07-01_10_Redacted

PCS Phosphate Amendment Review
Subject: PCS Phosphate Amendment Review
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:07:00 -0400
From: "Chris Fidalgo" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: "Felix Fong" <[e-mail]>, "Mel Fry" <[e-mail]>
Tracy -
Alf of the involved parties at DRIP have reviewed the mining amendment permit request from PCS phosphate and
found it to be acceptable.
If you need a formal statement on this, let me know.
Keep in touch,
Chris Fidalgo
NC Division of Radiation Protection
1 of 1 7/16/2001 9:52 AM

'North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Radiation Protection
Michael F. Easley Governor
William G. Ross Jr. Secretary
Richard M. Fry Director
June 7, 2001
John Carrere, Environmental Scientist
Environmental Affairs
PCS Phosphate - Aurora
P.O. Box 48
1530 NC Highway 306 South
Aurora, NC 27806
Dear Mr. Carrere:
In
NCDENR
This letter is being written to summarize our recommendations for the disposal of scrap metal
contaminated with Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM), in this case primarily Radium-
226, at the PCS Phosphate - Aurora site. These recommendations were presented at a meeting
conducted at the Division office in Raleigh on April 25, 2001, which was attended by representatives
from DRP, the Division of Land Resources, and PCS Phosphate. Please see Attachment 1 for a copy of
the presentation from this meeting and Attachment 2 for an event chronology for this issue.
Several consensus determinations were reached in this meeting. The first of these is that the disposal of
this material would be handled in regulatory terms by your company applying to the Division of Land
Resources for an amendment to the PCS Phosphate mining permit. The material in question can be
considered "mining refuse" and therefore can be exempted from solid waste regulations if disposed of
onsite. The second determination reached after a presentation of the results of a risk analysis by DRP
personnel of onsite disposal is that the health threat posed by this disposal is minimal. This same
conclusion was reached for both onsite workers and members of the public using the most conservative
assumptions and valid site -specific data. The final major determination was made concerning the
method for disposal of material. DRP personnel agreed to provide a formal written procedure based on
the determinations reached in the April 25 meeting. This procedure includes the following:
The material will be disposed of onsite in the remains of Gyp Stack #2. Gyp Stack #2 is currently
being torn down and used for land reclamation. When this process is complete, a layer of gypsum
material approximately 20 feet thick will remain. See attached engineering diagrams (Attachments 3
& 4) for details. The material will be disposed of in two separate areas in the gyp stack: one area for
all material accumulated up to this point and another area for disposal of material in the future.
2. A portion of Gyp Stack #2 will be excavated to provide an area for disposal of the existing material.
A bottom layer of gypsum material with a minimum thickness of four feet (4) will be left after this
excavation.
3. The NORM -contaminated material will then be placed in the excavated disposal area. This layer
should be as thin as practical, and care in placement should be taken to avoid creation of voids in the
1645 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1645
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.drp.enr.state.nc.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 1 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED 1 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER

`Mr. Carrere
Page 2
disposal cell. By compacting the disposal cell in this way, the potential for settlement in the area
should be reduced.
4. Once all of the material has been placed in the disposal area, the area should be filled in level with
the top of the gyp stack with gypsum material. This top layer should have a minimum thickness of
four (4) feet. At a later date, the gyp stack will be stabilized with a cover layer of eighteen (18)
inches of topsoil and vegetation in accordance with the PCS Phosphate mining permit.
5. A detailed description of the disposal method and an accompanying map of the disposal area will be
prepared by a land surveyor and/or onsite engineering staff that indicates the following:
The top and bottom elevations of the NORM -contaminated material.
The top and bottom elevations of the gyp stack in the disposal area.
The coordinates (latitude and longitude) of each corner and the distances between corners
of the disposal area.
6. Copies of this final description of the above work and accompanying map will be submitted to the
Division of Radiation Protection and Division of Land Resources for review and comment. Another
copy should be kept by PCS Phosphate's Engineering or Planning office as part of the facility
permanent record.
A determination was also reached in the April 25 meeting concerning the question of disposal of similar
material in the future. PCS Phosphate indicated that future material would be buried in a manner similar
to the procedure discussed above, but in a separate area in Gyp Stack #2. This future disposal area
would be in the area of the gyp stack reserved for gypsum sales (for agricultural purposes, etc.). It is our
understanding that the volume of any future disposal of material will be small in comparison to the
amount of material accumulated to date. Any disposal of material in this area would have to be carried
out in accordance with the procedure outlined above, as would be specified on the amended PCS
Phosphate mining permit.
In addition to the requirements Iisted in the above procedure, any future material designated for disposal
should first be scanned for external radiation levels subject to the following conditions:
The scans will be conducted by qualified personnel, i.e., the PCS Phosphate - Aurora Radiation
Safety Officer, or his/her designee.
2. The material will be scanned in a low background area - 34 µ Ir or less, ambient gamma.
3. This radiation level scan will be done with a properly calibrated instrument capable of detecting
gamma radiation in the µR/hr range, such as a Ludlum Model 19 or Model 12 microR meter.
4. All items designated for disposal will be scanned at one -meter distance and at surface contact. If the
material is in some sort of container, such as a 55-gallon drum, the contact scan can be performed on
the outer surface of the container so long as the container does not contain substantial voids and is
the final disposal vessel.

Mr. Carrere
Page 3
5. If the final uncorrected readings exceed 500 µR/hr at one -meter distance or 5000 µR/hr on contact,
PCS Phosphate will need to notify both the Division of Radiation Protection and the Division of
Land Resources prior to burial. If all radiation readings are below these limits, PCS Phosphate can
dispose of the material without contacting DRP or DLR, provided it is in accordance with the
approved mining permit.
The information contained in this letter should be incorporated into your mining permit amendment
request to the Division of Land Resources. We will be glad to work with the Division of Land
Resources to review your amendment request if they so desire. Please advise us when your amendment
request has been approved and when the tentative dates for commencement and completion of the
disposal activity have been scheduled.
In conclusion, I believe that any solution to this problem should have three goals: 1) To minimize
exposure to the public and PCS employees, 2) To keep this material from being recycled, 3) To have a
permanent record of the location of the disposal location should retrieval of the buried material be
required in the future. Because of the lack of regulation of NORM in North Carolina, a collaborative
effort is required to solve the problems associated with NORM material disposal. I look forward to
working with you on this issue in the future. If you have any questions concerning the technical aspects
of this letter, please contact Chris Fidalgo at the telephone number given below, or by e-mail at the
following address: chris.fidalgo @ncmai1,net.
Sincerely,
/l
Richard M. Fry, CHP
cc: Tracy Davis, Division of Land Resources
Attachments: 1. Presentation from 4/25/01 Meeting
2. Event Chronology
3. Gyp Stack #2 Engineering Diagram
4. Future Material Burial Site
rmf:cjf

Attachment 1
NORM Contamination at PCS
Phosphate
Situation Summary, cont'd.
• Material being stored on top of gypsum stack and
in salvage yard area
• Large amount of material --1200 cu yards
• Contamination is mostly surface contamination:
scale, etc.
• Readings <10.00 µR/hr with Ludlum Micron
meter (uncorrected)
Events Chronology
• Initial involvement in this matter started in October of
1999, with a call from Karen West, at that time an
environmental scientist in the Environmental Affairs unit
of PCS. Copies of contaminated steel surveys and other
relevant information were relayed by Ms. West to DRP.
• A site area visit by Chris Fidalgo, James Albright, and
Brad Cole of DRP took place on IVI4199, when DRP
personnel met with Ms. West and Jerry Selghman, RSO
at PCs. During this visit, additional surveys of the
material In situ were conducted by DRP personnel, and
the disposal problem was discussed at length.
Situation Summary
• PCS Phosphate wants to dispose of NORM -
contaminated scrap material and develop disposal
procedure for similar situation in future
• PCs Contacts: Jerry Seighman, John Carrere
• Material in question is from phosphoric acid plant:
stainless steel filter pans and piping, steel and
plastic piping, valves, pump impellers and casings,
metal troughs, and bricks from tank linings
• Contaminated with Radium 226 (1620 yr. half-
life) and daughters
Description of Contan-linated Material
• Stainless steel
• Filter pans from phosphoric acid plant
• Sulfuric acid added to processed phosphate
ore, main by-product is calcium sulfate
• Secondary product is radium sulfate
(radium chemically similar to calcium)
• Chemical reaction limits contamination to
Ra-226
Events Clhrorlolo(,v, Part
In May of 2000, three representative pieces were cut from
the steel by PCS personnel and given to DRP personnel for
an Isotopic analysis.
In December of 2000, an isotopic analysis was conducted,
with a peak surface contamination level of 3.70 tt UP
pCHm2 of Radium 226 on the grate material of the filter
pan. Follow-up tests indicate that radium daughters are
also present, but have not been quantified.
In January of 2001, Chris Fidalgo was contacted by John
Correre of PCS in an attempt to ascertain the progress in
this matter.

Events Chronology, part 3
• In March/April of2001, John Carrere provided further site
information to DRP. Chris Fidalgo and John Carrere
agreed to a meeting of personnel to discuss the results of
analyses when complete.
• PCS Phosphate personnel conducted surveys of
representative pieces of steel in a low background area and
performed an analysis independent of DRP on the impact
of the proposed disposal.
Events Chronology, Part 5
• Currently, the Division of Radiation Protection has
performed an analysis of the proposed disposal and has
found the disposal to be of minimal Impact.
• Analysis was performed with RESRAD version 6.0 and
site -specific info
• Dose is less than 1.0 x 10-7 mremlyear for at least 100
years after disposal. (Radon independent)
• Dominant pathway for this dose is external dose
pathway. Other pathways such as araundwater. were
su4Rpressed .
• By way of comparison, the maximum dose from a six
meter thick layer of gypsum material by itself is 40
mremlyear at time - $00 years,
Scale Indicator # l
Events Chronology, Part 4
In March of 2001. Chris Fidalgo contacted Tracy Davis,
of the NC Division of Land Resources and learned that
Land Resources will require an amendment to the PC5
mining permit be filed concerning the disposal of this
material.
Mr. Davis indicated that Land Resources would defer
to the Division of Radiation Protection regarding
radiological assessment of the material disposal. Mr.
Davis further indicated that he and possibly other land
Resources personnel would be interested in attending the
meeting mentioned above.
Filter Pans
Scale Indicator #2
2

Close-up of Filter Pan
Proposed Burial Area
Survey Results - 12/14/99
• DRP surveyed two filter pan sections: 300-
450 µR/hr contact (uncorrected) with
Ludlum Micron Meter (model 19 - Nal)
• Jerry Seighman's surveys: mostly under
1000 µR/hr, with 2250 µR/hr peak reading
• Uncorrected readings: greater than actual by
factor of 2
• Ra-226 (manually) confirmed with Scout,
Exploranium couldn't identify
Plexco and Steel Piping
Cross Section of Burial Area
Survey Results, 3-16-01
3

Ra-226 Spectra from Scout
RESRAD Results
Go to RESRAD
Exploranium
Burial Onsite
• Burial onsite wilt ensure no tampering for
foreseeable future (at least next 70 years)
• Gyp Stack Disposal: high NORM levels
anyway, above water table
• PCS Phosphate is going to a 2 gyp stack
system: tear one down, build another up
• Gyp Stack 2 after tear -down will still be
approximately 18 feet thick
Florida's Solution
• Info provided by Harlan Keaton, Fla. Bureauof
Radiation Control
• Similar Situation in Florida: material was cleaned
(hydroblasted, sandblasted) and buried on gyp
stack
• Initial contamination 80-90,000 pCi/g
• Cleaning company had to be licensed; used
respirators and bunny suits
• Soil in cleaning area was 9 mR/hr after process;
put in drums and stored on gyp stack
4

Future Goals
•Make formal recommendation with
consensus approval of relevant DRP
personnel: Division Director, NF&ERS
section chief, other DRP staff.
•Follow-up to assure completion of
agreed -to disposal activities: site
inspection, record -keeping, location
storage, "procedure" for future similar
cases at PCS?

Attachment 2: Summary of the PCS Phosphate NORM Disposal Issue (4/25/01)
Timeline:
• Initial involvement in this matter started in October of 1999, with a call from Karen West, at that time
an environmental scientist in the Environmental Affairs unit of PCS. Copies of contaminated steel
surveys and other relevant information were relayed by Ms. West to DRP.
• A site area visit by Chris Fidalgo, James Albright, and Brad Cole of DRP took place on 12/14/99,
when DRP personnel met with Ms. West and Jerry Seighmau, RSO at PCS. During this visit,
additional surveys of the material in situ were conducted by DRP personnel, and the disposal problem
was discussed at length.
• In May of 2000, three representative pieces were cut from the steel by PCS personnel and given to DRP
personnel for an isotopic analysis.
• In December of 2000, an isotopic analysis was conducted, with a peak surface contamination level of
3.70E-05 pCi/m2 of Radium 226 on the grate material of the filter pan. Follow-up tests indicate that
radium daughters are also present, but have not been quantified.
• In January of 2001, Chris Fidalgo was contacted by John Carrere of PCS in an attempt to ascertain
the progress in this matter.
• In March of 2001, John Carrere provided further information to DRP, including a two-dimensional
illustration of the proposed disposal site. Chris Fidalgo and John Carrere agreed to a meeting of
personnel to discuss the results of analyses when complete. A commitment was made by PCS
Phosphate to conduct surveys of representative pieces of steel in a low background area and to
perform an analysis independent of DRP on the impact of the proposed disposal. Chris Fidalgo
contacted Tracy Davis, state mining specialist at the NC Division of Land Resources and learned that
Land Resources will require an amendment to the PCS mining permit be filed concerning the
disposal of this material. Mr. Davis indicated that Land Resources would defer to the Division of
Radiation Protection regarding radiological assessment of the material disposal. Mr. Davis further
indicated that he and possibly other Land Resources personnel would be interested in attending the
meeting mentioned above.
• Currently, the Division of Radiation Protection has performed an analysis of the proposed disposal of
NORM contamination onsite at the PCS Phosphate Aurora site and has found the disposal to be of
minimal impact. Using RESRAD version 6.0 and site -specific information as provided by John
Carrere, the dose from the approximate quantity of material with the highest amount of contamination
seen, when buried in the gypsum material at a depth of 6 feet is less than 1.0 x 10'7 mrem/year for at
least 100 years after disposal. The dominant pathway for this dose is the external dose pathway. Other
possibly relevant pathways were su2l2ressed. By way of comparison, the maximum dose from a six
meter thick layer of gypsum material by itself is 40 mrem/year at time = 500 years.
DRP Future Goals:
• Conduct agreed -to meeting and share results with PCS Phosphate and Land Resources
• Make formal recommendation with consensus approval of relevant DRP personnel: Division Director,
NF&ERS section chief, other DRP staff.
• Follow-up to assure completion of agreed -to disposal activities: site inspection, record -keeping, location
storage, "procedure" for future similar cases at PCS.

Em
-to
Zz�
'—{mot
ti
No. 129
�a
Burial Site for
Future Material
PCs
phosphatee AIIRnPA DIVISION
Burial Site for
Current Material
Oly
I

Attachment 4: Future MAterial Burial Site Closeup

l
Summary of the sphate
(4/25/01)
APIR 9 6 '01
Timeline:
Dev, I.,,V_
NORM Disposal
Issue
• Initial involvement in this matter started in October of 1999, with a call from Karen
West, at that time an environmental scientist in the Environmental Affairs unit of
PCS. Copies of contaminated steel surveys and other relevant information were
relayed by Ms. West to DRP.
• A site area visit by Chris Fidalgo, James Albright, and Brad Cole of DRP took
place on 12/14/99, when DRP personnel met with Ms. West and Jerry Seighman,
RSO at PCS. During this visit, additional surveys of the material in situ were
conducted by DRP personnel, and the disposal problem was discussed at length.
• In May of 2000, three representative pieces were cut from the steel by PCS personnel
and given to DRP personnel for an isotopic analysis.
• In December of 2000, an isotopic analysis was conducted, with a peak surface
contamination level of 3.70E+05 pCi/m2 of Radium 226 on the grate material of the
filter pan. Follow-up tests indicate that radium daughters are also present, but
have not been quantified.
• In January of 2001, Chris Fidalgo was contacted by John Carrere of PCS in an
attempt to ascertain the progress in this matter.
• In March of 2001, John Carrere provided further information to DRP, including a
two-dimensional illustration of the proposed disposal site. Chris Fidalgo and John
Carrere agreed to a meeting of personnel to discuss the results of analyses when
complete. A commitment was made by PCS Phosphate to conduct surveys of
representative pieces of steel in a low background area and to perform an
analysis independent of DRP on the impact of the proposed disposal. Chris
Fidalgo contacted Tracy Davis, state mining specialist at the NC Division of Land
Resources and learned that Land Resources will require an amendment to the PCS
mining permit be filed concerning the disposal of this material. Mr. Davis
indicated that Land Resources would defer to the Division of Radiation
Protection regarding radiological assessment of the material disposal. Mr. Davis
further indicated that he and possibly other Land Resources personnel would be
interested in attending the meeting mentioned above.
• Currently, the Division of Radiation Protection has performed an analysis of the
proposed disposal of NORM contamination onsite at the PCS Phosphate Aurora site
and has found the disposal to be of minimal impact. Using RESRAD version 6.0
and site -specific information as provided by John Carrere, the dose from the
approximate quantity of material with the highest amount of contamination seen,
when buried in the gypsum material at a depth of 6 feet is less than 1.0 x 10"'
mrem/year for at least 100 years after disposal. The dominant pathway for this dose
is the external dose pathway. Other possibly, relevant pathways were suppressed.
By way of comparison, the maximum dose from a six meter thick layer of gypsum
material by itself is 40 mrem/year at time = 500 years.
Summary of the PCS Phosphate NORM Disposal Issue.doc
Created on 04/23/01 5.48 PM

DRP Future Goals;
• Conduct agreed -to meeting and share results with PCS Phosphate and Land
Resources
Make formal recommendation with consensus approval of relevant DRP personnel:
Division Director, NF&ERS section chief, other DRP staff.
Follow-up to assure completion of agreed -to disposal activities: site inspection,
record -keeping, location storage, "procedure" for future similar cases at PCS.
Summary of the PCS Phosphate NORM Disposal Issue.doc
Created on 04/23/01 5:48 PM

NORM Contamination at PCS
Phosphate
Situation Summary
• PCS Phosphate wants to dispose of NORM -
contaminated scrap material and develop disposal
procedure for similar situation in future
• PCs Contacts: Jerry seighman, John Carrere
• Material in question is from phosphoric acid plant:
stainless steel filter pans and piping, steel and
plastic piping, valves, pump impellers and casings,
metal troughs, and bricks from tank linings
• Contaminated with Radium 226 (1620 yr. half-
life) and daughters
Situation Summary, cont'd.
• Material being stored on top of gypsum stack and
in salvage yard area
• Large amount of material —1200 cu yards f
• Contamination is mostly surface contamination:
scale, etc.
• Readings <1000 µR/hr with Ludlum MicroR
meter (uncorrected)
1

Description of Contaminated Material
• Stainless steel
• Filter pans from phosphoric acid plant
• Sulfuric acid added to processed phosphate
ore, main by-product is calcium sulfate
• Secondary product is radium sulfate
(radium chemically similar to calcium)
• Chemical reaction limits contamination to
Ra-226
Events Chronology
Initial involvement in this matter started in October of
1999, with a call from Karen West, at that time an
environmental scientist in the Environmental Affairs unit
of PCS. Copies of conlarninated steel surveys and other
relevant information were relayed by Ms. West to DRP.
A site area visit by Chris Fidalgo, James Albright, and
Brad Cole of DRP took place on 12114/99, when DRP
personnel met with Ms. West and Jerry Seighman, RSo
at PCS. During this visit, addltlonal surveys of the
material In situ were conducted by DRP personnel, and
the disposal problem was discussed at length.
Events Chronology, Part 2
• In May of 2000, three representative pieces were cut from
the steel by PCS personnel and given to DRP personnel for
an isotopic analysts.
• In December of 2000. an isotopic analysis was conducted,
with a peak surface contamination level of 3.70: 109
pCl/m= of Radium 226 on the grate material of the filler
pan. Follow-up tests indicate that radium daughters are
also present, but have not been quantified.
• In January of 2001, Chris Fidalgo was contacted by John
Carrere of PCS in an attempt to ascertain the progress in
this matter.
7

Events Chronology, part 3
• In March/April of 2001, John Carrere provided further site
information to DRP. Chris Fidalgo and John Carrere
agreed to a meeting of personnel to discuss the results of
analyses when complete.
PCS Phosphate personnel conducted surveys of
representative pieces of steel in a low background area and
perfonued an analysis independent of DRP on time impact
Of the proposed disposal.
Events Chronology, Part 4
• In March of 2001, Chris Fidalgo contacted Tracy Davis,
of the NC Division of Land Resources and ]canted that
Land Resources will require an amendment to the PCS
mining permit be flied concerning the disposal or this
material.
+ Mr. Davis Indicated that Land Resources would defer
to the Division of Radiallon Protection regarding
radiological assessment of the material disposal. Mr.
Davis further indicated that he and possibly other Land
Resources personnel would be interested in attending the
meeting mentioned above.
Events Chronology, Part 5
Currently, the Division of Radiation Protection has
perfored an analysis of the proposed disposal and has
found the disposal to be of minimal Impact.
• Analysis was performed with RESRAD version 6.0 and
site -specific info
• Dose is less than 1.0 x 10" mrem/year for at least 100
years after disposal. (Radon independent)
• Dominant pathway for this dose is external dose
pathway. Othcrnathways such as grglmdwaler, were
suppressed.
By way of comparison, the maximum dose from a six
meter thick layer of gypsum material by itself is 40
mremlyear at time - 500 years.

Filter Pans
Scale Indicator #1
Scale Indicator #2

Close-up of Filter Pan
Plexco and Steel Piping
Proposed Burial Area
Nt\�`�ypi,muyxi

Cross Section of Burial Area
Survey Results - 12/14/99
• DRP surveyed two filter pan sections: 300-
450 µR/hr contact (uncorrected) with
Ludlum Micron Meter (model 19 - Nal)
• Jerry Seighman's surveys: mostly under
1000 µRThr, with 2250 µR/hr peak reading
• Uncorrected readings: greater than actual by
factor of 2
• Ra-226 (manually) confirmed with Scout,
Exploranium couldn't identify
Survey Results, 3-1 b-01
aw.
'�Sf:S���
31

I
Ra-226 Spectra from Scout
Exploranium
RESRAD Results
Go to RESRAD

Burial Onsite k
• Burial onsite will ensure no tampering for
foreseeable future (at least neat 70 years)
• Gyp Stack Disposal: high NORM levels
anyway, above water table
• PCS Phosphate is going to a 2 gyp stack
system: tear one down, build another up
• Gyp Stack 2 after tear -down will still be
approximately 18 feet thick
Gypsum Stack
Florida's Solution
• Info provided by Harlan Keaton, Fla. Bureau of
Radiation Control
• Similar Situation in Florida: material'was cleaned
(hydrublasted, sandblasted) and buried on gyp
stack
• Initial contamination 80-90,000 pCi/g
Cleaning company had to be licensed; used
respirators and bunny suits
• Soil in cleaning area was 9 mR/hr after process;
put in drums and stored on gyp stack
N

Future Goals
•Make formal recommendation with
consensus approval of relevant DRP
personnel: Division Director, NF&ERS
section chief, other DRP staff.
•Follow-up to assure completion of
agreed -to disposal activities: site
inspection, record -keeping, location
storage, "procedure" for future similar
cases at PCS?
E

dt . '%►
March 21, 2001
Mr. Christopher J. Fidalgo
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Radiation Protection
1645 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1645
Dear Mr. Fidalgo:
Per your March 13, 2001 request one "filter pan" was removed from the top of the
Number Two Gypsum Stack, placed in an area of relatively low background, and a
radiological survey of the filter pan conducted. Enclosed for your review is a table
summarizing the gamma photon radiation field data obtained as both a surface contact
reading and as a 1-Meter reading. A drawing of the filter pan surveyed is enclosed to
show the relative points on the filter pan from which the surface contact and 1-Meter
readings were obtained.
Previous experience with surveying materials contaminated with Radium-226 has shown
that the radiation field readings obtained with the Sodium Iodide scintillation crystal used
in the Ludlum Model 12 S Micro R Meter must be corrected to reflect the energy
dependent response error for the Radium-226. Reported values from the March 16, 2001
filter pan survey reflect a correction factor of 1.65 without any correction for the cosmic
or terrestrial background found in the survey area.
To assist those unfamiliar with phosphate mining and manufacturing of phosphoric acid,
I have briefly outlined below the phosphoric acid manufacturing process in terms of how
the naturally occurring radioactive material present in the phosphate ore contaminates the
process equipment.
Phosphate ore is mined at the PCS Phosphate Aurora Facility and used in the
manufacturing of phosphoric acid. Radionuclides present in the phosphate ore are
Uranium-238, approximately 20 to 40 ppm, Thorium-230, and Radium-226, all of which
are naturally occurring radioactive elements. The Uranium-238 decays to Radium-226
and eventually to stable Lead-206. In the manufacturing of phosphoric acid by the wet
process phosphate ore is mixed with sulphuric acid. The resulting chemical reaction
between the ore and acid produces phosphoric acid and gypsum [calcium sulphate]. The
phosphoric acid is separated from the gypsum by filtering the slurry through a pan type or
belt type of filter.

During the slurry filtration process the Uranium, most of which will be dissolved in the
phosphoric acid solution, will go with the phosphoric acid solution while the Radium-226
will go with the gypsum by-product produced. During the acidulation process that takes
place in the phosphoric acid plants attack tanks the Radium-226 ion behaves chemically
similar to a calcium ion and during the chemical reaction forms a Radium Sulphate
precipitate that will deposit on the surface of the process equipment and piping as "scale."
Although the amount of Radium-226 in the phosphate ore that is available to be
precipitated as a scale is small, over time, the process equipment in contact with the acid
and gypsum will become contaminated with the radioactive scale due to the volume of
acid and gypsum that passes over and/or through the process equipment.
Process equipment contaminated with radioactivity above background levels cannot be
disposed of through the normal metal recycling outlets.
Scrap metal and other process materials from the phosphoric acid plants are surveyed for
radiation levels above background to prevent contaminated process equipment from
leaving the facility accidentally. Over time the amount of contaminated material has
accumulated and it was recommended that the contaminated process equipment be re-
located to a central area at this facility. The PCS Environmental Affairs Department has
requested permission from the State Division of Radiation Protection to dispose of the
contaminated process materials by burying them in the Number Two Gypsum Stack
which will continue to be used for agricultural gypsum sales to farmers.
The phosphate ore contains Radium-226 which leaves the process with the gypsum.
Several years ago the EPA imposed restrictions on the Radium-226 content of gypsum
that was sold for land application. Since 1992 the Environmental Affairs Department has
sampled the gypsum sold annually. Analysis of the gypsum for Radiurn-226 content
indicates that the average concentration of Radium-226 in the gypsum can varied from a
low of approximately 4 pCi/g to a high of approximately 11.3 pCi/g.
Although not involved in the original discussions with the State Division of Radiation
Protection it is my impression that during the original discussions only disposal of the
filter pans had been requested. There are other materials such as stainless steel piping,
steel and plastic piping, valves, pump impellors and pump casings, sections of metal
troughs, and bricks from tank linings just to name a few of the items that have the
potential to be contaminated with Radium-226 scale and should be buried in the gypsum
stack as they cannot be allowed to enter the recycled metal waste streams.
It is my understanding from the Environmental Affairs Department that whenever
contaminated process materials would be placed onto the gypsum pile for disposal they
will be covered with a layer of gypsum. At some future date the final elevation of the
gypsum stack surface would be covered with a layer of topsoil and some type of
vegetation planted to prevent future surface erosion.

