculated to permit the
violator to complete actions to correct the violation, and shall state that
failure to correct the violation within that period may result in the assess-
ment of a civil penalty.
(B) Criminal Penalties. In addition to other penalties provided by this
Ordinance, any operator who engages in mining in willful violation of the
provisions of this Ordinance or who willfully misrepresents any fact in any
action taken pursuant to this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and,
upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars
($100.00) nor more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense.
Each day of continued violation after written notification shall be considered
a separate offense.
120

SECTION THIRTEEN: NOTICE
Whenever in this Ordinance written notice is required.to be given by
the Board or alining Coordinator, such notice shall be mailed by registered
or certified mail to the permanent address of the operator set forth in his
most recent application for an operating permit or for a modification or
renewal of such permit. No other notice shall be required.
SECTION FOURTEEN: SEVERABILITY
If any sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is, for any
reason, held or declared to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such
holding of invalidity shall not affect the remaining portions of this
Ordinance, and it shall be construeG to have !:een the legislative intent to
pass this Ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid, or inoperative
part therein, and the remainder of this Ordinance, after the exclusion of
such part or parts, shall be deemed and held to be valid as if such parts
had not been included herein.
121

Appendix C
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS the extraction and processing of mineral resources in
Pamlico County will increase the demand for county services, and
WHEREAS the ad valorem or property tax is the principal source
of revenue for the County to fund such services, and
WHEREAS mineral resources are very difficult to appraise fully
and accurately for ad valorem tax purposes,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of
Pamlico County that the Board supports state legislation to authorize
counties to impose a severance tax on the extraction of mineral
resources and other solid matter, either in addition to or in lieu
of property taxation of these resources, and encourages the County's
representatives to the General Assembly to introduce and support
legislation to this effect.
122

RESOLUTION
WHEREAS mineral resources of substantial value are thought to
exist in Pamlico County, and
WHEREAS these resources constitute real property, and as such are
required to be assessed for ad valorem tax purposes by North Carolina
General Statutes Section 105-274, and
WHEREAS the extraction and processing of these resources will
increase the demand for services provided by the County,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Pamlico
County that mineral resources within the County should be assessed as
fully and accurately as possible for ad valorem tax purposes. At the
least, reasonable assessments of mineral resources at active mine sites
should be levied. When possible, undeveloped mineral resources should
also be assessed, although the Board recognizes that the value of mineral
resources not actively being mined may be difficult to estimate because
of uncertainties regarding the quantity and quality of resources present.
In assessing mineral resources, the Board refers the County Tax Super-
visor to the discussion and guidelines in Chapter VIII of the 'Mining
Policy Land Use Plan Amendment, and directs the Supervisor to consider,
in addition to those factors listed by N.C. General Statutes Section
105-317, (1) the practicality of mining a parcel of the given size,
(2) the status of the various permits required to begin mining operations,
and (3) any other factors relevant to the value of in -place mineral
resources.
The Board also directs the County Tax Supervisor to report back to
the Board within six months on the concrete steps to be taken to imple-
ment this policy.
123