.0 • ot
The gypsum stack contains small amounts of Radium-226which upon decay will produce
Radon-222 gas. Because of the potential radon hazard this area will be a controlled
access site essentially forever. Should the State allow the contaminated process materials
to be buried in the gypsum pile it would be relatively easy to verify that the external
radiation hazard to the public from the buried materials in the gypsum stack should not be
any greater than the current external radiation hazard produced by the Radium-226
present in the gypsum that was used to bury the contaminated process equipment.
If you have any questions pertaining to the survey data please feel free to contact me at
252-322-8118.
Gerald J. Seighman, CIH CSP CMSP CHIN
Industrial Hygienist/Radiation Safety Officer

PCS PHOSPHATE - AURORA DIVISION
FILTER PAN SURVEY
MARCH 16, 2001
All results expressed in Micro R / Hour w/o background correction
Sample Number
Contact Reading
1 Meter Reading
Corrected Contact
Corrected 1 Meter
1
500
70
303
42
2
450
80
273
48
3
280
80
170
48
4
200
50
121
30
5
350
70
212
42
6
250
152
7
170
60
103
36
8
140
65
85
39
9
220
50
133
30
10
235
70
142
42
Background: 6 Micro R/hr.
Survey Meter: Ludlum Model 12 S Micro-R-Meter, SIN 142309, Calibrated on 6-1-00
with Cesium 137.
A factor of 1.65 was used to correct the Ludlum Model 12S Micro-R-Meter energy
dependent responses.
The Correction factor used for this study was obtained from a paper prepared by
Frederick F. McWilliams in March of 1986 "Evaluation of Response Characteristics of
the Ludlum Model 12S Micro R Meter to various environmental gamma energy
Spectrical distributions for the estimate of exposure rates in the Montclair/West Orange
and Glen Ridge Sites."

t
r
Bench Excavate,
'/ta Approx. Adj R
(20 ft elev. +/-
Q
//�V
�
`�
Proposed
Burial
rea
V
--————————— —----— —

[Fwd-. PCS Phosphate Information]
Subject: [Fwd: PCS Phosphate Information]
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:24:59 -0400
From: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Charles Gardner <[e-mail]>,
Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>, Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>
FYI ... here are some attachments that pertain to the radioactive material
PCS wants to dispose of at its mine site. we will be discussing this
information at the 4/25 meeting at the DRP in Raleigh. Thanks. TD
Subject: PCS Phosphate Information
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:06:47 -0400
From: "Chris Fidalgo" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Here's the info I told you about in our telephone conversation today. See you at the meeting.
Name: Radiation Contaminated Materials
Pictures.xls
Radiation Cgntaminated Materials Pie es. i Type: Microsoft Excel Worksheet
(application/vnd.ms-excel)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
Name: Filter Pan Survey 3-16-Ol.doc
Filter Pan Survey 3-16-0l.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
xName: Gyp Stack 2 Sideview Drawing jpg
. GXV Stack 2 Sideview Drawingjnl? Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
Encoding: base64
Name: Gyp Stack 2 Top View Drawing jpg
.. Qyp Stack 2 Top View DrawingJ12& Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
Encoding: base64
LJRadiation Contaminated Material Burial Drawingals
Name: Radiation Contaminated
Material Burial Drawing.xls
Type: Microsoft Excel Worksheet
(application/vnd.ms-excel)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with
message
i of 2 4/20/2001 5:26 PM

[Fwd: PCs Phosphate information]
Name: Filter Pan Radiation Survey
Report 3-21-01.doc
]Filter Pan Radiation Survey Report 3-21-0Ldoc Type: Microsoft Word Document
(application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
Tracy E. Davis, P.E. <Tracy.Davis&ncmail.net>
State Mining Specialist
Division of Land Resources
NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
2 of 2 4/20/2001 5:26 PM

March 21, 2001
Mr. Christopher J. Fidalgo
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Radiation Protection
1645 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1645
Dear Mr. Fidalgo:
Per your March 13, 2001 request one "filter pan" was removed from the top of the
Number Two Gypsum Stack, placed in an area of relatively low background, and a
radiological survey of the filter pan conducted. Enclosed for your review is a table
summarizing the gamma photon radiation field data obtained as both a surface contact
reading and as a 1-Meter reading. A drawing of the filter pan surveyed is enclosed to
show the relative points on the filter pan from which the surface contact and 1-Meter
readings were obtained.
Previous experience with surveying materials contaminated with Radium-226 has shown
that the radiation field readings obtained with the Sodium Iodide scintillation crystal used
in the Ludlum Model 12 S Micro R Meter must be corrected to reflect the energy
dependent response error for the Radium-226. Reported values from the March 16, 2001
filter pan survey reflect a correction factor of 1.65 without any correction for the cosmic
or terrestrial background found in the survey area.
To assist those unfamiliar with phosphate mining and manufacturing of phosphoric acid,
I have briefly outlined below the phosphoric acid manufacturing process in terms of how
the naturally occurring radioactive material present in the phosphate ore contaminates the
process equipment.
Phosphate ore is mined at the PCS Phosphate Aurora Facility and used in the
manufacturing of phosphoric acid. Radionuclides present in the phosphate ore are
Uranium-238, approximately 20 to 40 ppm, Thorium-230, and Radium-226, all of which
are naturally occurring radioactive elements. The Uranium-238 decays to Radium-226
and eventually to stable Lead-206. In the manufacturing of phosphoric acid by the wet
process phosphate ore is mixed with sulphuric acid. The resulting chemical reaction
between the ore and acid produces phosphoric acid and gypsum [calcium sulphate]. The
phosphoric acid is separated from the gypsum by filtering the slurry through a pan type or
belt type of filter.

During the slurry filtration process the Uranium, most of which will be dissolved in the
phosphoric acid solution, will go with the phosphoric acid solution while the Radium-226
will go with the gypsum by-product produced. During the acidulation process that takes
place in the phosphoric acid plants attack tanks the Radium-226 ion behaves chemically
similar to a calcium ion and during the chemical reaction forms a Radium Sulphate
precipitate that will deposit on the surface of the process equipment and piping as "scale."
Although the amount of Radium-226 in the phosphate ore that is available to be
precipitated as a scale is small, over time, the process equipment in contact with the acid
and gypsum will become contaminated with the radioactive scale due to the volume of
acid and gypsum that passes over and/or through the process equipment.
Process equipment contaminated with radioactivity above background levels cannot be
disposed of through the normal metal recycling outlets.
Scrap metal and other process materials from the phosphoric acid plants are surveyed for
radiation levels above background to prevent contaminated process equipment from
Ieaving the facility accidentally. Over time the amount of contaminated material has
accumulated and it was recommended that the contaminated process equipment be re-
located to a central area at this facility. The PCS Environmental Affairs Department has
requested permission from the State Division of Radiation Protection to dispose of the
contaminated process materials by burying them in the Number Two Gypsum Stack
which will continue to be used for agricultural gypsum sales to farmers.
The phosphate ore contains Radium-226 which leaves the process with the gypsum.
Several years ago the EPA imposed restrictions on the Radium-226 content of gypsum
that was sold for land application. Since 1992 the Environmental Affairs Department has
sampled the gypsum sold armually. Analysis of the gypsum for Radium-226 content
indicates that the average concentration of Radium-226 in the gypsum can varied from a
low of approximately 4 pCi/g to a high of approximately 11.3 pCi/g.
Although not involved in the original discussions with the State Division of Radiation
Protection it is my impression that during the original discussions only disposal of the
filter pans had been requested. There are other materials such as stainless steel piping,
steel and plastic piping, valves, pump impellors and pump casings, sections of metal
troughs, and bricks from tank linings just to name a few of the items that have the
potential to be contaminated with Radium-226 scale and should be buried in the gypsum
stack as they cannot be allowed to enter the recycled metal waste streams.
It is my understanding from the Environmental Affairs Department that whenever
contaminated process materials would be placed onto the gypsum pile for disposal they
will be covered with a layer of gypsum. At some future date the final elevation of the
gypsum stack surface would be covered with a layer of topsoil and some type of
vegetation planted to prevent future surface erosion.

The gypsum stack contains small amounts of Radium-226which upon decay will produce
Radon-222 gas. Because of the potential radon hazard this area will be a controlled
access site essentially forever. Should the State allow the contaminated process materials
to be buried in the gypsum pile it would be relatively easy to verify that the external
radiation hazard to the public from the buried materials in the gypsum stack should not be
any greater than the current external radiation hazard produced by the Radium-226
present in the gypsum that was used to bury the contaminated process equipment.
If you have any questions pertaining to the survey data please feel free to contact me at
252-322-8118.
Gerald J. Seighman, CIH CSP CMSP CHMM
Industrial Hygienist/Radiation Safety Officer

�Tt �Iar,
- L '

I Fla, .,11qlPW-lF1.

I
0
U) cD
W
c �
•fi) n m
VE
+O
c Q.
m
m N
c (n
U (D
c c
o °
}, -o
m
=v m
m U
� O

PCS PHOSPHATE - AURORA DIVISION
FILTER PAN SURVEY
MARCH 16, 2001
All results expressed in Micro R / Hour w/o background correction
Sam le Number
Contact Reading
1 Meter Reading
Corrected Contact
Corrected 1 Meter
1
500
70
303
42
2
450
80
273
48
3
280
80
170
48
4
200
50
121
30
5
350
70
212
42
6
250
152
7
170
60
103
36
8
140
65
85
39
9
220
50
133
30
10
235
70
142
42
Background: 6 Micro R/hr.
Survey Meter: Ludlum Model 12 S Micro-R-Meter, SIN 142309, Calibrated on 6-1-00
with Cesium 137.
A factor of 1.65 was used to correct the Ludlum Model 12S Micro-R-Meter energy
dependent responses.
The Correction factor used for this study was obtained from a paper prepared by
Frederick F. McWilliams in March of 1986 "Evaluation of Response Characteristics of
the Ludlum Model 12S Micro R Meter to various environmental gamma energy
Spectrical distributions for the estimate of exposure rates in the Montclair/West Orange
and Glen Ridge Sites."

Proposed Disposal Area Cross Section
•.�::r.aru.ru+�mneevs„s+a�.►.unrauirr au.,nG�i�trn• :f:
Gypsum
Proposed Disposal Cell
r ppromnuFa On—gined Ufoundppt4x EAUT i 12
Original Ground
PCs
Phosphate,ft AURORA DIVISION
DRAWING TITLE
d Typical Disposal Area Crass Section
Inro
InFo
to
ENGINEEFJNG I DA
JOB NC.
Na
G-2 IItsposal Ar4

Proposed Burial of Radiation Contaminated Material GS#2
Approx 32' msl with 18" topsoil
32' msl
100,
El
4.4
each block =2'
3.33 yds. deep
yds wide
yd3
F11
c V
a,
F" 4
IN
04 1
�i�ii's26.7
m�s�o,
i2373
Fas
0, mm
ra,
F.
a "4
0, a,
F.
OMMMEMEM
Approx Original Elev 12' msl
Material to be buried Location
Stainless Steel
Salvage
Plexco Pipe
Salvage
Stainless Steel
GS#2
Approx Amount yd3
11
850
367
Total yd3 1228

Ift
P,p: Meeting with PCs Phosphate Personnel f4voww:;, 'P
Subject: Re: Meeting with PCS Phosphate Personnel
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:22:27 -0500
From: Tracy Davis <tracy,[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Chris Fidalgo <[e-mail]>
CC: Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>, Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>,
Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>
Chris, thanks for the message. Jeff Furness of PCS (the person we deal with
regarding the mining permit) called me yesterday and we discussed this
situation as well. He indicated that you and one of his counterparts have
been discussing this and developing a disposal plan for this material. I
gave Jeff (and Floyd Williams, our regional engineer) a heads up on how we
handled a similar situation at the Chematall site in Kings Mountain. Jeff
said he was going to let you and his counterpart work out a plan that is
acceptable to you, then Jeff would submit it to me as a formal mining permit
modification request. During the review of this request, it would be routed
to you for formal review and comment (so you can confirm that it addresses
all of your concerns).
I will be out of the office 4/9--4/13, in a civil penalty appeal hearing on
4/17, in the Wilmington region on 4/24, in a meeting most of the day on
4/26, and in a high profile permit revocation hearing 4/30-5/2. Thus, there
are only a limited number of days I could attend an onsite meeting.
However, as the specifications on the permanent disposal of this type of
material comes from your shop (like the Chematall site) and we generally
accept what you do, it is not imperative that I am present during this site
visit. I am familiar with the site and, if needed, could do a site
inspection during the formal review process.
My recommendation is that you set up a meeting that best suits you and your
contact with PCS and, if Floyd Williams and I can make it, we'll be
there ... if not, you can go without us so as not to hold up the project.
Let me know what you think. Thanks again for your assistance with this
project. Tracy
Chris Fidalgo wrote:
> Tracy-
> I just wanted to let you know that PCS Phosphate folks would like to
> conduct a meeting concerning the disposal of the contaminated steel
> onsite at Aurora. You may recall the telephone conversation we had
> about this matter.
> This meeting will be to discuss the results of analyses conducted by the
> Division of Radiation Protection and PCS Phosphate on the possible
> impact of the disposal of this material (contaminated with radium, a
> naturally occurring radioactive element) on gyp stack #2.
> PCS Phosphate is proposing meeting on one of the following possible
> dates: April 2, 3, 9 and 11. The first two are impossible for DRP
> people to attend due to prior commitments. April 9 or 11 would be more
> acceptable for us, but X would prefer to meet during the latter half of
> April and have said as much to the PCS people. it might be easiest if
> you tell me which dates are not possible rather than the reverse. In
1 of 2 3/29/2001 10,27 AM

AWW
F,p: Meeting with PCS Phosphate Personnel
> addition, I will try to get you all of the relevant information on this
> situation by the end of next week.
> I will be out of the office for the rest of this week, but should be in
> the office every day but Tuesday next week. Please contact me when you
> can.
> Best Regards,
> Chris Fidalgo
> NC Division of Radiation Protection
> Telephone: [phone], x. 241
> E-mail: [e-mail]
Tracy E. Davis, P.E. <[e-mail]>
State Mining Specialist
Division of Land Resources
NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
2 of 2 3/29/2001 10:27 AM

414L

Re: PCs P.h�osphate Meeting, April 17, 18
i
�Mtul I'K^fl P011>
Subject: Re: PCS Phosphate Meeting, April 17,18
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:53:08 -0400
From: Charles Gardner <[e-mail]>
Organization: Division of Land Resources
To: Donna Moffitt <[e-mail]>,
dempsey benton <[e-mail]>,
Anita Watkins <Anita.Watkins@ncmai].net>,
Melba McGee <[e-mail]>
CC: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>, Mel] Nevils <[e-mail]>,
"Jim.Simons" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Thanks, Donna. We can back DCM up with Mining Permit conditions as appropriate. At the same time,
I'm sensitive to the fact that once the phosphate ore underneath these creek -heads is passed by the mining
progression, it is forever lost to societal benefit. I know you (we) have to balance that loss against the
wetlands/nurseries values, not an easy task.
Thanks again,
Charles
Donna Moffitt wrote:
The results of the April 17 field trip to the mine site and the April 18 scoping meeting were positive.
PCS Phosphate told the attending regulatory staff that it would try to design its mining plan and permit
requests to avoid mining in public trust waters. That should reduce the wetlands impacts also, which
were originally some 92 acres. We will continue to work with the company to try to get a mining plan
that reduces wetland impacts to the greatest extent possible. If there are still wetland impacts in the final
permit application, we will have to deny the CAMA permit for failure to meet the CRC's use standards
and then the company would have to seek a variance from the CRC. According to my staff, the last
permitting and environmental review process took about 10 years so this could be a long term effort. I'll
attempt to keep you informed only on major points in the process.
Donna Moffitt wrote:
FYI on phosphate mining in the creeks in Beaufort County. Obviously,
this is going to be a HOT issue. Since we are leaning towards
requesting that the company put the SEPA document preparation on hold
until and unless the company gets a mining permit and/or an easement
from State Property, you might get the first official requested action
in DENR, Charles.
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: PCS Phosphate Meeting, April 17, 18]]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:54:15 -0400
From: Charles Jones <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC ENR DCM
To: Donna Moffitt <[e-mail]>
CC: David Moye <[e-mail]>
I've attached a e-mail message I received from David Moye concerning the
1 of 4 4/27/2001 7:54 PM

Re: PCS Pliosphate Meeting, April 17, 18
mining advance plans by PCS and the EIS process. PCS is proposing to
mine several creeks and tributaries (Huddles Cut, Huddy Gut, Tooleys
Creek, Drink Water Creek, Jacobs Creek and Jacks Creek. Huddy Gut is
considered Estuarine Waters while the remaining are Public Trust Waters
and Inland Primary Nursery Areas.
It is our understanding that PCS does not have any mining rights
underneath any of these creeks. As such, the question has been raised
whether we (or the Company) should spend a whole lot of time and
resources on the scoping, preparation, review, etc. of an EIS when they
don't apparently have any vested right or permission from the state to
dam these public waters and resources and to mine public trust bottoms.
David is going to be attending a meeting next week with PCS to discuss
this project. one item on the agenda is a discussion of Public Trust
Waters/state owned bottom. I would ask him to provide us with a summary
of that discussion. If, in fact, they don't have any lease or mining
rights to these areas, I feel it would be appropriate for them to first
cross that hurtle with the State before we and the other agencies devote
a lot of time and energy to the EIS process. (As you well might guess,
the project will be controversial and the environmental issues will be
huge. If the State declines to issue them mining rights for the creeks,
that part of the project would be a dead issue.)
Subject: [Fwd: PCS Phosphate Meeting, April 17, 18]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:40:36 -0500
From: David Moye <[e-mail]>
To: Charles Jones <Charles,S.,[e-mail]>
Charles,
This is the latest information on the meeting for the PCS mining advance
and EIS process. As you will note, one of the items to be discussed on
the second day is the issue of mining public trust areas. It is our
understanding from PCS that they do not own any rights to the creeks
they propose to mine. My question is, how can we go forward with an EIS
process without a clear understanding from the State as to the DOA stand
on this issue?
David
Subject: PCS Phosphate Meeting, April 17, 18
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:54:06 -0600
From: "McLendon, Scott C SAW" <[e-mail]>
To: "David Moyc (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Deborah Sawyer (E-mail)" <deborah.sawyer a ncmai1.net>,
2 of 4 4/27/2001 7:54 PM

Re: PCS Phosphate Meeting, April 17, 18
"Floyd Williams (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"John Dorsey (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Kathy Matthews (E-mail)"<[e-mail]>,
"Mike Wicker (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Rob PerksiDave McNaught (E-mail)" <info @ptrf. org>,
"Ron Sechler (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, "Sean McKenna (E-nail)"
<scan. mckenna@ncmai l.net>, "William Wescott (E-mail)"
<[e-mail]. nc.us>, "Charlie Adams (E-mail)"
<[e-mail]>
CC: "Lekson, David M SAW" <[e-mail]. nil>,
"Wright, George W SAW" <[e-mail]>,
"Jeff Furness (E-mail)" <jfumes [e-mail]>,
"Ross M. Smith (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>
TO: PCS Phosphate permit team
FROM: Scott McLendon
RE: April 17, 18 meeting
Based on discussions I have had with several of you, we have established the following agenda relative to this
meeting. Please note that this is not set in stone and can be changed if needed. If there are issues that are not
on this list you feel are necessary to discuss, please bring them to my attention as soon as possible. We woulc
like to try to begin the field tour at 10.00 AM on April 17. We will meet at the PCS Land Office in Aurora, on the
south side of NC 133, 1 anticipate that this tour will take most of the day.
Ross Smith and I need to know who will be attending both meetings so that we can plan accordingly. We would
like to limit the number of people on the field tour to those on the permit team so that all can ride in one van.
Thanks
PCS will provide lunch on Tuesday, the group will be on their own on Wednesday.
April 17: Tour of PCS mine at Hickory Point.
1. Marsh creation site(s)
2. Bottomland creation site
3. Reclaimed areas
4. Parker Farm mitigation area
5. Impact areas including creek areas.
April 18: Project discussion.
1. Purpose and need for the proposed action
2. Discussion of project area, ore reserves, locations
a. Discussion of Public Trust Waters/state owned bottom. Ross Smith will be providing information they have
gathered since our last meeting.
3. Alternatives to the proposed action (This discussion will obviously not be completed this day)
4. Brief presentation of Cd findings by Mike Wicker/Tom Augsberger
Ross, could you please bring the large aerial photo to the meeting on Wednesday.
3 ol'4 4/27/2001 7:54 PM

I

Re: PCS Phosphate Meeting, April 17, 18
Thanks,
Scott
910-251-4725
Charles Gardner, P.Q. P.E. <charles. ardner Fr ncmail.net>
State Geologist and Director
N.C. Division of Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
4 4-4
4/27/2001 7:54 PM

-01

-�1
J^N

[Fwd: STF Plant Vicinty Map - PCS Phosphate]
Subject: [Fwd: STF Plant Vicinty Map - PCS Phosphate]
From: "R.M.1"Petel" Chiles" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:51:01 -0400
To: Judy Wehner <[e-mail]>
Maybe this time without the email address typo,
Thanks again,
Pete
Subject: STF Plant Vicinty Map - PCS Phosphate
From: "R.M.1"PeteV Chiles" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:08:45 -0400
To: .Itidy Wehner <[e-mail]>
Judy,
I hope that this will work.
I only showed from the plant entrance to the STF Plant Site,
Hope that This is enough.
If not, let me know.
Best regards,
R.M. Pete Chiles, P.E.
Content -Type: messagelrfc822
'STF Plant Vicinty Map - PCS Phosphate
j Content -Encoding: 7bit
6006242-STF sitemap.l.p]dfContent-Type: application/pdf
sitemap.l.pdf
j Content -Encoding: base64
' nf 1 10/3/2006 8:44 AM

0 ] 1 O :8 a
U � n< 6❑
n o C �,
x'0 o O` anti V t�
• -- __ a
° c - I 00ooc)
L
J O ❑
oo
o
f � On {� O
13 O ° dO p Q
O
fr 1z _
(� !X1� fl 0
r 6I
—on omm czfl
fir!0 M—,
Cl
a
UI
_t

North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
John Morris, Director
August 30, 2001
Mr. Danny Winstead
PCS Phosphate Company
P.O. Box 48
,aurora, North Carolina 27806
A k 4.A
X 2V
NCDENR
Re: Complaints received from Gum Point Residents
Bath, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Winstead,
DWR received further information on the complaint from Mr. John Wiley. We fe Parch
is not responsible for reimbursing Mr. Wiley's pump expense incurred on approximately
1, 2001. The hydrographs for our Bath and Lee Creek stations (see attached graph) indicate little
to no static water level change around the time Mr. Wiley was having pump problems. DWR
feels that the problem of low pressure that Mr. Wiley is experiencing is due to problems in the
house plumbing. There have been numerous fluctuations in the water levels in the past 17 years
and Mr. Wiley never noticed low water pressure before. Nat and I have called Mr. Wiley to
discuss our conclusions on this matter.
PCS was correct in replacing Mr. Clemmons" surface pump with a jet pump due to
noticeable water level declines observed at our Bath and Lee Creek stations. However, based on
recent problems described by Mr. Clemmons, PCS needs to investigate and correct any problems
between the pump and the well.
If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call Nat Wilson or myself at (919)
733-4064.
Sine rely,
cc: Terry Baker (PCS Phosphate) !�/LP�•�
Tracy Davis (Division of Land Resources) Gabrielle Chianese
1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-161 1
Phone: 919 - 733-4064 1 FAX: 919 - 733-3558 1 Internet: www.ncwater.org
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 1 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 54% RECYCLED / 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER

Is
Phosphate
AURORA
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC U.S.A. 27806
January 25, 2000
Mr. Charles Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director, Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of ENR
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Gardner:
Enclosed are the 1999 Annual Reclamation Reports of Mining Permits No. 7-1 and 7-5,
which cover the PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Aurora Phosphate Mine. Two copies of
each report are enclosed along with two copies of a statistical addendum for permit 7-1.
Also you will find two copies of an overview map showing the areas each permit covers,
and two copies of the updated mine map.
Please let me know if you have questions concerning this information.
Sincerely,
1 -4-1 C. AAAMS\
Jeffrey C. Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
3CF:po
Enclosures
PC: T. J. Regan / T. C. Younger, Jr.
(w/ encl.)
W. A. Schimming
(w/ encl.)
W. T. Cooper
(w/o encl.)
M. T. Harris / D. J, Millman
(w/ encl.)
I. K. Gilmore
(w/ encl.)
T. L. Baker / 12-04-002-01
(w/ encl.)
00-14-000
(w/o encl.)
Anita Kiehl - Deloitte & Touche LLP
(w/ encl.)

PCs Phosphate R-7 Blend Dike, Beaufort County
0�,)1_0�
Subject: PCS Phosphate R-7 Blend Dike, Beaufort County
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:23:22 -0400
From: Jim Leumas <[e-mail]>
To: "Furness, Jeff' <[e-mail]>
CC: "Harrell, Scott" <Scott.Harrel [e-mail]>, "Daniel, Bob" <Bob.Daniel@ncmail,net>,
"Williams, Floyd" <[e-mail]>, "McClain, Pat" <[e-mail]>,
"Davis, Tracy" <[e-mail]>
August 23, 2000
Jeff:
Our staff has completed its review of the application for construction
of the referenced dike. Application information was received on
December 17, 1999 (under cover letter dated December 10, 1999) and on
June 14, 2000 (under cover letter dated June 9, 2000).
I am recommending issuance of an Approval to Construct for the R--7 Blend
Dike, but offer the following:
1. It is recommended that Sheet 1 of 3 have a north arrow.
2. Could you send our office two copies of a sheet showing all the
existing tailings dikes (along with the planned future dikes that are
known at this time) just for general reference? This would be very much
appreciated. (Some of us "old timers" are pretty familiar with the
existing dike locations, but such a drawing or map would assist newer
staff members to become more quickly familiar with the PCS Phosphate
layout. I hope to include having Mr. Scott Harrell, E. I. and Mr. Bob
Daniel, P. E., the two Assistant State Dam Safety Engineers attend the
next environmental/permitting meeting at PCS Phosphate so that you and
the PCS Phosphate staff can meet Scott and Bob.)
3. Each of the Cross Sections on Sheet 2 of 3 and on four of the cross
sections on Sheet 3 of 3 have a note reading "Blend Surface El. +5", It
is unclear what this means. Please clarify. (Page 13 of the
Geotechnical Report indicates that 5 feet of freeboard is to be
maintained at all times, and this may be the intent, but I am nor sure.
It might not be a bad idea to indicate on the plans the maximum tailings
elevation in the pond on the cross sections.)
4. Sheet 3 of 3, Weep Drain Detail at 3/1 Slopes, Plan View and Cross
Section:
(a) On the cross section, please reflect on the construction drawings
and on the "as -built" drawings the height of the six-inch diameter drain
outlet pipe above the base of the dike. (The Geotechnical Report (Page
2) suggests that it be located about one foot above the dike base.)
(b) It is recommended that solid (not perforated) pipe be used for the
outlet section of the drain pipes located 200 feet on center from the
perforated collector pipe. (Using solid outlet pipe makes it much
easier to observe the quality and quantity of seepage coming from the
drainage system during routine inspections of the dam.)
(c) It is recommended that end caps be used at the ends of the six-inch
diameter perforated collector pipes to prevent dike material from
entering the pipe at these locations. It is also recommended that
1 of 3 8/23/2000 4:48 PM

PCS Phosphate R-7 Blend mike, Heaufort County
animal guards be placed at the exits of the solid outlet pipes to
prevent animals from entering and obstructing them.
(d) For the perforated pipe, please indicate the desired hole size and
the number of holes per lineal foot. If holes are only to be located on
one side of the pipe, you may wish to indicate in specifications or in a
detail or note on the plans that the side with holes be placed down to
improve drain performance.
(e) The drawings refer to use of a "sock filter" for the perforated
pipe. (The specifications refer to wrapping the collector pipe with a
non -woven filter fabric.) Please provide a specification for the filter
fabric to be used on the construction drawings or in the specifications
(and reflect on the "as -built" drawings). Please also specify the
minimum overlap for wrapping of the pipe.
5. Specifications for Construction of R-7 Dike:
(a) Decant Structures (Page 6) - Two decant structures are shown on the
plans. This specification refers to details which were not included in
the application. Please provide two copies of the details on the
proposed decant structures and associated outlet works. (This will
assist our filing system so that we do not have to refer to another file
for drawings applicable to this dike.)
(b) Piezometers (Page 6) - Please indicate on the plan sheets the
locations and depths of piezometers that will be installed in the dike
sections. It is requested that a standard detail be provided for their
installation and table be located on the plans showing the top
elevation, tip elevation, and screen length for each piezometer. (Also,
see Geotechnical Report, Section 5.3.)
(c) Miscellaneous (Page 7) - It is recommended that the applicable plan
sheets indicate the locations where drain tiles are to be removed.
(Also, see Section 1.3.1, "Section A" and Section 5.4 in the
Geotechnical Report.) If all locations of the agricultural drain tiles
are not known at this time, this information can be reflected on the
"as -built" drawings.
6. An emergency action plan (EAP) and an operation and maintenance (O&M)
schedule are required for all high hazard structures. You may wish to
contact the local Division of Emergency Management for assistance in
developing the EAP. The O&M schedule should address routine inspection,
maintenance, and frequency of piezometer readings. These items may be
submitted after an approval to construct is issued, but they must be
received prior to issuance of an approval to impound.
7. 1 would appreciate your opinion, and that of your geotechnical
consulting engineer whether it would be useful to have any settlement
gage devices installed and the monitoring of such settlement gages.
This may provide information that could be used in the design of future
blend dikes.
8. In 'the design report, one PCSTABL5 plot titled "R-7 Dikes, Highwall
Downstream 3:1, Steady State, With Toe Drain" dated 10-14-99 and time
8:14 a.m. indicates a particular phreatic surface. A second plot with
the same title and date, but indicating a run time of 8:20 a.m.
indicates a depressed phreatic surface and a higher factor of safety.
It is unclear why the phreatic surface was depressed so far upstream in
this second plot and its applicability to the analysis.
2 of 3 W23/2000 4:48 PM

ti
PC Phosphate R-7 Blend Dike, Beaufort County
our office can provide you with an EAP form that is likely applicable
for this structure. I will send you a copy of the EAP form. Please
contact Scott Harrell, Bob Daniel or me after you receive the EAP form,
and we'll be happy to discuss this with you.
Thanks for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jim Leumas
3 of 3 8123/2GOO 4:48 PM

l -L 11W�1�d ONINA
6661
IaO63a NOII b' Vb 33a �vnNNV
�/OdS 3M8 N1IM J3`172Y,JV9 0Nb i
037-ILMOb8 ION ONb 0310333b ONVI
Sb3 W 30bbOIS ON.318
Sb3bb 3ObNOiS WnSd o
S3NIU1nU SONITb1 ONbS
80 `1113 300380 'SOmd NI,9aIn
- ON-�D-� �
U
z
Z V32JV WIVl�3?J
L 3Td v nsd,,O
f.
�]:] A I �]
03�nvd
9\

�Re: Conlplaint Ree'd (may relate to PCS)
Subject: Re: Complaint Ree'd (may relate to PCS)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:11:01 -0400
From: Tracy Davis <Tracy.Davis@ncmai].net>
Organization: NCDENR - Land Quality Section
To: [e-mail]
CC: Gabrielle Chianese<[e-mail]>,
Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>,
Charles Gardner <[e-mail]>, Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>
Thanks, Jeff. Can you keep me and Floyd posted on how this is resolved?
Thanks for your timely response. Tracy
[e-mail] wrote:
> Tracy:
> Danny Winstead of our Environmental Dept. and Curtis Brown of our Land
> Dept. have spoken to Gabrielle Chianese and are working with the landowner,
> Mr. Franz.
> Neff
Tracy E. Davis, P.E. <Tracy.Davis a.ncmail.net>
State Mining Specialist
Division of Land Resources/Land Quality Section
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1 of 1 9/15/2000 11:49 AM

NCDENR u
S4' �•A
�Q V
JAMES B. HUNTJR.
GOVERNOR
WAYNE MCDEVITT
SECRETARY
CHARLES H. GARD%
P.G., P.E. 01RECTOR
AND STATE GEOLOG
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
LAND QUALITY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SECTION (9191 733-2423 FAX [phone]
P.o- Box 27687, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2761 1-7687 TELEPHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - SO% RECYCLEDl10q POST -CONSUMER PAPER

� Y
Re: Complaint Rec'd (may relate to PC5)
Subject: Re: Complaint Rec'd (may relate to PCS)
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:59:18 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
Tracy:
Danny Winstead of our Environmental Dept. and Curtis Brown of our Land
Dept. have spoken to Gabrielle Chianese and are working with the landowner,
Mr. Franz.
Jeff
1 of 1 9/15/2000 11:09 AM

Complaint Reed (may relate to PCs)
Subject: Complaint Rec'd (may relate to PCS)
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 15:36:09 -0400
From: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCDENR - Land Quality Section
To: "Furness, Jeff' <[e-mail]>
CC: Charles Gardner <Charles. Gardner@ncmail. net>,
Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>, Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>,
Nat Wilson <[e-mail]>,
Gabrielle Chianese <[e-mail]>
Jeff, please see the message below that was received by DENR's Customer
Service Center and referred to the Division of Water Resources for
investigation. Can you give us an update on your progress on the NCPC
Tract? Have you installed depressurization wells and have they been put
in operation? Do you have a map showing the location of these wells?
Your prompt response will be greatly appreciated. (NOTE: I will be out
of state at a conference most of next week, so please respond to
Gabrielle Chianese of the Division of Water Resources, via email and/or
phone at 715-5370... and cc: LQS). Thanks for your help. Tracy
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Complaint about PCS ]]
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 15:18:12 -0400
From: Gabrielle Chianese <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC Division of Water Resources, Ground Water Branch
To: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: ]
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 14:15:16 -0400
From: Nat Wilson <Nat. Wil son@ncmail. net>
Organization: NC Division of Water Resources
To: Gabrielle Chianese <[e-mail]>
Please make contact with Mr. Franz and see what's going on. Thanks.
Paul Clark wrote:
> Na t,
> Thanks very much. The following information for Mr. Franz
> Mr. Tommy Franz
> [phone]
> mailto:gumpoint®coastalnet;,com
> Paul B. Clark
> Environmental Engineer
> DENR Customer Service Center
> 877-623-6748 (toll -free)
919-733-0493 (local direct)
> mail.to:r)[e-mail]
>
> -----original Message-----
* From: Nat Wilson[mail t_o_:iVat.Wilson®ncmail.net]
I of 4 9/15/2000 11:01 AM

NCDENR
JAMES H. HUNTJR.
OOVERNOR
CHA.RLWS FF. C AItLi2 l J'
P.G., P.E. DIRECTOR
AND STATE GEOLOGIST
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
LAND QUALITY SECTION (91 9) 733-4574 FAX [phone]
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
P.O. BOX 27687, RAI.EIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2761 1.7687 TELEPHONE (DID) 733-3833 FAX (919) 715-BROI
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

Complaint Ree'd (may relate to PCS)
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 10:58 AM
> To: Paul Clark
> Subject: Re:
> Paul,
7
> Yes, we'll be glad to look into this situation. Do you have a phone number
> for
> Mr. Franz? Thanks.
> Nat
> Paul Clark wrote:
> > Mr. Wilson (Nat)
> > Hey, hope you're well. I received a phone call from a person (Mr. Franz)
> in
> > Gumpoint, NC who said the water levels of his and a neighbor's residential
> > drinking water well have dropped significantly he believes as a result of
> > PCS phosphate putting in four new well pumps. PCS pumps down the
> > groundwater so they can mine. Mr. Franz said he has spoken w/ a Curtis
> > Brown at PCS, but they have not been very helpful. Would anyone in your
> > group deal w/ this type of problem? Thanks for any help you can offer.
7 �
> > Pahl B. Clark
> > Environmental Engineer
> > DENR Customer Service Center
> > 877-623-6748 (toll -free)
> > 919-733-0493 (local direct)
> > mailto:[e-mail]
Subject: RE:
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 13:52:06 -0400
From: Paul Clark <[e-mail]>
To: 'Nat Wilson' <[e-mail]>
Nat,
Thanks very much. The following information for Mr. Franz
Mr. Tommy Franz
[phone]
mailto:[e-mail]
Paul B. Clark
Environmental Engineer
DENR Customer Service Center
877-623-6748 (toll -free)
919-733-0493 (local direct)
mailto:[e-mail]
-----Original Message -----
From: Nat Wilson {mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 10:58 AM
To: Paul Clark
2 of 9/15/2000 11:01 AM

i
NCDENR
JAMES S. HUNTJR.
GOVERNOR
WAYNE MC
SECRETARY
CHARLEs H.
P.G., P.E. DIRECTOR Im
AND STATE GEOLOGIST
N(
ENVIRONI
LAND QUALITY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
GEOLOGICAL- SURVEY SECTION (919} 733-2423 FAX [phone]
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27611-7687 TELEPHONE [phone] FAX (9t 9) 715-0801
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

,Coppla�nt Rec'd (may relate to PC5)
Subject: Re;
Paul,
Yes, we'll be glad to look into this situation. Do you have a phone number
for
Mr. Franz? Thanks.
Nat
Paul Clark wrote:
> Mr. Wilson (Nat) :
7
> Hey, hope you're well. I received a phone call from a person (Mr. Franz)
in
> Gumpoint, NC who said the water levels of his and a neighbor's residential
> drinking water well have dropped significantly he believes as a result of
> PCS phosphate putting in four new well pumps. PC5 pumps down the
> groundwater so they can mine. Mr. Franz said he has spoken w/ a Curtis
> Brown at: PC,S, but they have not been very helpful. Would anyone in your
> group deal w/ this type of problem? Thanks for any help you can offer.
> Paul B. Clark
> Environmental Engineer
> DENR Customer Service Centex-
* 877-623-6748 (toll -.free)
> 919-733-0493 (local direct)
> mailto: [e-mail]
Nat Wilson < [e-mail]>
Lead Hydrogeologist
Division of Water Resources
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Tracy E. Davis, P.E. <Trac .Davisnncmail.net�
State Mining Specialist
Division of Land Resources/Land Quality Section
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
3 of 9/15/2000 11:01 AM

P.G., P.E. DIRECTOR
AND STATE GEOLOGIST
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
LAND QUALITY SECTION (919) 733-4$74 FAX [phone]
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
P.O. 60% 27687, RALE IGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2761 1-7687 TELEPHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER
4

e
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
ANNUAL RECLAMATION REPORT FOR 1999 CALENDAR YEAR
North Carolina General Statutes 74-55 and the Mining Regulations require that 'The mine
operator shall, by February 1 of each year during the life of the permitted operation, and
within 30 days of completion or termination of mining on an area under permit, file with the
Department a mining reclamation report on a form prescribed by the Department."
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE
Ai ror`a
Name of Mine: -ate Mine County:
Pealfbrt
Mining Permit No.: 7-1.
Mining Permit Expiration Date: nt/01/03 River Basin Name: Pamlico
Name of Company/Owner on Permit Document: EM PtxnTi-nte
Official Mailing Address: M g(x 48
city: A r-zn Zip Code: 27RA
Telephone: 25?, 322-41.11. Check if change of address or telephone:
1. If mine is now inactive, when did mining stop? Date:
Is this stoppage permanent? Yes No
N/A
If yes, do you wish to have this mine site released from your reclamation
bond? Yes No
2. Was new land affected in 1999? X Yes No
If yes, how much? 375 acres
is map on file current? X Yes No
If not, submit updated map showing affected acreage.
3. Estimate land to be newly disturbed by mining in the 2000 calendar year:
42/4 acres
Check here if no new acreage is to be affected in 2000:
*4. List by category the total amount of disturbed and unreclaimed land
present at this site at the end of the 1999 calendar year.
(A) TAILINGS PONDS: l(90 acres (D) MINE EXCAVATION: 6344* acres
(B) *WASTE PILES: 490 acres (E) PLANT AREA: --M5i acres
(C) STOCKPILES:- 0 acres wt - +'4;i4�'k
�TE: WASTE PILES should include overburden storage/disposal areas and berms.
tits vsti.on i.ncli.r3es Iron Minn rnt reclaimrA, mb-n ew-avati.ni irrVrpnuv, rrnclm-otian end.
v--lalmr i s9Dr1 not raie�i..W Im d m nig t11P_ CForlpn TYact.

5. State and describe the amount and type of reclamation carried•oiit
in the 1999 calendar year:
% final rEclamaticr► oearre� dLmW :1999 homer nr amticn activities (filling of mm�d lal,
ditchiM, t�, pjmtirt,,r of ever Cam) ow .� cn �tely 2,200 s.
Check here if no reclamation completed in 1999: X
Signature of Company Officer/Owner:
Print Name: Willim T. Cooper, Jr.
Title
Vice Prv-s:. t / (",enteral my- fwx
Date : Janu-mv 2/4, M
*Complete and return by February 1, two copies of this form along with two
copies of an updated mine map (see note below) for each permitted mining
operation to:
Land Quality Section
DENR
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
FAILURE TO FILE THIS FORM BY THE DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN THE ASSESSMENT
OF CIVIL PENALTIES AND COULD RESULT IN THE REVOCATION OF YOUR MINING PERMIT.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL [phone].
NOTE: If your operation was idle in 1999, or no new acreage was affected
by mining, and no area reclaimed in 1999, you do not have to send an
updated mine map. Also, if you have completed a permit action since
January 1, 1999 (which involved updating your mine map), you do not
have to send an updated mine map. However, the blue report form must
be completed for all mines under permit.
2,000 copies of this public document were printed at a cost of $54.60 or $.03 per copy. 12/99
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES - LAND QUALITY SECTION

MINE PERMIT 7-1
ANNUAL RECLAMATION REPORT STATISTICS
PERMITTED AREAS
ACTIVE MINE AREA
10769
PLANTSITE
980
CHARLES TRACT
logo
12839
AFFECTED ACRES
MIN EXCAVATION
8344 '
PLANTSITE; 866 ACRES (PROCESSING PLANTS,
+ OFFICE BUILDINGS, ETC.)
980
115 ACRES (GYPSUM STORAGE)
CHARLES TRACT
1090
8414
RECLAIMED NOT RELEASED *•
BLEND A •1
476
MINE AREA
385
PLANTSITE
0
CHARLES TRACT
555
NPDES RECYCLE LAKE
225
GYPSUM PILE #1
40
1681
WASTE PILE STORAGE
GYPSUM PILE #2
75
GYPSUM PILE #3, 4 AND 5
250
GYPSUM PILE #6
460
MINE EXCAVATION UNDERGOING RECLAMATION
BLEND AREA •2
425
BLEND AREA R-3
945
BLEND AREA R-4
379
BLEND AREA R•S
319
BLEND AREA R-6
469
BLEND AREA R-7
531
DREDGE FILL AND SAND TAILINGS AREAS
497
BUCKET WHEEL EXCAVATOR BACKFILLED AREAS
761
CHARLES TRACT
535
4861
MINE EXCAVATION NOT RECLAIMED
ND AFFECT90 ANb NOTBACK ILLED
515
LAND AFFECTED IN 1999
375
890
+ INCLUDES MINE ACREAGE THROUGH 12-31.99.
•* LAND WHICH BACKFILLING IS COMPLETE AND FINAL RECLAMATION
IS COMPLETED.
*•• LOCATED ON PLANTSITE
IKG 01-21-00
RECL.STAT99.XLS

Re: Rescheduled PCS Phosphate Site Visit
Subject: Re: Rescheduled PCS Phosphate Site Visit
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 09:18:42 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
Tracy,
Sounds good, hope it works out.
Jeff
Tracy Davis
<tracy.davis@n
<[e-mail]>
cmail.net>
03/21/01 04:24
PM
site visit
To; Jeff Furness
cc: Charles Gardner
<[e-mail]>, Mell Nevils
<[e-mail]>, Jim Simons
<[e-mail]>, Floyd Williams
<[e-mail]>
Fax to:
Subject: Rescheduled PCS Phosphate
Jeff, it appears that Monday, 4/30 is best for Charles, Floyd and me to
meet with you and other PCS reps at your site. As you indicated that
your people also prefer this date, let's go ahead and schedule our
meeting and site visit for this date. We can touch base the week before
to confirm the meeting location and start time. Thanks for your
patience. Tracy
(See attached file: tracy.davis.vcf)
1 Tracy E. Davis, P.E. <Trac_y.Davis g( ncmail.net>
State Mining Specialist
Division of Land Resources
NC Dept. of Envirotttuent and Natural Resources
1 of 1 3/22/2001 2:58 PM

Rescheduled PCs Phosphate Site Visit
Subject: Rescheduled PCS Phosphate Site Visit
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 16:24:27 -0500
From: Tracy Davis <tracy.davis@ncmai 1. net>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Jeff Furness <[e-mail]>
CC: Charles Gardner <[e-mail]>,
Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>, Jim Simons <Jim. Simons@ncmail. net>,
Floyd Williams <Floyd.Williams@,ncmail.net>
Jeff, it appears that Monday, 4/30 is best for Charles, Floyd and me to
meet with you and other PCS reps at your site. As you indicated that
your people also prefer this date, let's go ahead and schedule our
meeting and site visit for this date. We can touch base the week before
to confirm the meeting location and start time. Thanks for your
patience. Tracy
Tracy E. Davis, P.E. <Trac, .Davis c ,ncmai1.net>
State Mining Specialist
Division of Land Resources
NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
l of 1. 3/21/20014:42 PM

Re: [F%vd: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting]
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:45:56 -0500
From: Floyd Williams <Floyd. Williams@ncmail. net>
To: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
Yo!! I can make it on 4/30. Will put this on my calendar...
Thanks,
Floyd
Tracy Davis wrote:
> Floyd, Charles has responded that either 4127 or 4130 are open for him.
> Jeff just sent me a message that 4130 is best for them. Can you make it
> if I set up a meeting with Jeff, Charles, Melt, you and me for Monday,
> 4/30? Let me know by early next week so I can get this on everyone's
> calendars. Thanks. Tracy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Part 1.2 Type: Outlook Express Mail Message (message/rfc822)
> Encoding: 7bi t
> Name: tracy.davis.vcf
> tracy.davis.vcf Type: VCaxd (text/x-vcard)
> Encoding: 7bit
> Description: Card for Tracy Davis
1 of 1 3/19'2001 10:2.1 AM

[Fwd: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting]
Subject: [Fwd: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting]
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:18:08 -0500
From: Tracy Davis <t racy. davis@ncmail. net>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>
Floyd, Charles has responded that either 4/27 or 4/30 are open for him.
Jeff just sent me a message that 4/30 is best for them. Can you make it
if I set up a meeting with Jeff, Charles, Mell, you and me for Monday,
4/30? Let me know by early next week so I can get this on everyone's
calendars. Thanks. Tracy
Subject: Re: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12-.58:50 -0500
From: Charles Gardner <Charles.Gard [e-mail]>
Organization: Division of Land Resources
To: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Furness <[e-mail]>, Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>,
Jim Simons <Jim,Simons a ncmail,net>, Floyd Williams <Floyd. Williams@ncmail -net>,
Judy Wehner <[e-mail]>, Chris Hite <[e-mail]>,
Jim Leumas <Jim. Leumas@ncmail. net>
Right now it looks like 4/27 or 4/30 would work.
Tracy Davis wrote:
> Jeff, unfortunately, we are going to have to postpone our 3126 site
> visit and meeting. The mining permit revocation appeal hearing for the
> Putnam Mine has been calendared for 3126-3128 in Raleigh. I sincerely
> apologize and hope that we can reschedule our meeting and visit .for
> sometime in late April. Do you have any proposed dates that work well
• for your people? Charles, which dates during 4123-4130 are you open?
> We may have to reduce the number of DLR attendees in light of our
• current budget constraints. I appreciate your patience and look forward
> to hearing from you soon. Thanks. Tracy
Charles Gardner, P.G. P.E. <charles_ ark [e-mail]>
State Geologist and Director
N.C. Division of Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
i
1 of2 3/15r2001 1:20 IN

PCs Visit
Subject: PCS Visit
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13�21:21 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Tracy:
We understand about having to reschedule. April 30 would work best for us.
Jeff
1 of 1 3/15/2001 1:18 PM

Re: PC5 Phosphate Site Visit and Mecting
Subject: Re: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:5&50 -0500
From: Charles Gardner <Charles. Gardner@ncmail. net>
Organization: Division of Land Resources
To: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
CC: Jeff Furness <[e-mail]>, Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>,
Jim Simons <Jim. Simons@ncmad. net>, Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>,
Judy Wehner <[e-mail]>, Chris Hite <[e-mail]>,
Jim Leumas <[e-mail]>
Right now it looks like 4/27 or 4/30 would work.
Tracy Davis wrote:
> Jeff, unfortunately, we are going to have to postpone our 3126 site
> visit and meeting. The mining permit revocation appeal hearing for the
> Putnam Mine has been calendared for 3126-3128 in Raleigh. I sincerely
> apologize and hope that we can reschedule our meeting and visit for
> sometime in late April. Do you have any proposed dates that work well
> for your people? Charles, which dates during 4123-4130 are you open?
> We may have to reduce the number of DLR attendees in light of our
> current budget constraints. I appreciate your patience and look forward
> to hearing from you soon. Thanks. Tracy
Charles Gardner, P.G. P.E. <charles.gardnerancmail.net>
State Geologist and Dimtor
N.C. Division of Land Resources
Department of Enviromnent and Natural Resources E
1 of 1 3/15/2001 1:15 PM

PCs P1iosphate Site Visit and Meeting
Subject: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:33:06 -0500
From: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Jeff Furness <[e-mail]>
CC: Charles Gardner <Charles. Gardner@ncmail. net>,
Mell Nevils <Mel I.Nevils@ncmail. net>, Jim Simons <[e-mail]>,
Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>,
Judy Wehner <Judy. Wehner@ncmail. net>, Chris Hite <[e-mail]>,
Jim Leumas <Jim. Leumas@ncmail. net>
Jeff, unfortunately, we are going to have to postpone our 3/26 site
visit and meeting. The mining permit revocation appeal hearing for the
Putnam Mine has been calendared for 3/26--3/28 in Raleigh. I sincerely
apologize and hope that we can reschedule our meeting and visit for
sometime in late April. Do you have any proposed dates that work well
for your people? Charles, which dates during 4/23-4/30 are you open?
We may have to reduce the number of DLR attendees in light of our
current budget constraints. I appreciate your patience and look forward
to hearing from you soon. Thanks. Tracy
Tracy E. Davis, P.E. <Tra y, Davis cr.ncmail. net>
State Muiing Specialist
Division of Land Resources
NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
1 of 1 3/1 .'2001 1033 AM

Re: Site Visit/Meeting on 3/26/2001
Subject: Re: Site Visit/Meeting on 3/26/2001
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:19:26 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: Tracy Davis <tracy,[e-mail]>
Tracy:
We will pencil in March 26 on our calendars. Keep me posted.
Jeff
f of t 2/14/2001 10:16 AM

[Fw& Site VisitNeeting on 3/26/20011
Subject: [Fwd: Site Visit/Meeting on 3/26/20011
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:55:35 -0500
From: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Jeff Fumess <[e-mail]>
CC: Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>, Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>,
Jim Simons <[e-mail]>
I forgot to mention that Floyd Williams has also confirmed his
attendance on 3/26... sorry Floyd! TD
Subject: Site Visit/Meeting on 3/26/2001
Date: Tue, l3 Feb 2001 11:46:12 -0500
From: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Jeff Furness <[e-mail]>
CC: Charles Gardner <Charles. Gardner@ncmai 1. net>,
Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>, Jim Simons <[e-mail]>,
Floyd Williams <F1oyd.Wiiliams@nemail,net>,
Judy Wehner <[e-mail]>, Chris Hite <Chris. Hite@ncmail. net>,
Tracy Davis <Tracy. Davis@ncmail. net>
Jeff, I have polled DLR staff to determine attendance at the above
meeting. Jim Leumas is short staffed right now and will be unable tc
attend. However, Jim Simons, Judy Wehner, Chris Hite and I are
confirmed. I have not heard back from Mell Nevils on his attendance.
As far as Charles goes, an important appeal case is scheduled to go to
hearing the week of 3/26, so he is cannot commit until the date of the
hearing has been tied down (it may be scheduled later in the week)...I
may also need to attend this hearing, so my commitment to this site
visit is also "tentative". However, please go ahead and hold a
tentative date of 3/26 for our meeting and I will let you know as soon
as I hear when the hearing has been scheduled. Thanks. Tracy
Tracy E. Davis, P.E. <[e-mail]>
State Milting Specialist
Division of Land Resources
NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
1 of2 2/13/2001 12:[0 PM

Re: [Fwd: PCs Phasphate Site Visit and Meeting]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting]
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 16:48:43 -0500
From: Charles Garter`<Charles.Gardner@ncmailnet>
Organization: Division of Land Resources
To: Tracy Davis <tracy.davis@ncmailnet>
CC: Mell Nevils <.Mell.Nevils@ncmaiLnet>, Jim imons <Jim.Simons@ncmaiLnet>,
Jim Leumas <Jim.Leumas@ncmailnet>, Jud ehner <Judy.Wehner@ncmaiLnet>,
Chris Hite <Chris.Hite@ncmailnet>, Floyd Williams <Floyd.Williams@ncmailnet>
Tracy, the Putnam Mine OAH hearing is presently calendared for sometime during
the week beginning Monday, March 26. A date certain has not been set. I've
asked Jim Gulick to see if the ALJ will tie down the date this early, but they
usually wait until about two weeks prior to the hearing to set the day(s) for
the hearing.
I suggest you let Jeff know that we can not all make a firm committment at
this time for March 26. We'll have a better picture of the court calendar at
least by mid --March, so you could hold a tentative date of March 26 for now for
PCS and advise Jeff that we may need to reschedule it (if leaving it loose for
now is okay with him).
Tracy Davis wrote:
> See Jeff's message below... PCS reps want to meet with us on Monday,
> March 26th. Please let me know as soon as possible if you can make this
> date, so I can confirm our attendence with Jeff. Thanks. Tracy
>
>-_--___------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Part 1.2 Type: Microsoft MFHTML Document 5.0 (messagelrfc822)
> Encoding: 7bit
> Name: tracy.davis.vcf
> tracy.davis.vcf Type: VCard (text/x-vcard)
> Encoding: 7bit
> Description: Card for Tracy Davis
---------------.................
Charles Gardner P.G. P.E. <charles. ardner c .nctnail.net>
1 State Geologist and Director
N.C. Division of Land Resources
Department of I nvirotunent and Natural Resources
1 of2 2/8/2001 4:48 PM

Re: [Fwd: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting]
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:46:09 -0500
From: `Cb6wfffa<Chris,[e-mail]>
To: Tracy Davis <tracy. davis@ncmail. net>
No problem here. Please confirm when date is finalized.
Tracy Davis wrote:
See Jeffs message below...PCS reps want to meet with us on Monday,
March 26th. Please let me know as soon as possible if you can make this
date, so I can confirm our attendence with Jeff. Thanks. Tracy
Subject: Re: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:02:57 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
Tracy:
Surprisingly, the overwhelming vote was for Monday, March 26. It looks like
everyone we would have in the meeting is available that day. Can you get
that date put on your calendars?
Jeff
Tracy Davis
<tracy.davis@n To: Jeff Furness <[e-mail]>
cmail.net> cc: Charles Gardner
<[e-mail]>, Mell Nevils
02/02/01 07:26 <[e-mail]>, Jim Simons
PM <[e-mail]>, Jim Leumas
<[e-mail]>, Judy Wehner
<[e-mail]>, Chris Hite
<[e-mail]>, Floyd Williams
<[e-mail]>, Tracy Davis
<[e-mail]>
Fax to:
Subject: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting
Jeff, I have heard back from several DLR staff and it looks like the week
of March 26th is the best for us.
This is Charles' preference, plus we have a Mining Commission meeting in
Raleigh on 3/22 that may involve extensive preparation beforehand (which
would make visiting your site the week of March 19th difficult).
Can you check with your people and let me know which particular day during
the week of March 26th is best for us to visit? We're almost there!
i of 3 2/8/2001 7:35 PM

Re: [Fwd: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meetingl
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 16:17:32 -0500
From: JimLeumas <[e-mail]>
To: Tracy Davis <tracy.davis@ncmail,net>
CC: Charles Gardner <[e-mail]>, Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>,
Jim Simons <[e-mail]>, Judy Wehner <Judy. Wehner@ncmai 1. net>,
Chris Hite <[e-mail]>, Floyd Williams <Floyd, Williams@ncmail. net>
February 8, 2001
Tracy:
At this time, although I would like to attend, I am going to have to decline making
it to the
meeting.
Thanks.
- JKL -
Tracy Davis wrote:
> See Jeff's message below... PCS reps want to meet with us on Monday,
> March 26th. Please let me know as soon as possible if you can make this
> date, so I can confirm our attendence with Jeff. Thanks. Tracy
>
>-----------------------_-___ --------------------------------------------
> Subject: Re: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting
> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:02:57 -0500
> From: [e-mail]
> To: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
> Tracy:
> Surprisingly, the overwhelming vote was for Monday, March 26. It looks like
> everyone we would have in the meeting is available that day. Can you get
> that date put on your calendars?
> Jeff
> Tracy Davis
> <tracy.davis@n To: Jeff Furness
<[e-mail]>
>
cmail.net> cc: Charles Gardner
>
<[e-mail]>, Mell
Nevils
>
02102101 07:26 <[e-mail]>, Jim Simons
>
PM <[e-mail]>, Jim Leumas
>
<[e-mail]>, Judy Wehner
>
<[e-mail]>, Chris Hite
>
<[e-mail]>, Floyd Williams
>
<[e-mail]>, Tracy Davis
>
<[e-mail]>
>
Fax to:
>
Subject: PCS Phosphate Site Visit
1 of 2 2/8/2001 4:32 PM

Re: [1:wd: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting]
Subject: Re: JFwd: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting]
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 15:23:13 -0500
From: judy wehner <Judy. Weh ner@ncmai 1. net>
Organization: DENR/DLR
To: Tracy Davis <tracy.davis tr ncmai1,net>
I have nothing scheduled for march 26, 2001 so there is no conflict.
Tracy Davis wrote:
> See Jeff's message below... PCS reps want
to meet with us on Monday,
> March 26th. Please let me know as soon as possible if you can make this
> date, so I can confirm our attendence with Jeff. Thanks. Tracy
>----------------------_-_------------------------------__-_-r--------------------
> Subject: Re: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting
> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:02:57 -0500
> From: JFurness@Pcsphosphate_com
> To: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
> Tracy:
> Surprisingly, the overwhelming vote was for Monday, March 26. It looks like
> everyone we would have in the meeting is
available that day. Can you get
> that date put on your calendars?
> Jeff
>
> Tracy Davis
> <tracy.davis@n
To: Jeff Furness
<[e-mail]>
> cmail.net>
cc: Charles Gardner
>
<[e-mail]>, Mell
Nevils
> 02102101 07:26
<Mell.Nevils@ncmail_net>, Jim Simons
> PM
<[e-mail]>, Jim Leumas
>
<[e-mail]>, Judy Wehner
>
<[e-mail]>, Chris Hite
>
<[e-mail]>, Floyd Williams
>
<[e-mail]>, Tracy Davis
>
<[e-mail]>
>
Fax to:
>
Subject: PCS Phosphate Site Visit
and Meeting
> Jeff, I have heard back from several DLR
staff and it looks like the week
> of March 26th is the best for us.
> This is Charles' preference, plus we have
a Mining Commission meeting in
> Raleigh on 3122 that may involve extensive
preparation beforehand (which
> would make visiting your site the week of
March 19th difficult).
> Can you check with your people and let me
know which particular day during
> the week of March 26th is best for us to
visit? We're almost there!
142 2/8,12001 3:29 PM

Re: [Fwd: PCs Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting]
Subject: Re: [Fwd.- PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeti>ngi
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 15:27:44 -0500
Frowlim Simons <[e-mail]>
To: Tracy Davis <tracy.davis@ncmail,net>
OK with me.
Jim
Tracy Davis wrote:
> See Jeff's message below... PCS reps want to meet with us on Monday,
> March 26th. Please let me know as soon as possible if you can make this
> date, so I can confirm our attendence with Jeff. Thanks. Tracy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: Re: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting
> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:02:57 -0500
> From: [e-mail]
> To: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
> Tracy:
> Surprisingly,
the overwhelming vote was
for Monday, March 26. It looks like
> everyone we would have in the meeting is
available that day. Can you get
> that date put
on your calendars?
> Jeff
>
Tracy Davis
>
<tracy.davis@n
To: Jeff Furness
<[e-mail]>
>
cmail.net>
cc: Charles Gardner
>
<[e-mail]>, Mell
Nevils
>
02102101 07:26
<[e-mail]>, Jim Simons
>
PM
<[e-mail]>, Jim Leumas
>
<[e-mail]>, Judy Wehner
>
<[e-mail]>, Chris Hite
>
<[e-mail]>, Floyd Williams
>
<[e-mail]>, Tracy Davis
>
<[e-mail]>
>
Fax to:
>
Subject: PCS Phosphate Site Visit
and Meeting
> Jeff, I have heard back from several DLR staff and it looks like the week
> of March 26th is the best for us.
> This is Charles' preference, plus we have a Mining Commission meeting in
> Raleigh on 3122 that may involve extensive preparation beforehand (which
> would make visiting your site the week of March 19th difficult).
> Can you check with your people and let me know which particular day during
> the week of March 26th is best for us to visit? We're almost there!
I of 2 2/8/20013:31 PM

1^wd: PCs Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting]
Subject: [Fwd. PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting]
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 15:24:22 -0500
From: Tracy Davis <tracy. davis@ncmai 1. net>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Charles Gardner <Charles, Gardner@ncmail. net>,
Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>, Jim Simons <[e-mail]>,
Jim Leumas <Jim. Leumas@ncmai 1. net>, Judy Wehner <Judy. Wehner@ncmai 1. net>,
Chris Hite <[e-mail]>, Tracy Davis <Tracy,[e-mail]>,
Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>
See Jeff's message below...PCS reps want to meet with us on Monday,
March 26th. Please let me know as soon as possible if you can make this
date, so I can confirm our attendence with Jeff_ Thanks. Tracy
Subject: Re: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:02:57 -0500
From: )[e-mail]
To: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
Tracy:
Surprisingly, the overwhelming vote was for Monday, March 26. It looks like
everyone we would have in the meeting is available that day. Can you get
that date put on your calendars?
Jeff
Tracy Davis
<tracy.davis@n
<[e-mail]>
cmail.net>
02/02/01 07:26
PM
Meeting
To: Jeff Furness
cc: Charles Gardner
<[e-mail]>, Mell Nevils
<[e-mail]>, Jim Simons
<[e-mail]>, Jim Leumas
<[e-mail]>, Judy Wehner
<[e-mail]>, Chris Hite
<[e-mail]>, Floyd Williams
<[e-mail]>, Tracy Davis
<[e-mail]>
Fax to:
Subject: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and
Jeff, I have heard back from several DLR staff and it looks like the week
of March 26th is the best for us.
This is Charles' preference, plus we have a Mining Commission meeting in
Raleigh on 3/22 that may involve extensive preparation beforehand (which
would make visiting your site the week of March 19th difficult).
] of 2 2/8/2001 3:29 PM

PC Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting
Subject: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 19:26:28 -0500
From: Tracy Davis <tracy. davis@ncmail. net>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Jeff Furness <[e-mail]>
CC: Charles Gardner <Charles.Gard ner@ncmai],net>,
Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>, Jim Simons <[e-mail]>,
Jim Leumas <Jim. Leumas@ncmai 1. net>, Judy Wehner <Judy. Wehner@ncmai l.net>,
Chris Hite <[e-mail]>, Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>,
Tracy Davis <Tracy.Davisa ncmail.net>
Jeff, I have heard back from several DLR staff and it looks like the week of March 26th is the best for us.
This is Charles' preference, plus we have a Mining Commission meeting in Raleigh on 3/22 that may
involve extensive preparation beforehand (which would make visiting your site the week of March 19th
difficult).
Can you check with your people and let me know which particular day_ during the week of March 26th is
best for us to visit? We're almost there! Thanks. Tracy
Tracy E. Davis, P.E. <Tracy.Davis@ncmai1,net>
State Mining Specialist
I Division of Land Resources
NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resource,
t of 1 2/2/200I T27 PM

Re: PC Pktosphate Site Visit and Meeting
Subject: Re: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:09, 09 -0500
From: Jim Leumas <Jim. Leumas@ncmail. net>
To: Tracy Davis <t racy, davi s@ncmai 1. net>
February 6, 2001
Tracy:
Sorry I have not responded to you earlier. (Your previous email got "buried"
beneath about 50 others before I got to open it!!)
Anyway, I'm wide open the week of March 26, 2001. If I have a new assistant aboard,
we'll probably both attend for training purposes for the new recruit. If not, I'll
probably stay mere and "hold down the fort."
Thanks.
- JKL -
Tracy Davis wrote:
> Jeff, I have heard back from several DLR staff and it looks .Like the week of March
26th is the best for us.
> This is Charles' preference, plus we have a Mining Commission meeting in Raleigh
on 3122 that may involve extensive preparation beforehand (which would make visiting
your site the week of March 19th difficult).
> can you check with your people and let me know which particular day during the
week of March 26th is best for us to visit? We're almost there! Thanks. Tracy
1 of 1 2.6/2001 1015 AM

Re: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting - 3/2001
Subject: Re: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting - 3/2001
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:24:55 -0500
From: Charles Gardner <[e-mail]>
Organization: Division of Land Resources
To: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>, Mel] Nevils <[e-mail]>
Sometime during the week of March 26 looks best for me. But go with the
majority, and I'll catch up when I can.
Tracy Davis wrote:
> Neff Furness and I have discussed setting up a site visit and meeting
> for either the week of March 19, 2001 or March 26, 2001. PCS would like
> to update us on their progress in several areas on the main mine site
> and show us the start up activities on the NCPC Tract. Jeff said they
> should be moving the large draglines to the new area in March (the
> bucket wheel excavators are already there removing overburden and the
> sand tailings dikes are being constructed). This would be an excellent
> opportunity to "catch up" on PCS's activities, since we haven't had one
> of our "quarterly" meetings in over a year. Please let me know if you
> are interested in attending and which dates work best for you. Thanks.
> Tracy
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: tracy.davis.vcf
> tracy.davis.vcf Type: VCard (text/x-vcard)
> Encoding: 7bit
> Description: Card for Tracy Davis
Charles Gardner, P.G. P.E. <charles. ar�rr ncmail.net>
State Geologist and Director
N.C. Division of Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1 of 1 1/23/2001 6:55 PM

Re: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting - .3r2001
Subject: Re: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting - 3/2001
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:54:31 -0500
From: Judy wehner <[e-mail]>
Organization: DENR/DLR
To: Tracy Davis <tracy. davis@ncmail. net>
T have nothing scheduled during that period.
Tracy Davis wrote:
> Jeff Furness and I have discussed setting up a site visit and meeting
> for either the week of March 19, 2001 or March 26, 2001. PCS would like
> to update us on their progress in several areas on the main mine site
> and show us the start up activities on the NCPC Tract. Jeff said they
> should be moving the large draglines to the new area in March (the
> bucket wheel excavators are already there removing overburden and the
> sand tailings dikes are being constructed). This would be an excellent
> opportunity to "catch up" on PCS's activities, since we haven't had one
> of our "quarterly" meetings in over a year. Please let me know if you
> are interested in attending and which dates work best for you. Thanks.
> Tracy
1 of 1 1/22/2001 5:52 PM

Re: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting - N200 i
Subject: Re: PCS Phosphate Site Visit and Meeting - 3/2001
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:44:32 -0500
From: Chris Hite <[e-mail]>
To: Tracy Davis <tracy. davis@ncmai 1. net>
1 am definitely interested in attending this meeting, and I am available during; both of the weeks
referenced. Thanks.
- Chris
Tracy Davis wrote:
Jeff Furness and I have discussed setting up a site visit and meeting
for either the week of March 19, 2001 or March 26, 2001. PCS would like
to update us on their progress in several areas on the main mine site
and show us the start up activities on the NCPC Tract. Jeff said they
should be moving the large draglines to the new area in March (the
bucket wheel excavators are already there removing overburden and the
sand tailings dikes are being constructed). This would be an excellent
opportunity to "catch up" on PCS's activities, since we haven't had one
of our "quarterly" meetings in over a year. Please let me know if you
are interested in attending and which dates work best for you. Thanks.
Tracy
Chris Hite <chris.hite t ncmail.net�
Assistant Mining Specialist
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section
I of 1 It22/2001 6:01 PM

PCS
Phosphate VAURORA
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC U.S.A. 27806
January 19, 2001
Mr. Tracy Davis
State Mining Specialist
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1612
Dear Mr. Davis:
Enclosed is a memo from John Robinson to myself outlining the pH improvement results after a
1-week trial addition of agricultural limestone to the gypsum/clay blend tank. In order for us to
address similar unforeseen circumstances in the future when we might not have enough
neutralization capacity in our clay stream, we request approval to add agricultural limestone in
the blend circuit on an as -needed basis.
If this approval needs to take the form of a modification to Mine Permit 7-1, we request that it be
included with our currently pending modification request for erosion and sediment control
facilities at our "trailer city" mine entrance site.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
4;- CA sf
Je ey C. Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
Enclosure
PC: W. T. Cooper, Jr.
w/o encl.
T. L. Baker
w/o encl.
M. T. Harris
w/o encl.
D. J. Millman
w/o encl.
D. D. Winstead
w/o encl.
12-04-001-54
w/encl.
00-14-000
w/o encl.

jr

,1
PCS memo
Phosphate
Date January 4, 2001
To Jeff Furness Location Aurora
From J. D. Robinson Location Aurora
Subject Limest e Addition Trial
As per your e-mail dated November 21, 2000, 1 am providing the results of the trial with the
addition of limestone to the blend tank. The test was started on December 11, 2000 and
concluded on December 18, 2000. Based on the analysis completed during this trial, the
limestone addition to the blend tank provided an improvement in the pH of the material exiting the
blend tank. The limestone material proved to be easy to handle and posed no dust problem.
During the trial, approximately 552 tons of limestone was added to the blend tank over the 7-day
trial period. This resulted in an average addition rate of 78.8 tons per day versus the 75 tons per
day target. Due to variations in rate of gypsum and clay going to the blend tank it was difficult to
look at any one value to determine the effectiveness of the limestone. Comparison of the data a
week prior to the trial and the week after the trial to the data during the trial indicated an increase
of 0.56 pH units. There were fewer low pH extreme values during the trial than in periods before
or after the trial. Peak pH values were higher during the test than during the other periods.
Before the trial began, handling of the material was a concern for us. We experienced none of the
anticipated problems with handling the material. The Off Spec Ag Lime material was moist
enough that it was not a dust problem yet not so wet it posed a handling problem. In fact, the
material handled better than the clay due to the lack of large rocks and it stuck less to the backhoe
bucket.
The cost of material used for this one -week trial was $13,035.24 including delivery. This did not
include the cost of the backhoe that was already in place for the Yorktown clay addition.
Limestone addition could be increased to possibly 150 tons per day and maintain the clay addition
at 60 tons per hour. Increases above that would require other measures or reduction in
supplemental clay addition.
I recommend we seek permission from the NC Division of Land Resources to use Limestone on
an as needed basis to supplement the clay addition to the blend tank.
cc: W. T. Cooper D. J. Millman T. L. Baker
M. T. Harris E. B. Winn D. L. Hill

Jan-19-01 09:46A North Carolina Geodetic S (919J 733-440
7 rHxx nPi n01 11
Date- +\ v�i Q
To: "tar -
From± . )Q
PCs
Ph"-Oate
AURORA, NC
FAX No. 252/322-4444
Transmittal Cover Sheet
o (919� r73-5 - q47
Confidentia[ity Notice
The inib matron contained in this fax transmittal is privileged and confidential and intt nded for the
addmssee only If you arc neither The intended recipient nor the emplrgeP or agent rr. ponsible for
delivering this message to the intended recipient, any disclosure of this information ir any way or
taking of any action in reliance on this information is strictly prohibited. If you have ceived this
fax in error, please notify the person transmitting the information immediately.
Number of Pages, including this cover Sheet: 3
Special Insmictions_ ---- — —
till 'Wj
, M..l_-.�NO -
t /'? I
-w rw
Ifynkr ,shmild have any problems with this transmittal phase call FhyI450tmorid,
Dept. - PCS PhosplAe at 252/322.411 1, Ext $667.
V.100�
Affairs

Jan-19-01 09:47A North Carolina Geodetic S 4919) 733-4407
81�19I'�Y7b1 U%J bb 1b'1J114444 rt�� " It tNV Wr
Ir
P.02
h'ult. vjIaj
PCS
Phosphate
Date January 4, 2001
memo
To Jeff FWmm
Frtrm I D. Robitnou M�—
Subject Lamest a Addition Trial
Location Aurora
Location Aurora
As per your a -mail dated November 21, 2000, 1 am providing the results of the tr
addition of limestone to the blend tank. The test was started on December 11
concluded on December 18, 2000. Based on the analysis completed during th
Limestone addition to the blend tank provided an improvement in the pH of the msteria
blend u mk. The limestone material proved to be easy to handle and posed no dust pro
D wing the trial, approximately 552 tons of Haystone was added to the blend tank ov
trial psriod. This reaaltod in'an average addition rate of 78.8 tons per day versus the
day target Due to variations in ntte of gypsum and clay going to the blend tank it wa
look at any one vahm to detcrmine the efectivcness of the limestone. Comparison e
week prior to the trial and the week after the trial to the data during the trial indicated
of 0.56 pH units. There were fewer low pH extreme values during the trial than in pe
or after the trial. Peak pH values were higher during the test than during the other per
Belbre the trial begin, handling of the mazenal was a concern for us. We experienced
anticipated problems with handling the material. The Off Spec Ag Lime materii
enough that it was not a dust problem yet not so wet it posed a handy problem.
material handled better than the clay due to the lack of large rocks and it stuck less to
bucket.
The cost of material used for this one -week trial was $13,035.24 including delivery.
include the cost of the ba+ckhoe that was already in place for the Yorktown cl
Limestone addition could be increased to pa"bl 150 tons er da and maintain the
at 60 tons per hour. Increases above that would require other measures or
supplemental clay addition.
I recommend we seek permission from the NC Division of Land Resources to use
an as needed basis to sipplement the clay addition to the blend tank.
cc: W. T. Cooper D. J. Millman T. L_ Baker
M T. Harris E. B. Winn D. L. Hill
d with the
2000 and
trial, the
exitiAg the
Lem-
- the 7-day
' 5 tons per
difficult to
the data a
in increase
ods before
As.
tone of the
was moist
h fact, the
tc bttckhoe
its did not
addition
y addition
luction in
m
4�

Jan-19-01 09:47A North Carolina Geodetic 5 [phone]
O1t171-10V1 D7:77 ;:7z:j—�.;:4444 1'47 rMjZs?-MA I C V Fir I
P.03
rw(-t. awiaj
PCs
Phosphate A U A o R A
PCS �fKCs ATF MMPA.kr. NC.
F.G: BOX 41, AURORA, FK U.S.A. r we
January 19, 2001
Mr. Tracy Davis
State Mining sp-tialist
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
1612 Mail 9ervi±re Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1612
Bear Mr. Dais:
Enclosed is a niemo from John Robinson to myself 9vtlining the pH improvement
1-week trial addition of agricultural limestone to the gypsumiclay blend tank. In
address similar unforeseen circumstances in the future when we might not
neutralization capacity in our clay stream, we r uest a oval to add agriculture
the bland circuit on an as -needed basis.
Its after a
for us to
enough
If this approval needs to take the form of a modification to Mine Penuit 7-1, we requ st that it be
included with our currently pending modification request for erosion and sedirr, ent control
facilities at our "trailer city' mine entrance site.
If you have any questions, please call me at (2521) 322.8249.
Sincerely,
Yr
�-
Jrc ey C. Furness
Senior EnvironmenW Scientist
Enclosure
PC: W. T. Cooper, Jr.
w/o Incl.
T. L. Baker
w/o cncl.
M. T. Harris
w/o encl.
D. J. N4dbn a
wb encl.
D. D. 'Winstead
w/o encl.
12-04-001-54
w/encl.
00-14-000
w/o encl.

Fax request
Subject: Fax request
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10;07;25 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Tracy:
I just sent you a fax. Call me after you have had a chance to read it,
[phone].
Thanks,
Jeff Furness
1 of 1 t / 19/2001 10:09 AM

Mining Permit Modification Request for PCS Phosphate
Subject: Mining Permit Modification Request for PCS Phosphate
Date: Thu, I I Jan 2001 17:41:34 -0500
From: Floyd Williams <Floyd.WIIIiams@ncmail,net>
To: "Tracy E. Davis, P.E." <Tracy. Davis@n emai 1. net>
CC: Jim Simons <[e-mail]>, Mell Nevils <Mell,[e-mail]>,
"Charles Gardner, P.G. P.E." <[e-mail]>
Tracy,
I met with Jeff Furness and Bob Thomas with PCS Phosphate and Bob
Chiles PE on
Jan 10, 2001 at Trailer City to look over the proposed drainage plan.
Everything looks
OK with me. I talked with Jerry Waters - Mine Superintendent and Jerry
stated that
PCS will be moving one of the big draglines over on the NCPC side in mid
March. The
two bucketwheel excavators are now on. the NCPC side and are working
away. You may
want to talk it over and see if you all can come down in
mid-March.Would be a great trip.
THANKS,
FLOYD R.
1 01' 1 1/11/2001 6:28 PM

MINING CHECKL15T FOR ROUTING
Applicant's Name: Pie, 4 wl4rL, Project Name: h,*14 �� 4),.t1:
Applic..ffoer t~ .:01-0I County: "- Date Received: 10 li
Reviewer: Tu' d River Basin Name: 1,4,4- -- Q, Lu
❑ New C: Renewal ', Modification (inside permit boundaries)
❑ Modification (outside permit boundaries) ❑ Transfer ❑ Release
❑ Partial Release
,=Fee Received: $ :
A Additional Information ❑ Fee Needed: $
Please route entire a120 iQnt2ackage to:
r
IJIl44►t-rAi,.) Regional Office-(-�Knpiet&.copies, att h-the-=L••£�5--�2egirmal �' � �
-Ofec-Iv'I•t rry Appiication Review 01c klist" to orrc-copy and attach }2th-the [t�rrtl-VAQ �
"Ivfinin A lication Review Form' to the other co Send both so ie5 to the Re ional En ineer
� FP P� P 9 9 � )
Date: Routed Rec'd
❑ Division of Water Resources
" NC Wildlife Resources Commi55ion
Date: Routed Rec'd
Date: Routed
❑ U5 Fish & Wildlife Service Date: Routed' Rec'd
(Only new applications and modification requests that add land to the permit)
i._G' •
LJ Divicion of farl<5 : Recreation r.
❑ NC Geological 5urvey 5ection Date: Routed Rec'd —
(Only new applications and modification requests that add land to the permit)
Division of Archives & History Date: Routed Rec'd
(Only new applications)
Other: Date: Routed Rec'd
**5uopen5e Date for Comments: (no later than 25 days
from receipt)
[� Please note the following:
i4l

NCDENR
JAMES 13. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR}'�1
BILL HOLMAN
SECRETARY
CHARLES H. GARDNER
P.G., P.E. DIRECTOR
AND STATE GEOLOGIST
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
December 28, 2000
Woo co)mmIbailki
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
TO: Mr. William Wescott
Habitat Conservation Program Coordinator
Wildlife Resources Commission
FROM: Susan B. Edwards,9
Mining Program Secretary
Land Quality Section
SUBJECT: Mining Permit Modification Request for PCS Phosphate
Aurora Phosphate Mine - Permit No. 07-01
Beaufort County
Please find attached for your review a copy of the mining permit modification
request for the above referenced project.
{
Please review this information and advise as to the probability of this operation
having unduly adverse effect on wildlife and freshwater fisheries (G.S. 74-51 (2)).
Please respond by January 19, 2001 so that we may complete our review of this
request within our statutory time limits.
As is the case in our review of all mining permit applications, renewals and
modifications, this office will carefully review all proposed erosion and sediment
control measures to ensure that they are sufficient to restrain erosion and off -site
sedimentation. However, any comments your agency can provide regarding effects on
wildlife and freshwater fisheries would be greatly appreciated. If your staff wishes to
perform a site inspection, it is recommended that they contact the person submitting
this request to set up a convenient date and time. Also, please send a copy of your
comments to the person noted in the application. RETURN ALL APPLICATION
MATERIALS AND MAPS WITH YOUR REVIEW COMMENTS TO THIS
OFFICE.
Your continued cooperation in the review of these type requests is greatly
appreciated. Please contact Mar. Tracy Davis at [phone] if you have any
questions.
/SBE
Attachments
cc: Mr. Floyd Williams
LAND QUALITY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
GKOL0,21 CAL SURVCY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
1612 MALL S[RVICE CCNTER, RALEIGN, NC 27699-161 2 [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED ! 10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER
DENR TOLL FREE HOTLINE: [phone]

PCs
Phosphatev AURORA
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC 278DG
PAY TO THE ORDER OF
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENR
1612 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC
27699-�1612
Cdlbank Delaware
One Penn's way ri
NewCasee, DE 19720
E2.20 CHECK NUMBER
311
CONTROL �•598300
�"'Z�"�� .NUMBER
AMOUNT
$500900

PCS S;i-:::l
PhOS te.1VVI& AURORA
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC U.S.A. 27WS
Mr. Tracy Davis
State Mining Specialist
Division of Land Quality
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Dear Mr. Davis:
December 14, 2000
t DEC 9
4N�
�lyp OIIALITY SE.CTlON
PCS Phosphate currently has an area set aside for mining support facilities at the mine entrance
gate off of N.C. 306. We refer to this area as "Trailer City", as it has several mobile trailers set
up for use as office and shift change facilities, along with having small warehouse and
maintenance buildings. The area is within the boundaries of Mine Permit 7-1, covered by a
reject pad, and is approximately 12.25 acres in size.
PCS Phosphate would like to modify Mine Permit 7-1 by constructing improved drainage and
sedimentation control measures in the Trailer City area. Enclosed is a package which includes a
"Drainage Plan for Trailer City at PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. Aurora, North Carolina", and a
set of 3 accompanying drawings. Also included is a check for $500.00 for the permit
modification fee.
If you have any questions on this request, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
J rey C. Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
Enclosures
PC: Floyd Williams - DLR, WaRO
w/ enclosures
W. T. Cooper, Jr.
w/o encI.
T. L. Baker
w/o encl.
M. T. Harris
w/o encl.
J. M. Waters
w/o encl.
I. K. Gilmore
w/o encl.
R. M. Thomas
w/o encl.
D. J. Franklin
w/ enclosures
R. M. Chiles
w/o encl.
12-04-001-54
w/ enclosures
00-14-000
w/o encl.

r
INCDENR
JAME9 H. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
,. HOLMAN
I++' RETARY
M�
fiAACES H. ANON R
P.G., P.E. DIRECTOR
AND STATE" GEOLOGIST
INV NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
December 28, 2000
MEMORANDUM
JAN 2 9 20L.,
TO: Mr. William Wescott
Habitat Conservation Program Coordinator
Wildlife Resources Commission
Ve �0
FROM: Susan B. Edwards
Mining Program Secret bju"R
Land Quality Section , - `, au -;a) l
SUBJECT: Mining Permit Modification Request for PCS Phosphate
Aurora Phosphate Mine - Permit No. 07-01
Beaufort County
Please find attached for your review a copy of the mining permit modification
request for the above referenced project.
Please review this information and advise as to the probability of this operation
having unduly adverse effect on wildlife and freshwater fisheries (G.S. 74-51 (2)).
Please respond by January 19, 2001 so that we may complete our review of this
request within our statutory time limits.
As is the case in our review of all mining permit applications, renewals and
modifications, this office will carefully review all proposed erosion and sediment
control measures to ensure that they are sufficient to restrain erosion and off -site
sedimentation. However, any comments your agency can provide regarding effects on
wildlife and freshwater fisheries would be greatly appreciated. If your staff wishes to
perform a site inspection, it is recommended that they contact the person submitting
this request to set up a convenient date and time. Also, please send a copy of your
comments to the person noted in the application. RETURN ALL APPLICATION
_M_ATERULS AND MAPS WITH YOUR REVIEW COMMENTS TO THIS
OFFICE.
Your continued cooperation in the review of these type requests is greatly
appreciated. Please contact Mr. Tracy Davis at [phone] if you have any
questions.
/SBE
Attachments
cc: Mr. Floyd Williams
LAND QUALITY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
1612 MAIL SERvICE CENTER, RALEIGH. NC 27699-1612 [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED / 10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER
DENR TOLL FREE HOTLINE: I-677-623-6748

DRAINAGE PLAN
FOR
"TRAILER CITY"
AT
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
AURORA, NORTH CAROLINA
DEc
�.�u
A'-' -
PREPARED BY:
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
November 22, 2000
fQaFfcsSi0� by
SEAL =
s Z 5355O�
',0yl�
RMC NO: 2000192

1
L
1
1
1

INDEX
Narrative
Project Description 3
Site Description 3
Scope of the Work 4
Planned Erosion And Sedimentation Control Practices 5
Construction Specifications 5
Design Criteria 5
Maintenance Requirements 6-8
Responsible Party 9
Vicinity Map 10
Attachments
NCDENR Sedimentation and Erosion Control Standards
6.11 Permanent Seeding
6.15 Rip Rap
6.30 Grass -lined Swales
6.41 Outlet Stabilization Structure
Robert M. Chiles, P.E. prepared drawings for Trailer City at PCS Phosphate;
Drainage Control Plan, Sheet 1 of 3
Drainage Control Details, Sheet 2 of 3
Partial Topography, Sheet 3 of 3

11
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1

1 NARRATIVE
' PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The purpose of the project is to improve the existing drainage and
' sedimentation control measures at the "Trailer City" mining support area within the
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc., Aurora Mine. The site is located in Richland Township,
' Beaufort County, North Carolina, and north west of the point where the old and new
alignments for NC Hwy 306 intersect.
A system of ditches comprise the existing drainage and sedimentation control
measures. These ditches are connected by culverts and discharge at various
locations into surrounding wooded areas. Discharge sheet flows through the wooded
' areas into adjacent wetlands and the headwaters of Whitehurst Creek.
The proposed improvements include the excavation of two ponds that will
serve as the forebay and main storage pond for the site, a connecting culvert and
discharge culverts, the excavation of a new ditch and the cleaning and regrading of
' two existing ditches that will discharge into the forebay.
Existing ditches along the west and south sides of the site will remain undisturbed
I
except for the main pond discharge culverts installation.
SITE DESCRIPTION
' Trailer City is a mining activity support site populated with trailers that serve
many purposes. The site is relatively flat and is currently sloped so that runoff is
' directed to a ditch at the proposed forebay site. Existing surfaces are primarily gravel,
with asphalt pavement, grassed surfaces and wooded areas also existing.
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. 3
2000192SEC

1
Fl,
1
1
L

1
SCOPE OF THE WORK
1
1. Verify the presence and location or absence of all underground utilities within
' the construction area, including, but not limited to those indicated in the
accompanying drawings.
'
2.
Clean out the existing ditch located north of the entrance road, at the
entrance gate, and the existing culvert under the road to re-establish flow to
the ditch south of the road.
3.
Clean and regrade (as necessary) the existing ditch located south of the road
and along the south east side of the site to establish flow toward the proposed
forebay.
t4.
Remove the existing culverts located in the south east corner that discharge to
the east and south. --
'
S.
Excavate the proposed forebay and main pond bodies. Remove the spoil to
an appropriate discharge site.
1
6.
Install the riser and culvert assemblies in the forebay and main pond.
'
7.
Excavate a new ditch along the north and north east sides of the site.
8.
Install a culvert to connect the new ditch with the existing ditch north of the
entrance toad and raise the grade of the driveway above the new culvert to
provide a minimum of 12 inches of cover above the top of the pipe.
'
9.
Regrade, as needed, the areas immediately surrounding the new excavations
and cleaned ditches so that runoff can sheet flow into them.
'
10.
Stabilize pond d and ditch side slopes with permanent vegetative cover.
References:
1. Drainage Control Plan (Sheet 1 of 3)
'
2. Drainage Control Details (Sheet 2 of 3)
3. Partial Topography (Sheet 3 of 3)
1
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. 4 2000192SEC
1

1
1

P
PLANNED EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PRACTICES
Excavated side slopes shall be 31-1:1 V or flatter.
2. Rip rap outlet protection shall be installed at outlets of culverts connecting the
forebay and main pond, and the main pond discharges.
3. Side slopes shall be stabilized using permanent vegetative cover.
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
New risers and culverts shall be corrugated galvanized steel or corrugated
aluminum with welded seams and re -rolled ends. Joan sections using standard
band connectors.
2. Ponds, ditches, risers and culverts shall be dimensioned as indicated in the plans
and details.
3. Install new culverts at elevations and grade indicated in the plans and details.
4. Install DOT Class 11 rip rap erosion protection at culvert outlets.
5. Compact backfill soil in 6 inch lifts along side culverts and in 12 inch lifts above
culverts. Regrade surfaces above culverts as needed to provide a minimum of
12 inches of cover where vehicular traffic will cross over the culverts.
' 6. Permanent vegetative cover shall meet NCDENR Permanent Seeding standard
6.11.
11
DESIGN CRITERIA
The proposed ponds were sized to meet NCDENR Stormwater SA/DA ratio
standards for 3.5 feet deep permanent pools in coastal areas. A temporary pool
depth of one foot (above the permanent pool) provides sufficient volume to retain
the runoff created by a 1 inch rainfall onto the approximately 12.25 acre drainage
area, as required by NCDENR. Riser and culvert diameters are designed to flow the
runoff volumes calculated using the Rational Method, assuming a 10 year frequency,
60 minute duration rainfall intensity of 3 inches per hour. The orifices installed in the
main pond outlets are sized to decant the 1 inch rainfall volume in approximately 3.5
days.
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
s
2000192SEC

11
1

1
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
' w fit o of the approved plans and specifications
The Owner shall maintain a e copy pp p
' for a minimum period of five (5) years following the date of the completion of
construction.
' The Owner shall properly maintain and operate, or provide for the
maintenance and operation, of the drainage collection and sedimentation
management system/wet detention basin components at all times to assure the
' optimum working order, performance and efficiency of the system. If there is a failure
of this system to perform satisfactorily, including the creation of nuisance conditions,
the Owner shall take corrective actions immediately, including those as may be
required by the Division of Water Quality, such as the construction of additional or
replacement systems.
The Owner shall maintain records of maintenance activities that shall be made
available, upon request, to authorized personnel. These records shall indicate the date,
activity, the name of the person performing the work and what actions were taken.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE:
Mowing.
The side -slopes, embankment, buffer area, and the areas within the fence
' shall be mowed as required to maintain a maximum height of six inches during the
main growing season and at feast two other times during the year to prevent
woody growth and to control weeds. Grass shall be mowed to a "meadow -like"
' condition (with height previously noted) according to NCDENR Water Quality
Section, and Section 6.11 Permanent Seeding of the approved Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Plan.
' Inspections.
The Owner shall inspect the wet detention pond after every significant
runoff -producing rainfall event and at least;
Monthly for (but not limited to) the following: sediment accumulation; trash
accumulation, embankment or side slopes stability, erosion, subsidence,
cracking, bare areas and tree growth; obstructions/clogging of the decant
orifice structure and outlet pipe which would affect the draw -down time of
2 to 5 days.
uarterl in addition to the monthly requirements: for the condition of all
catch basins, piping, and rip -rap.
1
RCS Phosphate Company, Inc. 5
20001925EC
1

1

Semi-annually in addition to the quarterly requirements: to ensure that the
' structure operates in the manner originally intended: to determine the rate
of sediment accumulation: for any modifications which have occurred to
L
1
� I
� I
1
the contributing watershed that will increase the amount of runoff directed
to the sediment basin.
Inspections shall be carried out with "As -Built" retention pond plans.
Additional inspections shall be conducted during wet weather, or times of
extreme weather to determine if the pond is functioning properly.
Sediment Removal.
The sediment removal/clean out cycle forthe retention pond/wet detention
basin shall be performed as follows:
• When the storage capacity is reduced to 75% of the original design
depth.
• The measuring device used to determine the sediment elevation shall
be such that it will give an accurate depth reading and not readily
penetrate into accumulated sediments.
When the permanent pool depth reads 32 inches (2.67 feet) in the
main pond, the sediment shall be removed from the main pond.
When the permanent pool depth reads 32 inches (2.67 feet) in the
forebay, the sediment shall be removed from the forebay.
The Owner shall ensure that removed sediment is disposed of in an
appropriate manner and that it is handled in a manner that will not adversely
impact water quality (i.e., stockpiling near a wet detention basin, discharging into
or near a stream, wetlands, etc.) and in accordance with all local, state, and
federal regulations.
Debris and Litter Removal.
Debris and litter removal from the surface of the pond shall be included as
a part of the periodic mowing operation. Particular attention shall be paid to any
floating debris around the outlet weir, decant orifice structure, and spillway that
may cause clogging/obstructions. Any trash found within the area of the pond,
and ditch shall be removed and disposed of according to local, state, and federal
regulations.
.PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. 7 2000192SEC

1
1
1
1

1
' Erosion Control.
Corrective measures and repairs shall be done immediately to the pond's
side slopes and embankment where settlement, sloughing, and erosion have
' occurred. Re -seed as necessary to maintain good vegetative cover. All repairs
shall be done in accordance with the approved sedimentation and erosion
control plan.
1
Wetlands Plants and Nuisance Control.
The Owner shall remove cattails and other indigenous wetland plants when
they cover 50% of the basin surface. However, these plants shall be encouraged
to grow along the vegetated shelf and forebay berm (if present). The Owner shall
maintain the retention pond and adjacent areas so as to control the possible
problems of weeds, odors, algae, and insects. Proper maintenance shall alleviate
most problems except in times of extremely dry weather. Whenever possible, the
Owner shall control the mosquito and algae populations through non -chemical
methods (i.e., fat -head minnows or other algae/larvae consuming fish).
NON -ROUTINE MAINTENANCE:
Emergency Draining/Maintenance.
The Owner shall have a pump available that is capable of draining the
basin for maintenance activities or emergency situations. 4f the basin must be
drained for an emergency or to perform maintenance, then the flushing of
sediment through the basin outlet shall be minimized to the maximum extent
practical.
Structure Repairs and Replacement.
The Owner shall replace all deteriorated inlet/outlet works when
deterioration from use or age causes them to fail and/or function improperly.
PCS Phosphate Company, lnc. 8
1
2000192SEC

�J
I
L
n
1
F1
1

1
h
7
�I

' Practice Standards and Specifications
6.11 -
�s
Definition Controlling runoff and erosion on disturbed areas by establishing perennial
vegetative cover with seed.
Purpose To reduce erosion and decrease sediment yield from disturbed areas, and to per-
manently stabilize such areas in a manner that is economical, adapts to site con-
ditions, and allows selection of the most appropriate plant materials.
Conditions Where Fine -graded areas on which permanent, ion - livedvegetative cove
r is the most
Practice Applies practical or most effective method of stabilizing the soil. Permanent seeding
may also be used on rough -graded areas that will not be brought to final grade
for a year or more.
Areas to be stabilized with permanent vegetation must be seeded or planted
within 30 working days or 120 calendar days after final grade is reached, unless
temporary stabilization is applied.
' Planning Vegetation controls erosion by protecting bare soil surfaces from raindrop im-
Considerations pact and by reducing the velocity and volume of overland flow.
' The most common and economical means of stabilizing disturber) soils is by
seeding grasses and legumes. The advantages of seeding over other means of
establishing plants include the smaller initial cosr, lower labor input, and greater
flexibility of method The disadvantages of seeding include:
• potential for erosion during the establishment stage,
' the need to reseed areas that fail to establish,
• seasonal limitations on suitable seeding dates, and
' a need for water and appropriate temperatures during germination and
early growth.
The probability of successful plant establishment can be maximized through
good planning, knowledge of the soil characteristics (Table 6.1 la), selection of
suitable plant materials for the site, good seedbed preparation, adequate timing
and fertilization, and timely planting and maintenance.
tSELECTING
PLANT MATERIALS
Climate, soils, and topography are the major factors affecting the suitability of
plants for a particular site. All three of these factors vary widely across North
'
Carolina, with the most significant contrasts occurring among the three major
physiographic regions of the state--i'vlountains, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain
'
(Figure 6.1 la).
To simplify plant selection, a K to Permanent Seeding Mixtures
Key g es is presented
in Table 6.1 lb. To find seeding specifications for a specific site, follow this key
through different
the steps —region, slope, soil, and maintenance level —to the
appropriate seeding number. Seeding mixtures recommended here are designed
for general use and are well proven in practical field situations (Tables 6.1 lc
1 )'.I 1.i

1
1
L�

T
Table 6.11 a
Suitability of Soli for Establishment of Low -maintenance Vegetation
Criteria
Suitability
Limiting Factors
Good
Fair
Poor
pH
5.6-T8
4.5-5,5
<4.5
Too acid; possible
Al, Mn, Fe toxicity
Available
>.10
.05-.10
<.05
Too dry
water capacity.
Texture2
I,sil,si
scl, sicl
sc, sic
Too high in clay
sl
cl
c
Is
s
Too high in sand
Coarse (3-10 in)
s
<15%
15-35
>35
Lg, stones restrict
fragments (>I 0 in)
<3%
3-10
>10
tillage; droughty
Depth to
40
20-40
<20
Insufficient
bedrock (in.)
rooting depth
Salinity (mrihos/cm)
8-16
>16
Excess salt
1 in./fn.
2Sandy clay loam (scl),
silty c€ay loam (sid), clay loam (d), sandy
loam (sl), sift loam (sil), loamy sand (Is), sandy
clay (sc), silty clay (sic),
clay (c), silt (si), sand
(s), and loam (1).
3Percent by weight.
Source: National Soils Handbook, USDA-SCS,
1983.
Coastal Plain
Mountains Piedmont Upper Middle Lower
riN
SNrT fl>YN [Nlu,l� fnrrl h,� �. � l te.�. Ni GIN 'q5 4
1rl.rrl � � r d�lrr i•.IdNI ems^ . n
lIIYN
Yrr, llrr ' flrlrlY I
�� Suilrr Oratrl�� Ei� \ lilt"i 7
Crilrrl
Y/ilfa ♦rl lr . Ow. t.� r _ ,, F,
IrrNl JwYlw { `t\
/�l hru �� lxrlri fYrrr. rlrk. �� , iron. � I :rr,dl� Grrr!
Irrr,M 40rr.[1 Grra [1... mil
S.N. rurr. \\\\ ~
:NYia illy �y'tllr[r,.l iNra �r I � �1 1fRrr .r^
Yam Tidewater
Sand HjllS '""`
Figure 6.11 a Major physiographic regions of North Carolina differing in climate, soils and topography.
6.11._'

p
1
1

Practice Standards and Specifications
through 6.11v). They are designed to produce maximum stabilization and min-
imize the amount of maintenance and repair required.
Land use is a primary consideration in planning permanent seedings. For this
purpose land use, whether residential, industrial, commercial, or recreational,
can be divided into two general categories-
High- maintenance areas are mowed frequently, limed and fertilized
regularly, and either (1) receive intense use (e.g., athletic fields) or (2) re-
quire maintenance to an aesthetic standard (e.g., home lawns). Grasses
used for these situations are long-lived perennials that form a tight sod
and are fine -leaved and attractive in appearance. They must be well -
adapted to the geographic area where they are planted and able to endure
the stress of frequent mowing. Sites where high -maintenance vegetative
cover is desirable include homes, industrial parks, schools, churches, and
recreational areas.
Low -maintenance areas are mowed infrequently or not at all, and do not
receive lime and fertilizer on a regular basis. Plants must persist with lit-
tle maintenance over long periods of time. Grass and legume mixtures are
favored for these sites because legumes are a source of soil nitrogen.
Mixed stands are also more resistant to adverse conditions. Sites suitable
for low -maintenance vegetation include steep slopes, stream or channel
banks, some commercial properties, and "utility" turf areas such as road -
banks.
SEEDBED PREPARATION
The soil on a disturbed site must be amended to provide an optimum environ-
ment for seed germination and seedling growth. The surface soil must be loose
enough for water infiltration and root penetration. The pH (acidity or alkalinity)
of the soil must be such that it is not toxic and nutrients are available --prefera-
bly between 6.0 and 6.5. Sufficient nutrients —added as fertilizer —must be
present.
It is as important to add lime as to add fertilizer. Lime is used primarily as a pH,
or acidity, modifier, but it also supplies calcium and magnesium, which are im-
portant plant nutrients. By increasing soil pH it also makes other nutrients more
available to plants. At the same time, it prevents aluminum toxicity by decreas-
ing the solubility of soil aluminum. Many soils in North Carolina are high in
aluminum, which stunts plant growth.
,ALfter seed is in place, it must be protected with a mulch to hold moisture and
modify temperature extremes, while preventing erosion during seedling estab-
lishment.
STEEP SLOPES
The operation of equipment is restricted on slopes steeper than 3:1, severely
limiting the quality of the seedbed that can be prepared. The soil cannot be suf-
ficiently worked, and amendments cannot be thoroughly incorporated.
Provisions for establishment of vegetation on steep slopes can be made during
' final grading. In construction of pill slopes, for example, the last4-6 inches might
be left uncompacted. A loose, rough seedbed is essential. Large clods and stones

II

provide irregularities that hold seeds and fertilizer. Cut slopes should be, rough-
ened (Practice 6,03, Surface Roughening).
'
Where steepness prohibits the use of farm machinery, seeding methods are
limited to broadcast or hydroseeding, with hydroseeding giving the most de-
pendable results. Vegetation chosen for these slopes must not require mowing
or other intensive maintenance. Using a hydraulic seeder, seed, fertilizer, wood
'
fiber mulch, and a tacking agent can be applied in one operation.
'
Good mulching practices are critical to protect against erosion on steep slopes.
When using straw, anchor with netting or asphalt. On
slopes steeper than 2:1,
jute, excelsior, or synthetic matting may be required to protect the slope.
' Specifications SEEDBED REQUIREMENTS
Establishment of vegetation should not be attempted on sites that are unsuitable
' due to inappropriate soil texture (Table 6.11a), poor drainage, concentrated
overland flow, or steepness of slope until measures have been taken to correct
these problems.
To maintain a good stand of vegetation, the soil must meet certain minimum re-
quirements as a growth medium. The existing soil should have these criteria,
• Enough fine-grained (silt and clay) material to maintain adequate mois-
ture and nutrient supply (available water capacity of at least .05 inches
water to 1 inch of soil).
• Sufficient pore space to permit root penetration.
' Sufficient depth of soil to provide an adequate root zone. The depth to
rock or impermeable Iayers such as hardpans should be 12 inches or more,
' except on slopes steeper than 2:1 where the addition of soil is not feasible.
• A favorable pH range for plant growth, usually 6.0-6.5.
• Freedom from large roots, branches, stones, large clods of earth, or trash
'
of any kind. CIods and stones may be left on slopes steeper than 3:1 if
they are to be hydroseeded.
'
If any of the above criteria are not met--i.e., if the existing soil is too coarse,
dense, shallow or acidic to foster vegetation
—special amendments are required.
The soil conditioners described below may be benefciai or, preferably, topsoil
may be applied in accordance with Practice 6,04, Topsoiling.
SOIL CONDITIONERS
In order to improve the structure or drainage characteristics of a sail, the fol-
lowing materials may be added. These amendments should only be necessary
where soils have limitations. that make them poor for plant growth or for fine
turf establishment (see Chapter 3. Vegetative Considerations).
'
Peat —Appropriate types are sphagnum moss peat, hypnum moss peat, reed -
sedge peat, orpeat humus, all from fresh -water sources. Peat should be shredded
and conditioned in storage piles for at least 6 months after excavation.
Sand —clean and free of toxic materials.
1
' 6.13..4

1
1
11

Practice Standards and Specifications
Vermiculite —horticultural grade and free of toxic substances.
Rotted manure ---stable or cattle manure not containing undue amounts of
straw or other bedding materials.
Thoroughly rotted sawdust —free of stones and debris. Add 6 lb of nitrogen
to each cubic yard.
Sludge —Treated sewage and industrial sludges are available in various forms;
these should be used only in accordance with local, State, and Federal regula-
tions.
SPECIES SELECTION
Use the Key to Permanent Seeding Mixtures (Table 6.1lb) to select the most
appropriate seeding mixture based on the general site and maintenance factors.
A listing of species, including scientific names and characteristics, is given in
Appendix 8.02.
SEEDBED PREP,�LRATION
Install necessary mechanical erosion and sedimentation control practices before
seeding, and complete grading according to the approved plan.
Lime and fertilizer needs should be determined by soil tests. Soil testing is per-
formed free of charge by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture soil [est-
ing laboratory. Directions, sample cartons, and information sheets are available
through county Agricultural Extension offices or from NCDA. Because the
NCDA soil testing lab requires 1-6 weeks for sample turn -around, sampling
must be planned well in advance of final garading. Testing is also done by com-
mercial laboratories.
When soil tests are not available, follow rates suggested on the individual
specification sheet for the seeding mix chosen (Tables 6.11c through 6.11v).
Application rates usually fall into the following ranges:
Ground agricultural limestone:
Light -textured, sandy soils: 1-1 1/2 tons/acre
Heavy -textured, clayey soils: 2-3 tons/acre
Fertilizer:
Grasses: 800-1200 lb/acre of 10-10-10 (or the equivalent)
Grass -legume mixtures: 800-1200 lb/acre of 5-10-10 (or the equivalent)
Apply lime and fertilizer evenly and incorporate into the [opt inches of soil
by disking or other suitable means. Operate machinery on the contour. When
using a hydroseeder, apply lime and fertilizer to a rough, loose surface.
Roughen surfaces according to Practice 6.03, Surface Roughening.
Complete seedbed preparation by breaking up large clods and raking into a
smooth, uniform sunace (slopes less than 3:1), Fill in or level depressions that
can collect water. Broadcast seed into a freshly loosened seedbed that has not
been sealed by rainfall.
6.11.S

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

El
Figure 6.11b Label displayed on all North
Carolina certified seed.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6.11.6
SEEDING
Seeding dates given in the seeding mixture specifications (Tables 6.11c through
6.11v) are designated as "best" or "possible". Seedings properly carried out
within the "best" dates have a high probability of success. It is also possible to
have satisfactory establishment when seeding outside these dates. However, as
you deviate from them, the probability of failure increases rapidly. Seeding on
the last date shown under "possible" may reduce chances of success by 30-50%.
Always take this into account in scheduling land -disturbing activities.
Use certified seed for permanent seeding whenever possible. Certified seed is
inspected by the North Carolina Crop Improvement Association. It meets
Published North Carolina S tandards and should bear an official "Certified Seed"
label (Figure 6.11b).
UK in ins{ aoniainvr are Irom it IOt of $4*d *Mich Wyk
arCOUCIM Candlhanild WC lnsi a *a In ■ccoroanca Wpm in,
rogylsoanscl tM fiarmc rosha CraglmOmWr "f Asiccianon
■"O r* the Gass of Sad anovrn an trio 4M*1. TTa arcaucarar
ralgaf *Mo**+1a1M *"dVOr Ca1111iC*lion numON iOOHR Or
m.a IaoM K *ola'Y rndarwrnu far Mia inlormatlon nar*an ana
'M IM arOOer tHa of me Ideal,
GROWN IN NORTH CAROLINA
Net'Nt. LOS........
(Pure seed.... (%) ..
Merl Masser...
Other Crop...
weed Seed... j%1
Germination.. (%)
Mara Seed.... (%I .,
Test oate..........
NOx. Weea/lb. ....
:Ot No..
Car .14C
Kirta
varyprti
Vendor
Labeling of non -certified seed is also required by law. Labels contain important
information on seed purity, germination, and presence of weed seeds. Seed must
meet State standards for content of noxious weeds. Do not accept seed contain-
ing "prohibited" noxious weed seed.
Inoculate legume seed with the Rhizobium bacteria appropriate to the species
of legume (Chapter 3. Vegetative Considerations),
Apply seed uniformly with a cyclone seeder, drop -type spreader, drill, cul-
tipacker seeder, or hydroseeder on a firm, friable seedbed.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

'
Practice Standards and Specifications
When using a drill or cultipacker seeder, plant small grains no more than 1 inch
deep, grasses and legumes no more than 1/2 inch. Equipment should be cali-
brated in the field for the desired seeding rate.
1
When using broadcast -seeding methods, subdivide the area into workable sec-
tions and determine the amount of seed needed for each section. Apply one-half
'
the seed while moving back and forth across the area, making a uniform pat-
tern; then apply the second half in the same way, but moving at right angles to
the first pass (Figure 6.11c).
' Figure 6.11 c Suggested pattern for
broadcasting seed and fertilizer
(source: NCAES Bulletin AG-69).
1
Seeding Pattern
Ll
Cover broadcast seed by raking or chain dragging; then firm the surface
with a roller or cultipacker to provide good seed contact.
Mulch all plantings immediately after seeding (Practice 6.14, Mulching).
HYDROSEEDING
Surface roughening is particularly important when hydroseeding, as a rough-
ened slope will provide some natural coverage for lime, fertilizer, and seed. The
surface should not be compacted or smooth. Fine seedbed preparation is not
necessary for hydroseeding operations; lame clods, stones, and irregularities
provide cavities in which seeds can lodge.
Rate of wood fiber (cellulose) application should be at least 2,000 lb/acre.
Apply legume inoculants at four times the recommended rate when adding in-
oculant to a hydroseeder slurry.
If a machinery breakdown of 1/2 to 2 hours occurs, add 501-7o more seed to the
Link, based on the proportion of the slurry remaining. This should compensate
for damage to seed. Beyond 2 hours, a full rate of new seed may be necessary.
Lime is not normally applied with a hydraulic seeder because it is abrasive. It
can be blown onto steep slopes in dry form.

1

SPRIGGING
Hybrid Bermudagrass cannot be grown from seed and must be planted vegeta-
tively. Vegetative methods of establishing common and hybrid Besmudagrass,
' centipedegrass, and Bahiagrass include sodding, plugging and sprigging (Chap-
ter 3, Vegetative Considerations). Sprigs are fragments of horizontal stems
which include at least one node (joint). They are normally sold by the bushel
1 and can either be broadcast or planted in furrows using a tractor -drawn tobac-
co or vegetable transplanter.
' Furrows should be 4-6 inches deep and 2 ft apart. Place sprigs about 2 A apart
in the row with one end at or above ground level (Figure 6.1 ld).
Figure 6.11d Proper placement of grass
' sprigs. Each sprig should have at least one Soil Surface
node (modifiedfrom NCAES Bulletin AG-69).
r
2„
Correct � � r iRCOCreCt
'
Broadcast sprigs at the specified rate (Tables 6.11r and 6.1 is). Press into the
top IP,2 inches of soil with a cultipacker or with a disk set nearly straight so
1
that the sprigs are not brought back to the surface.
IRRIGATION
Moisture is essential for seed germination and seedling establishment. Sup-
plemental irrigation can be very helpful in assuring adequate stands in dry
seasons or to speed development of full cover. It is a requirement for fine turf
establishment and should be used elsewhere when feasible. However, irrigation
is rarely critical for low -maintenance vegetation planted at the appropriate time
'
of the year.
Water application rates must be carefully controlled to prevent runoff. Inade-
'
quate or excessive amounts of water can be more harmful than no supplemen-
tal water.
' Maintenance Generally, a stand of vegetation cannot be determined to be fully established
until soil cover has been maintained for one full year from planting. Inspect
' seeded areas for failure and make necessary repairs and reseedings within the
same season, if possible.
Reseeding —If a stand has inadequate cover, re-evaluate choice of plant mate-
rials and quantities of lime and fertilizer. Re-establish the stand after seedbed
preparation or over -seed the stand. Consider seeding temporary, annual species
if the time of year is not appropriate for permanent seeding (Practice 6.10, Tem-
porary Seeding).
6.11.3

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

'
Practice Standards and Specifications
If vegetation fails to grow, soil be must tested to determine if acidity or nutrient
imbalance is responsible.
'
Fertilization —On the typical disturbed site, full establishment usually requires
refertilization in the second growing season. Fine turf requires annual main-
tenance fertilization (Table 6.12b). Use soil tests if possible or follow the
'
guidelines given for the specific seeding mixture (Tables 6.1 lc through 6.11v).
References Site Preparation
1
6.03, Surface Roughening
6.04, Topsoiling
'
Surface Stabilization
6.10, Temporary Seeding
6.12, Sodding
'
6.14, Mulching
Appendix
'
8.02, Vegetation Tables
Chapter 3, Vegetative Considerations
'
USDA Soil Conservation Service
National Soils Handbook
1
1
1
1

1
ri

Practice Standards and Specifications
6.15
C=
RR
Definition
A layer of stone designed to protect and stabilize areas subject to erosion.
1 Purpose
To protect the soil surface from erosive forces and/or improve stability of soil
slopes that are subject to seepage or have poor soil structure.
' Conditions Where
Riprap is used for the following applications:
Practice Applies
cut -and -fill slopes subject to seepage or weathering, particularly where
'
conditions prohibit establishment of vegetation,
• channel side slopes and bottoms,
1
inlets and outlets for culverts, bridges, slope drains, grade stabilization
structures, and storm drains,
streambank and stream grades,
'
• shorelines subject to wave action.
Planning
Riprap is a versatile, highly erosion -resistant material that can be used effec-
C o n s i d e rations
lively in many locations and in a variety of ways to control erosion on construc-
Lion sites.
GRADED VERSUS UMFORNI RIPRAP
Riprap is classed as either graded or uniform. Graded riprap includes a wide mix-
ture of stone sizes. Uniform riprap consists of stones nearly all the same size.
Graded riprap is preferred to uniform riprap in most applications because it
forms a dense, flexible cover. Uniform riprap is more open and cannot adjust as
1
effectively to movement of the stones. Graded riprap is also cheaper to install
requiring less hand work for installation than uniform riprap, which must be
placed in a uniform pattern, Uniform riprap may rive a more pleasing ap-
pearance.
Riprap sizes are designated by either the mean diameter or the weight of Lhe
' stones. The diameter specification is often misleading since the stones are usual-
ly angular. However, common practice is to specify stone size by the diameter
of an equivalent size of spherical stone. Table 6.15a lists some typical scenes by
weight, spherical diameter, and the corresponding rectangular dimensions.
These stone sizes are based upon an assumed specific weight of 165 lb/ft3.
A method commonly used for specifying the range of stone sizes in graded
' riprap is to designate a diameter for which some percentage, by weight, will be
smaller. For example "dss" specifies a mixture of stones in which 357D of the
stone by weight would be smaller than the diameter specified. Most designs are
I
based on "d5o", or median size stones.
Riprap and gravel are often designated by N.C. Department of Transportation
specifications (Table 6.15b).
1

1
I

7
L
13
F_J
LI
1
Table 6.15a
Size of Rlprap Stones
Mean Spherical
Length
Rectangular Shape
Weight (lb)
Diameter (ft)
(ft)
Width/Height (ft)
50
0.8
1.4
0.5
100
1.1
1.8
0.6
150
1.3
2.0
o.7
300
1.6
2.6
0.9
Soo
1.9
3.0
1.0
1000
2.2
3.7
1.3
1500
2.6
4.7
1.5
2000
2.8
5.4
1.8
4000
3.6
6.0
2.0
6000
4.0
6.9
2.3
8000
4.5
7.6
2.5
20000
6.1
10.0
3.3
source: Va SWCC
When considering riprap for surface stabilization, it is important to anticipate
visual impacts, including weed control, hazards from snakes and other animals,
danger of slides and hazards to areas below steep riprap slopes, damage and pos-
sible slides from children moving stones, and general safety.
Proper slope selection and surface preparation are essential for successful long-
term functioning of riprap. Adequate compaction of fill areas and proper use of
filter blankets are necessary.
Sequence of construction -Schedule disturbance of areas that require riprap
protection so the placement of riprap can follow immediately after grading.
When riprap is used for outlet protection, place the riprap before or in conjunc-
tion with the installation of the structure so that it is in place before the first
runoff event.
Design Criteria Gradation-Riprap should bea well -graded mixture with 50% by weightlarger
than the specified design size. The diameter of the largest stone size in such a
mixture should be 1.5 times the d5a size with smaller sizes grading down to 1
inch.
The designer should determine the riprap size that will be stable for design con-
ditions. Having determined the design stone size, the designer should select the
size or sizes that equal or exceed that minimum size based on riprap gradations
commercially available in the area.
' Thickness -Construction techniques, dimensions of the area to be protected,
size and gradation of the riprap, the frequency and duration of flow, difficulty
and cost of maintenance, and consequence of failure should be considered when
determining the thickness of riprap linings. The minimum thickness should be
1.5 times the maximum stone diameter, but in no case less than 6 inches.
Quality of stone -Stone for riprap may consist of field stone or quarry stone.
' The stone should be hard, angular, of such quality that it will not break down
1 6.15.21

1
I

Practice Standards and Specifications
I T.
1
Table 6.15b
Sizes for Riprap and Erosion
Control Stone Specified by
the N.C. Department of
Transportation
Riprap
Erosion Control
Class
Gass
Class
Class
1
2
A
8
5 to 200 lb
25 to 250 lb
2" to 6"
5" to 15"
30% shall
60% shall
weigh a
weigh a mini -
minimum of 60
imum of 100 lb
Ibs each
each
No more than
No more than
10% tolerance
10% shall
5% shall weigh
top and bot-
weigh less
less than 50 lb
tom sizes
than 15 lb
each.
each
Equally dis-
Equally dis-
tributed, no
tributed, no
gradation
gradation
specified
specified
source: North Carolina Aggregates Association.
on exposure to water or weathering, and suitable in all other respects for the pur-
pose intended. The specific gravity of the individual stones should be at Ieast
2.5.
Size ofstone—The sizes of stones used for riprap protection are determined by
purpose and specific site conditions,
• Slope stabilization--Riprap stone for slope stabilization not subject to
flowing water or wave action should be sized for stability for the proposed
grade. The gradient of the slope to be stabilized should be less than the
natural angle of repose of the stone selected. Angie of repose of riprap
stones may be estimated from Figure 6.15a.
Riprap used for surface stabilization of slopes does not add significant
resistance to sliding or slope failure and should not be considered a retain-
ing wall. The inherent stability of the soil must be satisfactory before
' riprap is used for surface stabilization. Slopes approaching 1.5:1 may re-
quire special stability analysis.
• Outlet protection —Design criteria for sizing stone and determining the
dimensions of riprap pads at channel or conduit outlets are presented in
Practice 6.41, Outlet Stabilization Structure.
• Channel stab ilizationand streatnbank protection --Design criteria for
sizing stone for stability of channels are contained in Appendix 8.05.
Filter blanket —A filter blanket is a layer of material placed between the riprap
and the underlying soil to prevent soil movement into or through the riprap.

I
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
i
1

13
MEAN STONE SIZE, D50, f1
4
w 41
a
m 39
V)
0
o_
w 37
o=
0 35
LLJ
a 33
31
5
■■■■l
N�
WMM-Mmoam■■
8 f0 20 40 EO 100 200 400 600
MEAN STONE SIZE, 050, mm
Figure 6.15a Angle of repose of riprap stones.
A suitable filter may consist of a well -graded gravel or sand -gravel layer or a
synthetic filter fabric manufactured for this express purpose. The design of a
gravel filter blanket is based on the ratio of particle size in the overlying filter
material to that of the base material in accordance with the criteria below. The
designed gravel filter blanket may consist of several layers of increasingly large
particles from sand to erosion control stone.
A gravel Filter blanket should have the following relationship for a stable
design:
d15 filter < 5
day base
d15 filter < 40
dls base
d50 filter < 40
d5o base
In these relationships, filter refers to the overlying material and base refers to
the underlying material. These relationships must hold between the filter ma-
terial and the base material (soil foundation) and between the riprap and the fil-
ter. More than one layer of filter material may be needed. Each layer of filter
material should be at least b inches thick.
6.1_.4

1
1
iu
1

'
Practice Standards and Specifications
A synthetic filter fabric may be used with or in place of gravel filters. The fol-
lowing particle size relationships should exist:
• Filter fabric covering a base with granular particles containing 50% or
less (by weight) of line particles (less than U.S. Standard Sieve no. 200
'
(0.074mm)):
_ des base (mmj
'1
EOS" filter fabric (mm)
b. total open area of filter should not exceed 36%
Filter fabric
• covering other soils:
a. EOS is no larger than U.S. Standard Sieve no. 70 (0.21mm)
'
b. total open area of filter should not exceed 10%.
*EOS - Equivalent opening size compared to a U.S. standard sieve size.
No filter fabric should have less than 4% open area or an EOS less than U.S.
Standard Sieve No. 100 (0.15 mm). The permeability of the fabric must be
'
greater than that of the soil. The fabric may be made of woven or nonwoven
monofilament yarns and should meet the following minimum requirements:
• thickness 20 - 60 mils,
• grab strengh 90 -120 lb,
• conform to ASTM D-1682 or ASTM D-177.
Filter blankets should always be provided where seepage is significant or where
'
flow velocity and duration of flow or turbulence may cause the underlying soil
particles to move through the riprap.
'
Construction Subgrade preparation —Prepare the subgrade for riprap and filter to the re-
SpecificationS quired lines and grades shown an the plans. Compact any fill required in the
subgrade to a density approximating that of the surrounding undisturbed ma-
terial or overfill depressions with riprap. Remove brush, trees, stumps, and other
objectionable material. Cut the subgrade sufficiently deep that the finished grade
of the riprap will be at the elevation of the surrounding area. Channels should
'
be excavated sufficiently to allow placement of the riprap in a manner such that
the finished inside dimensions and grade of the riprap meet design specifica-
tions.
'
Sand filter
and gravel blanket —Place the filter blanket immediately after the
ground foundation is prepared. For gravel, spread filter stone in a uniform layer
to the specified depth. Where more than one layer of filter material is used,
spread the layers with minimal mixing.
' Synthetic filter fabric —Place the cloth filter directly on the prepared founda-
tion. Overlap the edges by at least 12 inches, and space anchor pins every 3 ft
along the overlap. Bury the upper and lower ends of the cloth a minimum of 12
inches below ground. Take care not to damage the cloth when placing riprap. If
damage occurs remove the riprap and repair the sheet by adding another layer
1 b.1 5.S

I

� 0
of filter material with a minimum overly of 12 inches around the damaged area.
P g
' If extensive damage is suspected, remove and replace the entire sheet.
Where large stones are used or machine placement is difficult, a 4-inch layer of
fine gravel or sand may be needed to protect the filter cloth.
' Stone placement —Placement of riprap should follow immediately after place-
ment of the filter. Place riprap so that it forms a dense, well -graded mass of stone
' with a minimum of voids. The desired distribution of stones throughout the mass
may be obtained by selective loading at the quarry and controlled dumping
during final placement. Place riprap to its full thickness in one operation. Do
' not place riprap by dumping through chutes or other methods that cause segrega-
tion of stone sizes. Take care not to dislodge the underlying base or filter when
placing the stones.
' The toe of the riprap slope should be keyed to a stable foundation at its base as
shown in Figure 6.15b. The toe should be excavated to a depth about 1.5 times
the design thickness of the riprap and should extend horizontally from the slope.
' The finished slope should be free of pockets of small stone or clusters of large
stones. Hand placing may be necessary to achieve the proper distribution of
' stone sizes to produce a relatively smooth, uniform surface. The finished grade
of the riprap should blend with the surrounding area. No overfalI or protrusion
of riprap should be apparent.
Figure 6.15b Riprap slope protection
(modified from VDH&T).
-r
6 " Gravel :::.: filter (or filter cloth)-1D: T
min
r'tllljlllt ; • 4Jt�l�l 1.5 T
_;.:�.;,�
" Ell#IIf�li' ;i I IIII
I;i I 1
' Maintenance In general, once a riprap installation has been properly designed and installed it
requires very little maintenance. Riprap should be inspected periodically for
scour or dislodged stones. Control of weed and brush growth may be needed in
' some locations.
References Runoff Conveyance Measures
6.31, Riprap-lined and Paved Channels
Outlet Protection
' 6.41, 0udet Stabilization Structure

1
1

'
Practice Standards and Specifications
6.30
Definition
A channel with vegetative lining constructed to design cross section and grade
for conveyance of runoff.
Purpose
To convey and dispose of concentrated surface runoff without damage from
erosion, deposition, or flooding.
Conditions Where
This practice applies to construction sites where:
'
Practice Applies
damage from flooding;
• concentrated runoff will cause erosion or
• a vegetative lining can provide sufficient stability for the channel cross
section and grade;
• slopes are generally less than 5%,
'
space is available for a relatively large cross section.
Typical uses include roadside ditches, channels at property boundaries, outlets
for diversions, and other channels and drainage of low areas.
'
Planning
LOCATION
Considerations
Generally, channels should be located to conform with and use the natural
'
drainage system. Channels may also be needed along development boundaries,
roadways, and backlot lines. Avoid channels crossing watershed boundaries or
ridges.
Plan the course of the channel to avoid sharp changes in direction or grade. S'tte
development should conform to natural features of the land and use natural
drainageways rather than drastically reshape the land surface. Major recon-
'
figuration of the drainage system often entails increased maintenance and risk
of failure..
Grass -lined channels must not be subject to sedimentation from disturbed
areas.
' An established grass -lined channel resembles natural drainage systems and,
therefore, is usually preferred if design velocities are below 5 ft/sec. Velocities
up to 6 ft/sec can be safely used under certain conditions (Table 8.05a, Appen-
dix 8.05).
Establishment of a dense, resistant vegetation is essential. Construct and veg-
etate grass -lined channels early in the construction schedule before grading and
paving increase the rate of runoff.
Geotextile fabrics or special m ulch protection such as fiberglass roving or straw
and netting provide stability until the vegetation is fully established. These
protective liners must be used whenever design velocities exceed 2 ft/sec for
bare soil conditions. It may also be necessary to divert water from the channel
until vegetation is established or to line the channel with sod. Sediment traps
may be needed at channel inlets and outlets.
'i..'{1.:

1
I
1
1

7
L
0
1
V-shaped grass channels generally apply where the quantity of water is small,
such as in short reaches along roadsides. The V-shaped cross section is least
'
desirable because it is difficult to stabilize the bottom where velocities may be
high.
'
Parabolic grass channels are often used where larger flows are expected and
space is available. The swble-like shape is pleasing and may best fit site condi-
tions.
'
Trapezoidal grass channels are used where runoff volumes are large and slope
is low so that velocities are nonerosive to vegetated linings.
Subsurface drainage, or riprap channel bottoms, may be necessary on sites that
are subject to prolonged wet conditions due to long duration flows or high water
'
tables (Practice 6.81, Subsurface Drain and Practice 6.31, Riprap-lined and
Paved Channels).
OUTLETS
Outlets must be stable. Where channel improvement ends, the exit velocity for
the design flow must be nonerosive for the existing field conditions. Stability
conditions beyond the property boundary should always be considered (Prac-
' Lice 6A1, Outlet Stabilization Structure).
AREA
' Where urban drainage area exceeds 10 acres, it is recommended that grass -lined i
channels be designed by an engineer experienced in channel design.
Design Criteria Capacity —As a minimum, grass -lined channels should carry peals runoff from
the 10-yr storm without eroding. Where flood hazard exists, increase the
capacity according to the potential damage. Channel dimensions may be deter-
mined by using design tables with appropriate retardance factors or by
Manning's formula using an appropriate "n" value. When retardance factors are
used, the capacity is usually based on retardance "C" and stability on retardance
"D" (References: Appendix, 3,05).
Velocity —The allowable design velocity for grass -lined channels is based on
soil conditions, type of vegetation, and method of establishment (Table 8.05a,
'
Appendix 8.05).
If design velocity of a channel Lo be vegetated by seeding exceeds ? ft/sec, a
temporary channel liner is required. The design of the liner may be based on
'
peak flow from a ?-yr storm. if vegetation is established by sodding, the per-
missible velocity for established vegetation shown in Table 8.05a may be used
and no temporary later is needed. Whether a temporary lining is requried or not
'
permanent channel linings must be stable for the 10-yr storm. A design approach
based on erosion resistance of various liner materials developed by the Federal
Highway Administration is presented in Appendix 8.05.
Cross section —The channel shape may be parabolic, trapezoidal, or V-shaped,
depending on need and site conditions (Figure 6.30a).
1
1 6.20.'

I
1

Practice Standards and Specifications
7
1
Figure 6.30a Cross section geometry of
triangular, parabolic, and trapezoidal Triangular "V"
channels.
T
d
T
e
x-section area (A) = Zd2
top width (T) = 2dz Z d
Parabolic
T�
T
L�
x-section area (A) = 213 Td
top width (T) _ 1 .5A
d
Trapezoidal
a
T
b
e
x-section area (A) = bd + Zd2 e
top width (T) = b + 2dz- Z - d
Hydraulic grade line —Examine the design water surface if the channel sys-
tem becomes complex.
Side slopes —Grassed channel side slopes generally are constructed 11 or flat-
ter to aid in the establishment of vegetation and for maintenance. Side slopes of
V-shaped channels are usually constructed 6:1 or flatter along roadways for
safety.
Depth and width —The channel depth and width are proportioned to meet the
needs of drainage, soil conditions, erosion control, carrying capacity and site
conditions. Construct channels a minimum of 0.2 ft larger around the periphery
to allow for soil bulking during seedbed preparations and sod buildup.
Grade —Either a uniform or gradually increasing grade is preferred to avoid
sedimentation. Where the grade is excessive, grade stabilization structures may
be required or channel linings of riprap or paving should be considered (Prac-
tice 6.82, Grade Stabilization Structure).

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L7
I
I
I
I
I
I

1 o
Drainage --Install subsurface drains in locations with high water tables or
' seepage problems that would inhibit establishment of vegetation in the channel.
Stone channel bottom lining may be needed where prolonged low flow is an-
ticipated.
' Outlets —Evaluate the outlets of all channels for carrying capacity and stability
and protect them from erosion by limiting the exit velocity (Practice 6.41.0ut-
let Stabilization Structure).
' Sedimentation protection —Protect permanent grass channels from sediment
produced in the watershed, especially during the construction period. This can
' be accomplished by the effective use of diversions, sediment traps, protected
side inlets, and vegetative filter strips along the channel.
' Construction 1. Remove all trees, brush, stumps, and other objectionable material from the
Specifications foundation area and dispose of properly.
' Z. Excavate the channel and shape it to neat lines and dimensions shown on the
plans plus a 0.2-ft overcut around the channel perimeter to allow for bulking
during seedbed preparations and sod buildup.
' 3. Remove and properly dispose of all excess soil so that surface water may
enter the channel freely.
4. The procedure used to establish grass in the channel will depend upon the
severity of the conditions and selection of species. Protect the channel with
mulch or a temporary liner sufficent to withstand anticipated velocities during
the establishment period (Appendix 8.05).
Maintenance During the establishment period, check grass -lined channels after every rain-
fall. After grass is established, periodically cheek the channel, check it after
every heavy rainfall event. Immediately make repairs. It is particularly impor-
tant to check the channel outlet and all road crossings for bank stability and
'
evidence of piping or scour holes. Remove all significant sediment accumula-
tions to maintain the designed carrying capacity. Keep the grass in a healthy,
vigorous condition at all times, since it is the primary erosion protection for the
channel (Practice 6,1 I, Perrrranent Seeding).
1
References Surface Stabilization
6.11, Permanent Seeding
'
6.12, Sodding
6.14, Mulching
'
Outlet Protection
6.41, Outlet Stabilization Structure
Other Related Practices
6.81, Subsurface Drain
6.82, Grade Stabilization Structure
1
1 r). O }

I
1
1
�I

Practice Standards and Specifications
6.41 • .
' Definition A structure designed to control erosion at the outlet of a channel or conduit.
' Purpose To prevent erosion at the outlet of a channel or conduit by reducing the velocity
of flow and dissipating the energy.
' Conditions Where This practice applies where the discharge velocity of a pipe, box culvert, diver -
Practice Applies sion, open channel, or other water conveyance structure exceeds the permissible
' velocity of the receiving channel or disposal area.
Planning The outlets of channels, conduits, and other structures are points of high erosion
' Considerations potenval, because they frequently carry flows at velocities that exceed the al-
lowable limit for the area downstream. To prevent scour and undermining, an
outlet stabilization structure is needed to absorb the impact of the flow and
reduce the velocity to non -erosive levels. A riprap-lined apron is the most com-
monly used practice for this purpose because of its relatively low cost and ease
of installation. The riprap apron should be extended downstream until stable
' conditions are reached even though this may exceed the length calculated for
design velocity control.
Riprap-stilling basins orplunge pools reduce flow velocity rapidly. They should
be considered in lieu of aprons where overfalls exit at the ends of pipes or where
high flows would require excessive apron length. Consider other energy dis-
sipators such as concrete impact basins or paved outlet structures where site con-
ditions warrant, (Figure 6.41a).
'
Design Criteria Design procedures for riprap outlet structures are presented in Appendix8.06.
The criteria for design of riprap outlets are:
Capacity-10-yr, peak runoff or the design discharge of the water conveyance
.
structure, whichever is greater.
Tailwater depth —Determine the depth of tailwater immediately below the
' pipe outlet based on the design discharge plus other contributing flows. If the
tailwater depth is less than half the diameter of the outlet pipe and the receiving
stream is sufficiently wide to accept the divergence of flow, it is classed as a
' minimum tailwater condition. If the tailwater depth is greater than half the
pipe diameter, it is classed as a maximum tailwater condition. Pipes that out-
let onto broad flat areas with ao defined channel may be assumed to have a min-
imum tailwater condition unless site conditions indicate otherwise (Figure
' 6.41 b).
Apron size —The apron length and width can be determined according to the
tailwater condition. If the water conveyance structure discharges directly into
a well-defined channel, extend the apron across the channel bottom and up the
channel banks to an elevation of 0.5 ft above the maximum tailwater depth or
1 to the top of the bank, whichever is less (Figure 6.41c)

1

Practice Standards and Specifications
A
do
Y
A
do
Determine the maximum allowable velocity for the receiving stream, and design
the riprap apron to reduce flow to this velocity before flow leaves the apron.
Calculate the apron length for velocity control or use the length required to meet
stable conditions downstream, whichever is greater.
Grade —Ensure that the apron has zero grade. There should be no overfall at
the end of the apron; that is, the elevation of the top of the riprap at the
downstream end should be the same as the elevation of the bottom of the receiv-
ing channel or the adjacent ground if there is no channel.
Alignment —The apron should be straight throughout its entire length, but if a
curve is necessary to align the apron with the receiving stream, locate the curve
in the upstream section of riprap.
Materials —Ensure that riprap consists of a well -graded mixture of stone.
Larger stone should predominate, with sufficient smaller sizes to fill the voids
between the stones. The diameter of the largest stone size should be no greater
than 1.5 times the dso size.
WN
ui � IY■
Maximum
o Tailwater � 0.5 do
w
�,L-17 11 IIII ` � 111 ,5Ili I� NIHMd f�iI
Za I
ill�1411 Ili hi
III IIS I ��-11h
Figure 6.41 b Stage showing maximum and minimum tailwater condition.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

a
Pipe Outlet to Flat Area —
No Well-defined Channel
Pipe Outlet to Well-defined
Channel
lid
Filter
blanket
Flgure 6.41c Riprap outlet protection (modified Irom Va SWCC).
Notes
1. La is the length of the riprap
apron.
2. d = 1.5 times the maximum
stone diameter but not less
than 6".
3. In a well-defined channel ex-
tend the apron up the channel
banks to an elevation of 6"
above the maximum tailwater
depth or to the top of the bank,
whichever is less.
4. A filter blanket or filter fabric
should be installed between
the riprap and soil foundation.

k
1

ado
13
Pipe Outlet -to Flat Area —
No Well-defined Channel
A
La
1
Section AA 'Filter Notes
blanket
1. La is the length of the riprap
apron.
2. d =1.5 times the maximum
stone diameter but not less
than 6".
3. In a well-defined channel ex-
tend the apron up the channel
_ banks to an elevation of 6"
Grass above the maximum tailwater
lined depth or to the top of the bank,
_ lined whichever is less.
Swale
4. A filter blanket or filter fabric
should be installed between
the riprap and soil foundation.
Pipe Outlet to Well-defined
Channel
N.C. DOT
class 1
rip -rap
Filter
blanket
Figure 6.41c Riprap outlet protection (modified from Va SWCC).

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

' Practice Standards and Specifications
,i
Thickness —Make the minimum thickness of riprap 1.5 times the maximum
' stone diameter.
Stone quality --Select stone for riprap from field stone or quarry stone. The
stone should be hard, angular, and highly weather -resistant. The specific gravity
' of the individual stones should be at least 2.5.
Filter —Install a filter to prevent soil movement through the openings in the
' riprap. The filter should consist of a graded gravel layer or a synthetic filter
cloth. Design filter blankets by the method described in Practice 6.15, Riprap.
' Construction 1. Ensure that the subgrade for the filter and riprap follows the required lines
Specifications and grades shown in the plan. Compact any fill required in the subgrade to the
density of the surrounding undisturbed material. Low areas in the subgrade on
' undisturbed soil may also be filled by increasing the riprap thickness.
2. The riprap and gravel filter must conform to the specked grading limits
' shown on the plans.
3. Filter cloth, when used, must meet design requirements and be properly
protected from punching or tearing during installation. Repair any damage by
removing the riprap and placing another piece of filter cloth over the damaged
area. All connecting joints should overlap a minimum of 1 fL If the damage is
extensive, replace the entire filter cloth.
' 4. Riprap may be placed by equipment, but take care to avoid damaging the fil-
ter.
t5. The minimum thickness of the riprap should be 1.5 times the maximum stone
diameter.
' 6. Riprap may be field stone or rough quarry stone, It should be hard, angular,
highly weather -resistant and well graded.
t
7. Construct the apron on zero grade with no overfall at the end. Make the top
of the riprap at the downstream end level with the receiving area or slightly
below it.
'
8. Ensure that the apron is properly aligned with the receiving stream and
preferably straight throughout its length. If a curve is needed to tit site candi-
'
lions, place it in the upper section of the apron.
9. Immediately after construction, stabilize all disturbed areas with vegetation
(Practices 6.10, Temporary Seeding, and 6.11, Permanent Seeding).
'
Maintenance ee Inspect riprap outlet structures after heavy rains to see if any erosion around or
below the riprap has taken place or if stones have been dislodged. Immediately
make all needed repairs to prevent further damage.
1 6.-41.-

1
1
1
1
1
1

PCS Phosphate Reclamation
Subject: PCS Phosphate Reclamation
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:56:15 -0500
From: Charles Gardner <[e-mail]>
Organization: Division of Land Resources
To: Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>, Tracy Davis <Tracy.Davis a ncmail.net>,
"Jim.Simons" <Jim. Simons@ncmail. net>, Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>
I received a call from Jeff Peed of Aurora (252-322-4388) today
expressing his interest in farming some of the PCs reclamation areas.
He and his brother and father are local farmers, are friends with Steve
Broom, and Jeff has talked with Bill Cooper and Wes Webster about the
concept. Wes referred him to me. I told him that productive farming
would be an acceptable use for the land. T told him that we would need
a specific plan and request for approval submitted by PCS Phosphate. He
said he would talk more with Webster and Broom about the idea.
Charles Gardner, P.G. P.E. <charlessardner ricmail.net>
State Geologist and Director
N.C. Division of Land Resources j
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1 of 1 1110 2001 1:40 I'M

Re: 41 w` : ptq� 11110aphatel
Subject: Re: [Fwd: PCS Phosphate)
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:17:19 -0500
From: Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>
To: Charles Gardner <Charles,[e-mail]>
CC: Robin W Smith <Robin.W.Smith a ncmail.net>, [e-mail],
"Donna, Moffitt" <Donna.Moffitt@ncmaiLnet>, [e-mail], -
"Jim.Simons" <Jim. Simons@ncmail. net>, Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
Yesterday I mailed to Tracy Davis by courier mail., a copy of the package
that I
received from the Corps Of Engineers.
If I can be of assistance please let me know.
Thanks,
Floyd R.
Charles Gardner wrote:
> FYI, see the message below. PCs has not yet applied for a modification
> of its Mining Permit to include the proposed expanded mine area. I'll
> keep you informed, of course, as DLR, DCM, and DWQ will need to closely
> coordinate our permit actions if PCs moves ahead to get DENR permits.
> Please let me know if the company files anything with your office
> regarding the proposed expansion.
> Charles
>---------- original Message --------
> subject: PCs Phosphate
> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 11:05:02 -0500
> From: Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>
> To: "Tracy E. Davis, P.E." <[e-mail]>,Mell Nevils
> <[e-mail]>,"Charles Gardner, P.G. P.E."
> <[e-mail]>
> Tracy, Melt, and Charles,
> I recently received a package from David M. Lekson - Chief of the
> Corps Of Engineers
> Washington Regulatory Field Office which contained information regarding
> PCs Phosphates
> applicaation for a Department of the Army (DA) individual permit to
> continue its mining
> operations on a 3,604 acre tract of land in Beaufort County. PCs
> Phosphate in its new
> application is proposing to effect 49 acres of waters of the United
> States. Jacks Creek,
> Jacobs Creek, Drinkwater Creek, Huddy Gut, Huddles Cut and several
> unnamed
> tributaries including existing mitigation areas ( Creation I and
> Creation II ) are proposed
> to be impacted. These additional areas will result in a total of 2,530
> acres of wetlands
> being effected.
> I suppose PCs will see if they can get a Department of the Army
1 of'2 1/212001 10:04 AM

if s A

Re: yF� �d: 1''5 Phosphatcj
> Permit prior
> to requesting a Modification to the existing Mining Permit. if you would
> like for me
> to fax you cover letter, etc. let me know.
> Thanks,
> Floyd R
2 42 1/2/2001 10:04 AM

A , �

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
}}} Washington Regulatory Field Office
+ I P.O. Box 1000
/1 Washington, North Carolina 27869-1000
rN REPLY REFER TO December 6, 2000
Regulatory Division
Subject: Action ID. 200110096
Mr. William T. Cooper, Jr.
VP/General Manager Phosphate Production
PCS Phosphate Company
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Dear Mr. Cooper:
p �� 0 W C
LDEC g ,,-
WASLAND HIING ONAR IOON NALLITY IOFFICE
DEC 99 1
CF_NR
` LAND QUALITY SECTION
This correspondence confirms our meeting of November 29, 2000, regarding PCS Phosphate
Company's application for a Department of the Army (DA) individual permit to continue its
surface mining operations on a 3,604 acre tract of land located on the Hickory Point peninsula,
adjacent to the Pamlico River, South Creek and associated tributaries, north of Aurora, in
Beaufort County, North Carolina. Also in attendance was Mr. Bill Biddlecome of my staff, and
Messrs. Jeff Furness and Ross Smith of your staff. The purpose of this letter is to expound on
our discussions regarding Corps of Engineers' policy on preparation of environmental impact
statements.
As discussed, based upon the size and scope of your project, it is likely that the
preparation of a detailed environmental impact statement (EIS) will be required prior to
the issuance of a DA permit. Pursuant to Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
guidance, dated December 17, 1997, any Corps district preparing an EIS on a permit
action will use a "third party contractor" as the primary method to prepare all or part of
a project specific EIS or to obtain required information (40 CFR 1500-1508). A "third
party contract" refers to the preparation of an EIS by a contractor paid by the applicant
but who is selected and supervised directly by the Wilmington District Engineer.
I have enclosed a copy of the Headquarters guidance referenced above. I also
provided copies to Messrs. Furness and Smith at the subject meeting. This issue will be
addressed further as evaluation of your permit application progresses.

-2-
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact
me at the Washington Regulatory Field Office, Post Office Box 1000, Washington, North
Carolina 27889-1000, telephone [phone], extension 22.
Sincerely,
jp4-. 4-".-
4
David M. Lekson, P.W.S.
Chief, Washington Regulatory Field Office
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with enclosure):
Mr. William L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Garland Pardue
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

-3-
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Floyd Williams
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mrs. Katy West
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889

-4-
Mr. William Wescott
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Rob Perks
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Copy Furnished (w/o encl):
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCs Phosphate Company
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Ross Smith
PCs Phosphate Company
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806

. Z
REPLY ATTENTION
CECW-OR
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314.IDOO
DEC 3 190)
acC; l[ w-A i P7 }J aVi :4
a 7 DEC 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDERS, MAJOR SUBORDINATE COMMANDS AND
DISTRICT COMMANDS
SUBJECT: Guidance on Environmental Impact Statement Preparation, Corps Regulatory
Program
1. Appendix B, 33 CFR Part 325, provides policy guidance on preparation of National
Environmental Policy Act documents for the TT.S. ?.,-my Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program.
This regulation provides that the district engineer may prepare as Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) or may obtain information to prepare an EIS, either with his/her own staff or by
choosing a contractor, either at the expense of the Corps or the expense of the applicant, who
reports directly to the district engineer (see paragraph (3), 8b, Sc, and 8f). Due to budgetary
constraints, preparing a project specific EIS at the expense of the Corps can no longer be funded.
2. Effective immediately, any Corps district preparing an EIS on a permit action will use a "third
parry contractor" as the primary method to prepare all or part of a project specific EIS or to
obtain required information (40 CFR 1500-1508). gird party contract" refers to the
preparation of an EIS by a contractor paid by the applicant but who is selected and supervised
directly by the district engineer (Corps Regulatory Branch). (See 40 CFR 1506.5(c) and Council
on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National
Environmental Policy Act Regulations, n16 and *17) Contractor selection by the Corps for a
Regulatory Program EIS will be as follows: The Corps will select from the applicant's list the
first contractor that is fully acceptable to the Corps, using the applicant's order of preference.
The procedures outlined in 40 CFR 1500-1508 and CEQ's forty questions must be followed.
Furthermore, the Corps is responsible for final acceptance of the draft and final EIS.
3. Appendix B, 33 CFR Part 325, provides that the district engineer may require the applicant
and/or his/her consultant to furnish information required for an EIS. The applicant and/or his/her
consultant will then provide the information for the Corps use in preparing an EIS. This is an
option which may be utilized in preparing a project specific EIS; however, to manage Corps
resources more efficiently and equitably, this approach will be utilized by a district in preparing a
project specific EIS only when for some reason the third party contracting cannot be used. If this
method is used, the applicant is responsible for providing required information and data to the
Corps. The Corps is responsible for review and acceptance of required information, data, or
drafts and must be especially vigilant in identifying and eliminating any bias that could exist in a
draft National Environmental Policy Act document prepared by a contractor selected and
supervised by an applicant. The district engineer (Corps Regulatory Branch) has the final
determination for EISs prepared by the applicant and his/her consultant of whether the data
provided is adequate and accurate. The Corps will carefully review the applicant's drafts to
ensure they are technically adequate and not biased.

CECW-OR
SUBJECT: Guidance on Environmental Impact Statement Preparation, Corps Regulatory
Program
4. Of course, a programmatic EIS will still have a substantial portion of the effort conducted and
funded by the Corps. However, even for programmatic EIS's, the Corps can, and should, identify
applicant groups, States, and/or local Governments to cost share in the effort. Whenever an
agency prepares a programmatic EIS, the requirements of 40 CFR 1506.1(c) present potential
legal and practical problems for processing any Corps permit related to the programmatic EIS
(especially if the permit would require a project specific EIS). For that reason and due to budget
implications, any decision to do a programmatic EIS will be reviewed and approved by
CECW-OR before a commitment is entered into for any programmatic EIS.
5. Due to Regulatory Program budget limits, all Regu atcry Program EIS's rust be managed in
the Regulatory Branch and primarily reviewed in the Regulatory Branch. The Regulatory Branch
will only contract out work to other Corps elements, other Federal agencies, or private
consultants, when additional expertise beyond that available in the Regulatory Branch is necessary
or where it makes good business sense for the Regulatory Program.
6. Ifyou have any questions, please contact Ms. Colleen Charles, at [phone].
FOR THE COMMANDER:
12
Major General, USA
Director of Civil Works
DISTRIBUTION:
(SEE PG 3)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
r Washington Regulatory Field Office
` I P.O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
IN REPLY REFER TO December 6, 2000
Regulatory Division
Subject: Action ID. 200110096
SEE DISTRIBUTION
LAND ouALITY SECTION
WASHING" ON REGIONAL OFFICE
This correspondence is in reference to PCS Phosphate Company's application for a
Department of the Army (DA) individual permit to continue its surface mining operations
on a 3,604 acre tract of land located on the Hickory Point peninsula, adjacent to the Pamlico
River, South Creek and associated tributaries, north of Aurora, in Beaufort County, North
Carolina. This project will be evaluated pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). The
purpose of this letter is to initiate the Scoping process for evaluation of this permit application
(see attached).
The project as proposed will adversely effect 2,530 acres of wetlands. Wetland types
proposed to be impacted include disturbed herbaceous and shrub -scrub assemblages, pine
plantations, pine flatwoods, mixed pine/hardwood forest, hardwood forest, bottomland
hardwood forest and brackish marsh. Additionally, 49 acres of waters of the United States,
including navigable waters, are proposed to be effected. Jacks Creek, Jacobs Creek, Drinkwater
Creek, Huddy Gut, Huddles Cut and several unnamed tributaries including existing mitigation
areas (Creation I and Creation In are proposed to be impacted. A large percentage of these
waters are densely vegetated with several species of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
including widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima), Eurasian water-milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum),
horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris) and hornwort (Ceratophyllum demersum).
Major considerations of the environmental document that will be prepared include evaluations
of biotic communities including wetlands, soils, geology, hydrology, water quality and land use.
A full range of environmental, social and economic issues will be evaluated, including mitigation
of potential adverse impacts and avoidance of specific impacts where practicable. I would
appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of this project. Accordingly, please provide your comments to me,
in writing, by January 12, 2001. I will be contacting you in the near future to coordinate the
evaluation of this project.

Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact
me at the Washington Regulatory Field Office, Post Office Box 1000, Washington,
North Carolina 27889-1000, telephone [phone], extension 22.
Sincerely,
MIMI!
David M. Lekson, P.W.S.
Chief, Washington Regulatory Field Office
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with enclosure):
Mr. William L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
US. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Garland Pardue
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

-3-
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
^� Mr. Floyd Williams
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mrs. Katy West
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27989

H
Mr. William Wescott
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Rob Perks
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Copy Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. William T. Cooper, Jr.
VP/General Manager Phosphate Production
PCS Phosphate Company
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Ross Smith
PCS Phosphate Company
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806

Form DCbi-NIP-1
APPLICATION
(To be completed by all applicants)
b. City, town, community or landmark
North of Aurora (Richland Townshin)
1. APPLICANT
c. Street address or secondary road number
a. Landowner: 1530 NC 'Pla 306 Snurh
Name PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. (1)
Address P.O. Box 48
City Aurora State NC
Zip 27806 Day Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
b. Authorized Agent:
Name N/A
Address
City
Zip Day Phone
Fax
State
c. Project name (if any) PCS Phosphate - Aurora
Mine Continuation
H02T. Perna will be iuued in nape of landawner(tJ, and/or
prcjea name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County Beaufort
d. Is proposers work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? 21 Yes No
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g. river,
creek, sound, bay) South Creek and
Pamlico River
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
excavation and/or filling activities.
Oven Pit Phosnhate Mine and
Land Reclamation
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
project, new work, or both? Continuation of
existing mining operation.
C. Will the project be for public, private or commercial
use? Commercial
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
construction and daily operations of proposed
project. If more space is. needed, please atrach
additional pages.
Open nit vhosphate mine and land
reclamation. See Attachment B
NOTE: Overburden remova - 15t state
may be completed 'ov dredize
(1) Property or portions of property located within the boundary of the proposed permit
area are not owned by the applicant. See Attached A.
(2) A small portion of the project is within the extra territorial planning ju7isdiction
for the Tovn of Aurora.
n_�_a nv.nr

Form DCM-MP-1
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract , 3,604 acres Ca rrr-b _ G)
b. Size of individual lot(s;
N/A
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or
NWL - 3 ft to + 20 ft MSL
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
See Attachment C
m. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
NIA
n. Describe location and type of discharges to waters
of the state. (For example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial/commercial effluent, `wash
down" and residential discharges.) Grn„nawggt�_
stormwater, and dredge lake water thLnugh
P r -mj trpd nlitfgnl1G
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
Bottled Water
e. Vegetation on tract q— Rtt;9rhrmPnr L
f. Man-made features now on tract rn p d s _ e i t rhps ,
canals, weirs, powerlines, railroad buildings,*
barge slip
g. What is the CAM � i..and Use Plan land In addition to the completed application form, the
classification of the site. (�sar local land use p�.) following items must be submitted:
X Conservation
Developed
X Rural
X Transitional
Community
Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
Rural
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable
zoning? N / A Yes No
(Aunci+ zM-9 -mpiiance ceyUfiaau, if applicable)
j. Has a professional archaeological assessment been
done for the tract? x _ Yes No
If yes, by whom? Institute for Historic 1 and
Cultural Research: East Carolina University
k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes x No
1. Are there wetlands on the site? Yes No
Coastal (marsh) x Other a
If yes, has a delineation bean conducted? Yes
(Aaadi do=menrarian, if a+bilabk)
See Attachment E and Attachment G
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
• A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims tide, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project.
See Appendix 1
• An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross -sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 112" by 11 " white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a
detailed description.)
See Attachment F and G
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue -line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if an
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
drawings.) A site or location map is a part of plat
requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed to
guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the

Form DCM-MP-1
site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.
• A Stormwater Certification, it one is necessary.
NIA
• .A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified snail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
Name See Attachment a
.Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
• A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permirtee, and issuing dates.
See Attachment H
• A check for S250 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
• A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas. N/ A
• A statement of compliance with the N.C.
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A - 1 to
10) If the project involves the expenditure of public
funds or use of public lands, attach a statement
documenting compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act. N/A
6. CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
I understand that any permit issued in response to this
application wi11 allow only the development described in
the application. The project will be subject to conditions
and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
grant permission to representatives of state and federal
review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to this
permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
project.
I further certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
rf -Ati
This is the �� day of
Print Name William T. COOUer. Jr.
Signature `_Z �C'(! !�(ef J.. V
Landowner or Awhori ed Agew
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
X DCM MP-2
Excavation and Fill Information
x DCM MP-3
Upland Development
DCM MP-4
Structures information
DCM MP-5
Bridges and Culverts
DCM MP-6
Marina Development
NOTE: Please sign and dare each attachment in the
space provided at the bottom of each form.

Force DCM-MP-2
EXCAVATION
AND FILL
(Except bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project_
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation or
fill activities. All values to be given in feet.
Access
channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Canal
Boat
basin
Boat
ramp
Rock
groin
Rock
breakwater
Other
(Excluding
thoreaw
subilizxion)
Average Fiaal
Ezstwg Project
Length VAdth Depth Depth
�'i�•.:
tiJM1'.4.
0-3 ft
0-3 f
See A
tachme
t
G
1. EXCAVATION
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below
�i A5[M in cubic yards rno " hrt,
Wetlands
b. Type of material to be excavated Overburden and
P nc a r
c. Does the area to be excavated include coastal
wetlands (marsh), submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAVs) or other wetlands? X Yes No
d. Highground excavation in cubic yards 300 ',,N bcy
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED
MATERLA L
a. Location of disposal area Backf ill into
Excavated Pit
b. Dimensions of disposal area 3 604 acrpq
c. Do you claim title to disposal arra?
X Yes No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner. Except as shown in DCM-M?-I:la
d. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? N7 A Yes No
If yes, where?
Revised 03195

Form 13CM-MP-2
e. Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
X Yes No
f. Does the disposal include any area in the water?
x Yes No
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION
a. Type of shoreline stabilization NIA
Bulkhead R.iprap
b. Length
N/A
c. Average distance waterward of MHW or NWL
NIA
d. Maximum distance waterward of MHW or NWL
NIA
e. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months
NIA
(Source of utfarmwion)
f. Type of bulkhead or riprap material
NIA
g. Amount of fill in cubic yards to be placed below
water level
(1) Riprap NIA
(2) Bulkhead backftll 1T1/d
h. Type of fill material N/A
i. Source of fill material N/A
4. OTHER FELL ACTIVITIES
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. WiII fill material be brought to site?
x Yes No
If yes,
(1) Amount of material to be placed in the
water _ N/A
(2) Dimensions of fill area 1. 604 arrPc
(3) Purpose of fill GvvSum is added to
mined clays for reclamation_ ,_
b. Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
x Yes No
If yes,
(1) Dimensions of fill area 2 5 3 a c r e s
(2) Purpose of fill Mine Pit Backf ill
and Reclamation
S. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled? Perimeter Canals.
Containment Dikes, and Vegetative
Cover
b. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)?
Bucket Wheel Excavator, Dredye, Dragline,
and other heavv equipment associated
with mining operations
c. WiII wetlands be crDssed in transporting equipment
to project site? Yes x No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
eaviror mental impacts.
PCS Phosphate - Aurora Mine Continuation
SignZaLre
ID 136 C,D
n.0
Revised 03/95

Form DCNI-M1?-3
UPLAND
DEVELOPMENT
(Construction and/or land disturbing activities)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-I. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
Type and number of buildings, facilities, units or
structures proposed Temporary mobile
Mine Support facilities
b. Number of lots or parcels
N/A
c. Density (give the number of residential units and the
units per acre) NIA
d. Size of area to be graded, filled or disturbed
including roads, ditches, etc. 3 , 604 acres
If the proposed project will disturb more than one
acre of land, the Division of Land Resources must
receive an erosion and sedimentation control plan at
least 30 days before land disturbing activity begins.
If applicable, has a sedimentation and erosion
control plan been submitted to the Division of Land
Resources? Yes x No
If yes, date submitted
f. List the materials (such as marl, paver stone,
asphalt, or concrete) to be used for paved surfaces.
Asphalt and oversized reject material--
g. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet of
MHW or NWL, or within 575 feet in the case of an
Outstanding Resource Water, to be covered by
impervious and/or built -upon surfaces, such as
pavement, buildings, rooftops, or to be used for
vehicular driveways or parking, 0%
h. Projects that require a CAMA Major Development
Permit may also require a Stormwater Certification.
Has a site development plan been submitted to the
Division of Environmental Management for review?
Yes X No
If yes, date submitted
i. Describe proposed method of sewage disposal.
N/A
j. Have the facilities described in Item i. above
received state or local approval? NIA
(Attach approprinle documcnta an)
k. Describe location and type of proposed discharges to
waters of the state (for example, surface runoff,
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial effluent,
"wash down" and residential discharges).
Groundwater, Stormwater, and Dredge Lake
Water through permitted NPDES Outfalls
I. Describe proposed drinking water supply source
(e.g. well, community, public system, etc.)
Bottled Water
m. WiIl water be impounded? x_ Yes No
If yes, how many acres? Variable and TpMi)ol ary
during land reclamation
n. If the project is a oceanfront development, when
was the lot(s) platted and recorded? N/A
PCS Phosphate — Aurora Mine Continuation
Applicant or Project Name
Signature' " r
/n 13n Ic a
Date
Revised 03/95

Attachment A
Owners of Property Adjacent to or Within
Proposed Mine Boundary --- May 2, 2000
1, Thomas Lee Bess and Elma Bess
8037 NC Hwy. 43S
Greenville, North Carolina 27858
* 2. Dr. Leon D. Bonner, III
211 Avalon Drive
Greenville, North Carolina 27858
* 3. Roy Tharrington, Jr.
2301 Gold Rock Road
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27804
* 4. Ellene Hall Williamson
c/o Ed Williamson
P. 0. Box 25011
SAFB, Illinois 62225
5. Wendy L. Bradley and Jeffrey T. Abbott
293 Mursue Street
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
6. Justin Lyle Perkins
457 Mauls Point Lane
Blounts Creek, North Carolina 27814
7. Paul Henry Newman
2995 Hickory Point Road
Aurora, North Carolina 27906
0
8. Nik G. Roelle and Barbara Roelle
1293 Hickory Point Road
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
* 9. Jimmie Ray Banks
Route 2, Box 246
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
* 10. Weyerhaeuser Company
P. 0. Box 1391
New Bern, North Carolina 28560
11, Richland Township Water District VII
P. 0. Box 1027
Washington, North Carolina 27889
* 12. North Carolina State University
P. 0. Box 8605
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695
*13. Pattie Miller Dixon
7097 Market Street Ext.
Washington, North Carolina 27889
* 14. William Thomas Watson
1226 Main Street Ext.
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
15. John Rice Britt Matthis, Jr.
6920 Wade Drive
Apex, North Carolina 27502
16. Patrick Thomas Shaheen
2411 Chaise Drive
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27804
17. David M. Mullis and Rochelle E. Mullis
2400 Surry Lane
Greenville, North Carolina 27858
18. Edward Allen Crozer
2952 Sandy Landing Road
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
19. Jarnes W. Berry and Betty R. Berry
2970 Sandy Landing Road
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
20. Louis Frank Gmeiner
71 Van Cedarfield Road
Colchester, Connecticut 06415
21. Stephen Michael Harrington
3040 Sandy Landing Road
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
22. Frederick Alfred and Betty A. Alfred
1053 Dunsford Place
Cary, North Carolina 27511
* Owners of property (or portions of property) within proposed permit area.

LEGEND
UVER©URDEN REMOVAL -lit STAGr, 0 ORE
011MOLRDEN REb101VAL—Nd STAGE ® LEAN ORE (UNMNED)
® COMMA BEE)— Also 2rrd STAGE ® CASTLE HkNE UN;T
Note: Bucket Wheel Excavator may be substituted with Dredge.
M"M ADWIN<>
f BUCKET WHEEL EXCAVATOR
I DRAGLINE MINING METHOD
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
SCALE: N.T.S. APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: KPC
DATE. 5/26/2000 FILE: SWE—DRAG.
4701 cotcsct ACRES DR"CP#174557
ZR Wit 2
wlunrrcrca, rloarH c*1ro x� �I�o�
I Ttt •1o%71t-ns7 Attachment B
WMAT"M Fief 110/l12-1131

Attachment C
Soils present on the NCPC Tract in the area of the PCS Phosphate -Aurora Mine
Continuation Project.
Altavista fine sandy loam Muckalee loam
Augusta fine sandy loam Pantego loam
Belhaven muck Portsmouth loam
Cape Fear fine sandy loam Roanoke fine sandy loam
Currituck muck Tomotley fine sandy loam
Dorovan mucky peat Wahee fine sandy loam

Attachment D
Biotic communities present on the NCPC Tract in the area of the PC Phosphate -
Aurora Mine Continuation Project.
Hardwood forest
Mixed pine -hardwood forest
Pine plantation
Pine forest
Bottomland hardwood forest
Brackish marsh complex
Agricultural land
Disturbed -herbaceous assemblage
Disturbed -shrub -scrub assemblage
Non-vegetated/maintained areas
Ponds
Creeks

WASHINGTO_ N C_OUNTY_
' F e
Beaufort Count- Nc
co&ry�` ,
l
?pML CO COUNT
LEGEND
MINE AND PLANT SITE
PROJECT AREA
0 4 6 12
SCALE IN MILES
PCS Phosphate - Aurora
Mine Continuation Project Location Map
Attachment F
Stele
As Shown
July 2000
a
3
3
rt
'n

Attachment E
PARTMEN7 OF THC- ARMY
1 1 N DISTRICT, CORPS Or ENG{NLL?RS
JUL 25 799% WC-TON.NOW1CAgo !NAZn4oZ.,690
By_�,�,rcC URYa Joly 23, 1997
Regulatory l3ranc}t
Action ID, 198800449 PCS Wetlands Detcrminstion
t&..iemry C, Furmess
PCS Phoaphate
Past Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27805
Dear Mr. Furness:
Deference; your lcrttcr received by our office on July 14, 1997, concerning the Department
of tho Army (DA) jurisdictional detcrrninatian ur6:rutkcn in the I4,200 acre project Brea as
identified in the Environmental Impact Statement for the PCS mining operation in Aurora,
Banufo[t County, North Carolina. Also ref rnnce our letter dated August 26, I992, to
Mr. Poto Moffett concerning our Previous determination of Serlion 404 jurisdiction and whit-11
includes a description of the subject Brea (copy encloacd). You have rquested a five YOU
extension of that determination to August 4, 2002,
The requested crtcnsioD is granted and these determinations ortlle limits orwaters tad
wcrlwids may be rolled upon until August 4, 2002, unless there is h change in the law or our
publishul regulation.
Jfyou have questions regarding this mattt;r, contact Mr. David rranl'.lin at
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
a
G. Wuync Wright
Enclosure Cltict Regulatory Branch

Attachment H
Prior Approvals for Mining and Related Activities Within the Project Tract'
Issuing
Type of
Identification
Date of
Agency
Apuroyal
Number
Approval
DLR
Mine Permit
7-1
12/22/98
DLR
Mine Permit
7-5
06/16/76 (transferred to
Texasgulfl
01 /31 /95 (latest renewal)
COE
Section 404
198800449
08/27/97
COE
Section 404/10
SAWC076-07-23-025
12/01/77 (renewed
through 12/31/86)
COE
Section 404/10
SAWC079-N-007-000017
l 0/10/78
Modification
DCM
CAMA Major Development
78-01
05/16/78
DCM
CAMA Major Development
79-85
5/31/85
and Dredge / Fill
DMF
Excavate / Fill
79-76
12/31/78
DEM
NPDES
NCO028126
07/14/76
DEM
NPDES
NCO003255
07/14/88
07/01 /00 (latest renewal)
DEM
Air Emission
2933
10/16/75
DEM
Water Withdrawal
2
12/31/74
23
07/06/76
23A1
11/01/77
37
03/22/82
38
04/26/82
3
05/08/92
0100007
10/01 /96
EPA
PSD (Air Quality)
------
07/17/80
DEM
401 Water Quality
1160
08/04/76
Certification

Attachment H, continued
Prior Approvals for Mining and Related Activities Within the Project Tract'
Issuing Type of Identification Date of
Agency Approval Number Approval
Town of Special Use (mining
Aurora and overburden pile)
DEM Well Construction
DEM 401 Water Quality
Certification
DWQ 401 Water Quality
Certification
DWQ Hwy 306 Relocation
Stormwater
Note: Permittee named as follows based on date of permit
01 /18/83
06-0110- WC-0107 1 1 /21 /84
06-0110-WC-0108 01 /10/85
WS0700531 12/31/99
1715 04/26/84
3092 05/06/97
SW7990304 12/07/99
Prior to March 3, 1986: North Carolina Phosphate Corporation
March 3, 1986 to June 20, 1995: TexasguIf Inc.
.Tune 20, 1995 to present: PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
a Does not include general authorizations, such as Corps of Engineers nationwide permits, or written confirmation
of the applicability of such authorizations. Does not include all renewals, extensions, and modifications of
authorizations.

PCs
PhosphateI&N-NI.A U R O R A
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
P.O. BOX 48. AURORA, NC U.S.A. 27BO6 DIRECT: [phone] FAX: [phone]
William T. Cooper, Jr.
Vice PresidendGenerei Manager
Phosphate Production
November 10, 2000
David M. Lekson, P.W.S. kF CE1VP7FD
Chief, Washington Regulatory Field Office NOV 1 4 20-0
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers RHI1 NATO WY 1*oA ;N
P. 0. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 28889-1000
Subject: PCS Phosphate Request for Mine Continuation Permit - Response to
information request November 8, 2000
Dear Mr. Lekson:
The following information is provided in response to the information requested in your
phone conversation with Jeff Furness on November 8, 2000.
1. Pro osed im act too en water and SAV
The proposed activity will affect forty-nine (49) acres of open water (reference
the creeks category in the legend of Attachment G of the permit application). The
affect to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is the same as the open water
quantity because SAVs are present during a portion of the year in all of the
identified open waters. "Submerged aquatic macrophytes found in open waters
include primarily widgeon grass (Ruppia rnaritima), with Eurasian water-zrulfoil
(Myriophyllum spicatum) and horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris) also
occurring" (P- 4-29 of FEIS, August, 1996)
(Ceratophyllurn demersum) was found during the I998 stream hornwort
program. monitoring
2. Revised bra hie resentation of Attachment G
Attachment G, "PCS Phosphate -Aurora Mine Continuation Wetland Delineation"
has been revised to show the outer boundary in a bold solid line font, In additi
the graphic is provided in 11 x 17 format. on,

�. Time frame for mining the remainder of Alternative E
Current mine plan projections indicate the completion of phosphate ore recovery
within the Alternative E permit boundary in 2009. Development activities to
provide access to this area require surface impacts prior to the actual mining of
the phosphate ore. Current plans indicate that development activities, primarily
land clearing, that impact surface features will be completed in 2006 to 2007.
Please note that these schedules are based on projected market requirements and
ore recovery which may vary.
As per your recommendation, we are preparing the CAMA permit application package to
be sent to the Division of Coastal Management and the 401 Water Quality Certification
application package to be sent to the Division of Water Quality.
We look forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions please
do not hesitate to call Ross Smith at 252-322-8270 or Jeff Furness at 252-322-8249.
Sincerely,
William T. Cooper, Jr.
Vice President/General Manager Phosphate Production
PCS Phosphate (Aurora)

LEGEND
1
CREEKS (49 AC)
47% W 47% WETLAND (61 AC)
a
?
2
BRACKISH MARSH COMPLEX (82 AC)
WETLAND (2,530 AC)
s
a
3
BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD FOREST (117 AC)
UPLAND (1,074 AC)
It r1
4
DISTURBED — HERBACEOUS ASSEMBLAGE (219 AC)
CANALS
s
5
DISTURBED — SHRUB — SCRUB ASSEMBLAGE
(616 AC)
U PCS PHOSPHATE —AURORA MINE: CONTINUATION (3,604 AC)
I CJ
6
PINE PLANTATION (780 AC)
s
s
7
HARDWOOD FOREST (191 AC)
e
e
8
MIXED PINE — HARDWOOD FOREST (291 AC)
s s
e
9
PINE FOREST (107 AC)
p
J f
12
PONDS (17 AC)
s J
a
tr
a
? J
a
.T 1
a
J
1 1
1 e
p g
0 f
� 1
d
J s ° Js'�` e
3
5
1 U
g
� a
4
rz s
a
.o
e
s
a
� 0
i
e oa
1 t a
6 tr $
s
l ?
D 1 s D 7
s
,
J
'
a
s
s
Q
4
1
J g l 2
34
4 4'4
Z 1 r
ATTACHME
r
r a
s
PCS PHOSPHATE---AURORANMINE CONTINUATION
'
*
WETLAND DELINEATION
7
B
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
e
2
1
a a
�
4
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: KPC
DATE: 6/ 12/2000 KSK FILE: F—WET
s Q
20D0
4000
CP# 1 745.57
j�
SCALE IN FEET
L70lI COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
ZR SUITE 2
WIILIIlGTDN, NORTH CAROUNA m403
`�•!
IRCORPORATEO TEL
EWAI92-2253
r wr � lwm FAX 410%Sf12-9135

Re: [Fwd: Limestone Addition Letter]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Limestone Addition Letter]
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 15:31:36 -0500
From: Charles Gardner <Charles. Gardner@ncmai 1. net>
Organization: Division of Land Resources
To: Jeff Furness <[e-mail]>
CC: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>, Floyd Williams <Floyd,[e-mail]>,
Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>
Jeff, I've reviewed your and Tracy's e-mail and the attached PCS draft memo of
11/17/2000 from J.D. Robinson to T.L. Baker. In response to your request,
this e-mail message serves as approval by my office for a one week trial of
the proposed test as it relates to your Mining Permit.
I appreciate your efforts to buffer the current acidity problem at the blend
site, and I hope the test is successful.
Best regards,
Charles Gardner
Tracy Davis wrote:
> Charles, Jeff called me this morning about the information provided
> below (and the attached internal PCS memo). I told him I would forward
> the information to you for your consideration. My recommendation is to
> grant approval of the one week trial for this activity ... you could do
> this via an email directly to Jeff. He asked if he could have "verbal
> approval" before Thanksgiving. Thanks. Tracy
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Type: Microsoft MHTML Document 5.0 (message/rfc822)
> Part 1.2 Encoding: 7bit
> Download Status: Not downloaded with message
> Name: Tracy.Davis.vcf
> Type: VCard (text/x-vcard)
> Tracy.Davis.vcf Encoding; 7bit
> Description: Card for Tracy Davis
> Download Status: Not downloaded with message
lha- les_Gardner. P.G. P.E. Bch rles. r n r ncmail
State Geologist and Director
N.C. Division of Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1 of 2 11 /21/2000 4:05 PM

[Fw4} LimastdVe Addition Letter]
Subject: [Fwd: Limestone Addition Letter]
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:37:59 -0500
From: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
To: Charles Gardner <[e-mail]>
CC: Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>, Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>,
Jeff Furness <[e-mail]>
Charles, Jeff called me this morning about the information provided
below (and the attached internal PCs memo). I told him I would forward
the information to you for your consideration. My recommendation is to
grant approval of the one week trial for this activity ... you could do
this via an email directly to Jeff. He asked if he could have "verbal
approval" before Thanksgiving. Thanks. Tracy
Subject: Limestone Addition Letter
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:55:19 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Dear Tracy:
As we spoke about on the phone, we are currently experiencing a sand scour
area in the mine where there is very little clay available to be used to
blend with gypsum for land reclamation. This has resulted in the pH of the
blend to drop into the 3 range. We have countered the problem by hauling
clay from another area and adding it to the blend tank, however we still
would like to raise the pH some more. We propose to add agricultural
limestone to the blend tank, and would like approval for a 1 week trial to
see how it works.
After the trial, we will report to you the results, and if they are
positive, ask you for more formal approval to add limestone on an as -needed
basis if we run into this situation again in the future.
Attached to this e-mail is a memo from John Robinson to Terry Baker
outlining the details of the test. Thank you for your prompt consideration
of this request.
Sincerely,
Jeff Furness
----- Forwarded by Jeff Furness/EnvA/Aurora/Phosphate/PCS on 11/21/00 11:07
AM -----
Terry Baker
To: Jeff
11/21/00 Furness/EnvA/Aurora/Phosphate/PCS@PCS
08:28 AM cc:
Fax to:
Subject: Limestone Addition Letter
FYI and comment.
----- Forwarded by Terry Baker/EnvA/Aurora/Phosphate/PCS on 11/21/00 08:29
1 of 2 11121 /2000 11:43 AM

[Fwc4 Limes" Addition Letter]
ITu�
John Robinson
Sent by: John To: Barrie
Robinson Winn/Torv/Aurora/Phosphate/PCSQPCS, Terry
Baker/EnvA/Aurora/Phosphate/PCS@PCS
CC:
11/20/00 Fax to:
04:43 PM Subject: Limestone Addition Letter
Please review the attached letter and let me know what else we should add.
(See attached file: LIMESTONEADD.doc)
J. D. Robinson
Superintendent Mill
E-Mail jrobinsonepcsphosphate.com
Name: LIMESTONEADD.doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
DLIMESTONEADD.doc Encoding: base64
Description: Microsoft Word 4
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
Mr. Tracy E. Davis, P.E. <Tracy.Dayis&cmail.nel>
State Mining Specialist
Division of Land Resources - Land Quality Section
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
2 of 2 11/21/2000 11:43 AM

PCS
Phosp teft memo
DRAFT
Date November 17, 2000
To T. L. Baker Location Aurora
From J. D. Robinson Location Aurora
Subject Limestone Addition to Blend Trial
Based on test work completed by Technical Services, limestone addition to the gypsum/clay blend
tank will increase the pH of the blend mixture. It is recommended that limestone addition be
tested along with the supplemental clay addition for a one -week trial. This trial will confirm the
ability of the limestone to provide additional neutralization of the gypsum in periods of low clay
availability. The trial will also let us evaluate the handling characteristic of the limestone material
and any other special needs should the limestone addition be necessary in the future. The test will
be conducted in conjunction with the current supplemental clay addition at the blend tank.
Test work performed by Technical Services has indicated that addition of limestone at a 75 tons
per day rate will provide sufficient neutralization to reach an average neutralization of 5.5 pH.
This is in addition to the current supplement of 60 tons per hour of Yorktown clay. In order to
confirm the bench scale neutralization and determine and handling concerns it is necessary to
conduct a one week trial.
We propose to add approximately 75 tons per day of High Calcium Ag Lime to the blend tank. It
is proposed to ship the material in dump trucks from the manufacturing facility to a ramp near the
blend tank. The material will be added to the blend tank by a back hoe that is currently positioned
at the blend tank for adding the Yorktown clay.
We should seek permission for this one -week trial. If the material performs satisfactorily we
should seek permission to add this material or similar substitute on an as needed basis.
Please don't hesitate to call me if additional questions arise.
J. D. Robinson
Supt. NO
cc: W. T. Cooper
M. T. Harris
E. B. Winn
D. Millman
D. L. Hill

7
PCS
Phosphate AURORA
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
P.O. BOX 46, AURORA, NC U.S.A. 27806
June 29, 2000
Mr. Charles Gardner, Director
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Gardner:
JUL 3 '00
DN. LAW P�
As required by our Mining Permit No. 7-1, enclosed are the descriptions of reclamation
activities for the first half of 2000, and the reclamation plans for the last half of 2000.
Also enclosed with the descriptions are support maps which visually depict the activities
and plans.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely, cl
"4`efr
Je rey C. Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
JCF:PW0
Attachments
PC- Floyd Williams - DLR, WaRO
(w/ attach.)
T. J. Regan, Jr.
(w/ attach.)
W. T. Cooper, Jr.
(w/ attach.)
W. A. Schimming
(w/ attach.)
M. T. Harris / D. J. Millman
(w/ attach.)
R. K. Jenner
(w/ attach.)
I. K. Gilmore / W. R. Walker
(w/ attach.)
T. L. Baker / 12-04-002-02
(w/ attach.)
00-14-000
(w/o attach.)

PCS Phosphate - Mine Site Reclamation
Actual Reclamation for the first half of 2000
(January 2000 -- June 2000)
R-1
Continued monitoring of tree growth in this area was done. Dr. Sieve Broome is
evaluating the growth for reference as additional areas are planted.
R-2
The ditches were cleaned out in this area to facilitate continued drying and consolidation.
A line of tree saplings was planted along the southeast perimeter. This line consisted of
cottonwood, green ash, sycamore, and sweetgum trees. Additional area was chopped to
cut down vegetation and disk harrowed in preparation for fall planting of cover crop.
Tree growth monitoring continued for comparison with the tree growth in the R-I area.
R-3
The ditches were cleaned out in this area to facilitate continued drying and consolidation.
A line of tree saplings was planted along the northern area. This line consisted of
cottonwood, green ash, sycamore, and sweetgum trees. Water levels were controlled
using an outlet valve that discharges into the 007 outfall canal. Water quality continued
to be monitored. This area continues to dry and consolidate.

Actual Reclamation for the first half of 2000
(January 2000 — June 2000)
CONTINUED
R-4
Water levels of the existing ponded area were controlled using the pumps located in R4.
Water quality continued to be monitored as the water was transferred to R-3. This area
continues to dry and consolidate.
R-5
Water levels were drawn down and controlled using the pump installed in R-5. Water
quality monitoring continued as the water was transferred to R-4. This area continued to
dry and consolidate.
R-6
Occasional dredge spoil and sand tailings waters were discharged into this area during
this period.
R-7
Blend and occasionally sand tailings waters were discharged into this area during this
period.
G-2
Reclamation of Gypsum Stack 2 was started during the last period. No gypsum was
removed during this period due to concentrating on G-6. Some initial shaping of the outer
slopes was done.
G-3/4
Buildup of Gypsum Stack 3/4 continued during this period.
G-5
There was no activity on Gypsum Stack 5 during this period_
G-6
Removal of gypsum to the blend from Gypsum Stack 6 continued during this period.

Actual Reclamation for the first half of 2000
(January 2000 — June 2000)
CONTINUED
Whitehurst Creek
Continued monitoring of vegetation growth and water levels were done in this area. Tree
seedling planting was done on 46 acres of the upland area around Whitehurst Creek. The
species of trees included Green Ash, Sycamore, Loblo fly Pine, and Sweetgum.
Charles Tract
Continued :monitoring of tree growth and water levels were done in Clay Ponds 3, 4A,
5A, and 5B.

Legend
Trees
Cover Crop
Drying for Reclamation
Water
Active Mining Area
R-5 for Spoil
R-6 for Spoil
R-7 Blend Placement
Dredge Activity
Sand Placement
Trees Planted
F- Chopping and Plowing
for Planting
------------- Dig and Clean Ditches
for Drainage
Active
i6e.
M Ain
V.
"'N
T"M
go
%

Planned Reclamation for the second half of 2000
(July 2000 — December 2000)
R-1
Continued monitoring of tree growth in this area is planned. Dr_ Broome will be
evaluating the growth for reference as additional areas are planted.
R-2
In the areas that have been chopped and plowed, spraying for weed control, disking and
cover crop planting is to be done. The cover crop to be planted consists of winter rye
with ladino clover, sweet clover, and alfalfa.
Tree growth monitoring will continue for comparison with the tree growth in the R-1
area. Water quality will continue to be monitored.
R3
Additional acreage is to be chopped and stomped to firm up the surface. These areas are
to be plowed, sprayed for weed control, disked, and planted with cover crop. The cover
crop to be planted consists of winter rye with ladino clover, sweet clover, and alfalfa.
Water quality will continue to be monitored.

Planned Reclamation for the second half of 2000
(July 2000 - December 2000)
R-4
The ditches are to be cleaned out and extended in this area to facilitate continued drying
and consolidation. Acreage is to be chopped and stomped to firm up the surface. These
areas are to be plowed, sprayed for weed control, disked, and planted with cover crop.
The cover crop to be planted consists of winter rye_ with ladino clover, sweet clover,. and
alfalfa.
Water levels of the existing ponded area will continue to be controlled using the pumps
located in R4. Water quality will be monitored as the water is transferred to R-3.
R-S
Sand tailings will continue to be placed along the north side of R-5 during the first part of
this period. Process water from R-6 will be transferred into the process water canal.
Upon completion of the sand placement activities the process water will be flushed out
and stormwater runoff will be returned to R-4. Water quality will be monitored. This
area will continue to dry and consolidate.
R-6
Sand tailings will continue to be placed along the east side of R-6. Process water from R-
7 will continue to be transferred through R-6. This area will continue to dry and
consolidate around the inactive areas of the perimeter.
R-7
Blend and sand tailings water will continue to be placed in this area during the last half of
2000.
G-2
Reclamation of Gypsum Stack 2 will continue as blend rates allow. Some shaping of the
outer slopes will continue.
Whitehurst Creek
Continued monitoring of vegetation growth and water levels will be done in this area.
Chskrles Tract
Continued monitoring of vegetation growth and water levels will be done in this area.
Preliminary planning work will be done for the construction of the final outfall which
will establish drainage for the remaining ponds.

w1
4`
• ,��� Z R
E
INCORPORATED
4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
%f- '�7
4709 COLLEGE A RES D IVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
czrWllm®aol.com
15 August 2000
Mr. Tom Augspurger
AM 2 5 '00
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service W. LAND F,
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Re: Response to request for additional information on "Final Report for the Cadmium and
Other Metals Study on and Adjacent to PCS Phosphate Reclamation Areas"
Dear Mr. Augspurger:
Enclosed please find Dr. Terry Logan's response to USFWS preliminary comments on
the above -referenced report. This information was prepared by Dr. Logan in response to your
e-mail request for additional information to PCS Phosphate dated 8 March 2000. Responses
by Dr. John Trefry were provided to you under separate cover dated 21 July 2000. Should
you have questions concerning this information or the information provided by Dr. Trefry,
please do not hesitate to call.
KSK/tet
Enclosure
cc: (all with enclosure)
David Lekson - USACE
David Franklin - USACE
Charles Gardner - NCDLR
John Dorney - NCDWQ
Lee Pelej - USEPA, Region IV
Frank McBride - NCWRC
Sincerely,
CZR INCORPORATED
Kent S. Karriker
Senior Environmental Scientist
ct,V /' go
5P
140 INTRACOASTAL POINTE DRIVE . SUITE 301 . JUPITER,FLORIDA 33477-5064
TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] . czrjupOaol.com

1p

4
•
Mr. Tom Augspurger
15 August 2000
page two
William Wescott - NCWRC
John Trefry - PIT
Terry Logan - OSU
T. J. Regan - PCS Phosphate
W. A. Schimming - PCS Phosphate
W. T. Cooper - PCS Phosphate
M. T. Harris 1 I. K. Gilmore - PCS Phosphate
D. J. Millman 1 R. Jenner - PCS Phosphate
T. L. Baker - PCS Phosphate 1 00-17-000
J. C. Furness - PCS Phosphate / 00-14-000
J. M. Hudgens - CZR
15-04-006-08

Terry Logan's response to USFWS preliminary comments:
1. All concentrations (soil, plant, and animal tissue) are reported on a dry weight basis.
2c. All QA/QC data is included below.
Discussion
Soils Total Metals (Table 2)
All samples were analyzed in duplicate with the mean value of the duplicates reported. A
reagent blank and a standard reference soil were included for every four soil samples.
The standard soil is one that has been prepared and used in the OSU Environmental
Science Lab for the past 20 years. Cadmium, chromium and zinc were measured on the
flame AA. Arsenic and any samples that were below detection limits for Cd on the flame
AA were then analyzed on the graphite furnace AA.
Method Detection Limits (mg/kg)
Flame AA
Graphite Furnace AA
Cd
1.00
0.040
Cr
2.00
Zn
5.0
As
0.200
Soil Total Metals Reference Standard. Mean of 14 replications and standard
deviation. (mg/kg)
Cd
Cr
Zn
As
Mean
0.51
51
129
BDL
Standard Deviation
0.05
2
6
NA
Procedural Blanks 5
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL = below detection limit
Plant Cd Concentrations (Table 3)
For each set of four plant samples the samples were analyzed in duplicate, the mean of
each sample concentration was used to calculate the mean of three plant species as
reported in Table 3. A lettuce and corn stalk standard and a reagent blank were included
with each digestion set. The lettuce and corn stalk standards were prepared in the
Environmental Science Lab at OSU and used as evaluative tools for the past 10 years.
The graphite furnace AA was used for all Cd evaluations. The procedural blanks were all
below detectable limit.

Plant Cd Concentration Reference Standards. Mean of 22 replications and
standard deviation. (mg/kg)
Corn stalk
Lettuce
Mean
0.052
0.528
Standard deviation
0.043
0.127
Tables 5, 6, and 7 are organism tissue Cd concentrations, Because sample size of many
tissues was limited, the sample analysis was not duplicated. A NIST standard reference
material (Bovine Liver) and a reagent blank was included for each set of 14 samples.
Standard Reference Material 1577b Bovine Liver (0.44 mg/kg Cd certified mean)
and method blank. Mean of 11 replications and standard deviation. (mg/kg)
Mean
Standard deviation
NIST Bovine liver
0.46
0.08
Method blank
0.03
0.04
The instruments used for analysis of the soil, plant and organism tissue were calibrated at
the beginning of the session, using 3 to 5 standards, checked during the session (every 10
samples) and checked at the end of the session. Sample reading was repeated if the
standards used for calibration were not giving the correct reading.

k
�I
ZR
INCORPORATED�lsl
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
3YTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
ENVIRONMENTALCONSULTANTS y' TEL [phone]
5� FAX [phone]
czrwllm®aoI.com
21 July 2000
Mr. Tom Augspurger
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Re: Request for additional information on "Final Report for the Cadmium and Other Metals
Study on and Adjacent to PCS Phosphate Reclamation Areas"
Dear Mr. Augspurger:
Enclosed please find the following new appendices to the above -referenced report:
• Appendices 1 and 2 for Attachment A (source materials report), and
• Appendices 1 through 5 for Attachment B (water/sediment/aquatic organisms report).
These were prepared by Dr. John Trefry of the Florida Institute of Technology in response to
your e-mail request for additional information to PCS Phosphate dated 8 March 2000.
Our intent was to provide all of the requested information at once; however, we have
not yet received a part of the information that must come from Dr. Terry Logan at Ohio State
University. Therefore, we are sending Dr. Trefry's information now and will forward Dr.
Logan's information as soon as it is available. Should you have questions concerning the
enclosed appendices, please do not hesitate to call.
Enclosures
Sincerely,
CZR I C R ORAT
r
Kent S. Karriker
Senior Environmental Scientist
$�A
140 INTRACOASTAL POINTE DRIVE . SUITE 301 . JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5064
TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • czrJup®aol.com

Mr. Tom Augspurger
21 July 2000
Page 2
cc: (all with enclosures)
David Lekson - USACE
David Franklin - USACE
Charles Gardner - NCDLR
John Dorney - NCDWQ
Lee Pelej - USEPA, Region IV
Frank McBride - NCWRC
William Wescott - NCWRC
John Trefry - FIT
Terry Logan - OSU
T. J. Regan - PCS Phosphate
W. A. Schimming - PCS Phosphate
W. T. Cooper - PCS Phosphate
M. T. Harris 1 I. K. Gilmore - PCS Phosphate
D. J. Millman 1 R. Jenner - PCS Phosphate
T. L. Baker - PCS Phosphate 1 00-17-000
J. C. Furness - PCS Phosphate / 00-14-000
J. M. Hudgens - CZR
15-04-006-08
file: 1745.46

APPENDICES 1 AND 2 FOR ATTACHMENT A
(SOURCE MATERIALS REPORT)

U77-DI►�i I"
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) data for the source material metal analyses.

Results for the Marine Sediment Reference Materials (SRMs) BCSS-1 and MESS-2. Mean and
(Standard Deviation). NRC is the National Research Council of Canada.
SRM Ag AI As Ca Cd Cr Cu Fe Hg K
(Ng/9) (°!o) (Pgl9) M (Ng/S) (Ng/g) (NgIg) M (Pglg) M
NRC BCSS-1 0.08 6.27 13.8 0.57 0.28 112 18.1 3.37 - 1.78
This Study - - - - - - - - _ -
Certified 0.11 6.26 11.1 0.54 0.25 123 18.5 3.29 - 1.80
Mean
Standard (0.03) (0.22) (1.4) (0.05) (0.04) (14) (2.7) (0.10) - (0.03)
Deviation
NRC MESS-2 - - - - -
- - - 0.089 -
This Study - - - -
- - - 0.092 -
Certified - _ _ _ _
_ _ - 0.092 -
Mean
Standard
- - - -
- - - (0.009) -
Deviation
SRM
Mg
Mo
Na
Ni
Pb
Si
Th
U
Zn
TOC
N
(Ng/g)
N
(pg/g)
WIM
N
(Ng/g)
(Ng/9)
(pg/g)
M
NRC BCSS-1
1.42
2.3
2.00
56.0
22.0
29A
8.2
2.5
112
2.07
This Study
-
-
-
-
-
=
-
-
-
2.17
Certified
1.47
1.9*
2.02
55.3
22.7
30.9
9*
3*
119
2.19
Mean
Standard
(0.14)
-
(0.16)
(3.6)
(3.4)
(0.5)
-
-
(12)
(0.09)
Deviation
* Reference Value, not Certified.

Procedural Blanks.
Sample
Ag Al
(ng/mL) (VrnL)
As
(nWrnQ
Ca
(ng/rnQ
Cd
(ng7mL)
Cr
(ng/mL)
Cu
(nWmL)
Fe
(ng/mQ
Hg
(ng/mL)
K
(nglmL)
Blank 1
Blank 2
N.D. N.D.
- -
0.16
-
N.D.
-
0.16
-
N.D.
-
N.D.
-
N.D.
-
N.D.
N-D.
N.D.
-
Sample
Mg Mo
(ng/mL) (ng/mL)
Na
(ng/mL)
Ni
OgJmL)
Pb
(ng/mL)
Si
(ng/mL)
Th
(ng/rnQ
U
(ng/mQ
Zn
(ng/mL)
TOC
(pglg)
Blank i
Blank 2
N.D. N.D.
- -
0.01
-
N.D.
-
N.D.
_
3.2
_
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Analytical Precision as RSD**.
Sample
Ag Al
As�--
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
K
Gyp 3/4 #3
Blend #3
6.3 5.7
- -
0.0
_
5.7
-
10.6
-
7.3
_
10.9
_
0.0
_
-
_
13.3
_
Sample
Mg Mo
Na
Ni
Pb
Si
Th
U
Zn
TOC
Gyp 3/4 #3
Blend #3
10.4 2.8
- -
0.0
-
14.1
-
4.0
-
-
0.8
2.2
-
0.9
-
1.0
-
-
-
** RSD = (standard deviation 1 mean) X 100
Method Detection Limit (MDL).
Ag Al
Og/J) N
As
(pg/g)
Ca
N
Cd
(pg/g)
Cr
(1a91g)
Cu
(pg/9)
Fe
N
Hg
(pg/g)
K
M
MDL**"
0.01 0.006
0.1
0.05
0.002
6.7
1
0.001
0.001
0.01
Mg Mo
(°/a) (pg/g)
Na
N
Ni
W/O
Pb
(p9/9)
Si
M
Th
(pg/g)
U
(pg/g)
Zn
(pg/g)
TOC
M
MDL***
0.001 0.03
0.01
0.4
0.08
0.5
0.05
0.08
1
0.02
*** Based on 0.45 grams of sediment.

Percent Spike Recovery.
Source
Element
Spike
Spike Recovered
Percent Recovery
Sample
(ng)
(ng)
BWE Spoil #3
Ag
1.0
0.8
80*
Gyp 314 #3
AI
10000
9590
95.9
BWE Spoil #3
As
1.0
0.8
80•
BWE Spoil #2
Ca
1000
1020
102
Sand #3
Cd
100
110
110
Sand #1
Cr
1000
970
97.0
Blend #3
Cr
1000
964
96.4
Gyp 314 #1
Cu
500
497
99.4
Gyp 3/4 #1
Fe
1000
980
98.0
Gyp 314 #1
Hg
2.50
2.27
90.8
BWE Spoil #3
Hg
2.50
2.00
80.0*
Sand #3
Hg
2.50
2.33
93.2
Blend #1
K
500
510
102
Gyp 3/4 #2
Mg
1000
967
96.7
Sand #3
Mo
100
110
110
Gyp 3/4 #3
Na
250
230
92.0
Sand #3.
Ni
100
110
110
Sand #3
Pb
100
105
105
Gyp 314 #3
Si
2500
2250
90.0
Sand #3
Th
100
115
115"
Sand #1
zn
250
238
95.2
" Very low concentrations.

APPENDIX 2.
Evaluation of quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) results
for the source material metal analyses.

The QA/QC results from the source study are evaluated based on the Data Quality Objectives
(DQOs) listed below in Table 1.
All initial calibrations used met the requirement that r be greater than 0.999.
All continuing calibrations were within a 10% deviation.
Results for the SRMs met the DQOs. Values for 15 of 16 metals were within the certified limits
established by the National Research Council of Canada. Concentrations of As in BCSS-1 were
2.7 µg/g higher (24% higher) than certified values of 11.1 :± 1.4 µg/g. The DQO is set for ±20%
with >85% of analytes meeting specification. With 15/16 correct answers, 94% of the SRM
values ;net specifications. The slightly higher As levels in BCSS-1 result from matrix effects
and the spike correction used.
None of the blanks exceeded 5x the MDLs. Reviewers should note that blanks are in ng/mL
(ppb) and MDLs are in µg/g (ppm). Therefore, the Cd blank of 0.16 ng/mL (ppb) would be
0,00016 µg/mL (ppm). Corrected to µg/g material, the blank is roughly equivalent to 0.007 µglg
and 3.5x greater than the MDL for the sediment method. This does not affect any Cd data and is
partially an artifact of background in le 7CP-MS system at very low levels. The very small Si
blank is insignificant relative to Si levels in the source material.
Matrix spikes showed recovery within 90-110% for every element/sample except those where the
metal concentration in the sample was very low. The choice of samples to use for spike recovery
is random. For example, concentrations of Ag in the BWB spoil were only 0.03 µg/g and the
spike recovery was only 80%. Such absolute differences in concentrations were not a factor in
using and interpreting the data from the source study.
Analytical precision averaged 7% (RSD) with no values greater than 25%.

Table 1 Data Quality Objectives and Criteria
Element or
Sample Type
Minimum Frequency
Data Quality
Objective/Acceptance Criteria
Initial Calibration Prior to every batch 3-5 point curve depending on the
of samples element and a blank. Standard
curve correlation coefficient
r z 0.999 for all analytes.
Continuing Must end every
Calibration analytical sequence;
for flame, repeat all
standards every 5
samples; for graphite
furnace.and ICP-MS
recheck standard
after every 10 samples
% RSD s 15% for all analytes
SRMs from NRC One per batch of Values must be within ± 20% of
of Canada 20 samples accepted values for >85% of the
certified analytes and within t
25% for Hg.
Method Blank One per batch of No more than 2 analytes to
20 samples exceed 5x MDL unless analyte
not detected in associated
sample(s)
Matrix Spike and One per batch of %RSD 80-120%
Spike Method Blank 20 samples
Lab Duplicate One per batch of RSD <25% for 65% analytes
20 samples

APPENDICES 1 THROUGH 5 FOR THE WATERISEDIMENVAQUATIC
ORGANISMS REPORT
(ATTACHMENT B)

APPENDIX 1.
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) data for the sediment metal analyses.

Results for the Marine Sediment Standard Reference Material (SRM) BOSS-1. Mean and (Standard
Deviation). NRC is the National Research Council of Canada.
Ag
SRM W9/9)
AI
M
As
(pg/g)
Cd
(pg/g)
Cr
(pg/g)
Cu
Wig)
Fe
N
Mo
(pg/g)
Se
(>J9/9)
Zn
(pg/g)
NRC BCSS-1 0.13
6.18
11.2
0.24
124
19.5
3.24
1.91
0.49
116
This Study 0.12
6.26
10.7
0.23
120
19.5
3.32
1.94
0.49
119
0.09
6.17
12.2
0.24
111
18.5
3.22
2.05
0.47
114
-
-
-
0.23
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.26
-
-
-
-
-
-
Certified Mean 0.11 6.26 11.1 0.25 123 18.5 3.29 1.9` 0.43 119
Standard (0.03) (0.22) (1.4) (0.04) (4) (2.7) (0.10) - (0.06) (12)
Deviation
Reference Value, not Certified.
Procedural Blanks,
Sample Ag Ai As Cd Cr Cu Fe Mo Se Zn
(nglmL) (nglmL) (nglmL) (nglmL) (nglmQ (nglmL) (rVmL) (ng/mL) (nglmL) (nglmL)
Blank 1 0.08 N.D. N.D.
N.D. N.D. N.D. 152 0.17 N.D. 19
Blank 2 0.04 N.D. N.D.
N.D. N.D. N.D. 152 0.04 N.D. 8
Blank 3 N.D. N.D. N.D.
0.02 N.D. N.D. N.D. 0.09 0.77 3
Blank 4 - - -
N.D. - - - - - -
Percent Spike Recovery.
Sample Element Spike Spike Recovered Percent Recovery
Station (ng) (ng)
1
Ag
1.00
0.92
92.0
6
Ag
1.00
0.94
94.0
R-3 North End
Ag
1.00
0.95
95.0
1
AI
10000
9760
97.6
3
Ai
10000
9140
91.4
R-3 North End
Ai
10000
9370
93.7

Percent Spike Recovery (continued).
Sample
Element
Spike
Spike Recovered
Percent Recovery
Station
(ng)
(ng)
1
As
10.0
9.0
90.0
1;
As
10.0
9.8
98.0
R-3 North End
As
10.0
9.4
94.0
1
Cd
125
117
93.6
3
Cd
125
125
100.0
8
Cd
0.250
0.218
87.2
R-3 North End
Cd
0.250
0.237
94.8
1
Cr
2500
2530
101.2
3
Cr
2500
2430
97.2
R-3 North End
Cr
2500
2510
100.4
1
Cu
250
255
102.0
3
Cu
250
248
99.2
R-3 North End
Cu
250
251
100.4
1
Fe
2500
2480
99.2
3
Fe
2500
2450
98.0
R-3 North End
Fe
2500
2400
96.0
1
Mo
5.00
4.79
95.8
6
Mo
5.00
5.11
102.2
R-3 North End
Mo
5.00
4.65
93.0
1
Se
10.0
9.1
91.0
6
Se
10.0
9.3
93.0
R-3 North End
Se
10.0
10.5
105.0
1
Zn
250
242
96.8
3
Zn
250
262
100.8
R-3 North End
Zn
250
242
96.8

Analytical Precision as RSD**.
Sample A AI As Cd Cr Cu Fe Mo Se Zn
Station 9
7 6.7 2.8 IA 0.0 2.8 3.8 2.8 2.8 1.8 2.8
17 = 12.9 2.8 6.1 23.6 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2
** RSD = (standard deviation / mean) X 100
Method Detection Limits (MDL).
Ag AI As Cd Cr Cu Fe Ma Se Zn
W/O M (PO/9) (Pgtg) (pg/g) (Ngtg) N (i /W (ug/g) (Pgtg)
MDL*** 0.01 0.006 0.1 0.002 6.7 1 0.001 0.03 0.03 1
**' Based on 0.45 grams of sediment.

APPENDIX Z.
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) data for the dissolved metal analyses.

Results for the Seawater Standard Reference Material (SRM) CASS-3 and Trace Metals in Elements
#1643d. Mean and (Standard Deviation). (NRC = National Research Council of Canada; NIST = National
Institute of Standards and Technology).
SRM As
(NJ/L)
Cd
(N9/L)
Cr
(p9fL)
Cu
(ug/t-)
Mo Zn
(pgAL) (p9/9)
NRC CASS-3 1.12
0.031
0.095
0.482
- 1.02
This Study 1.12
0.032
0.095
0.551
- 1.05
1.14
0.030
0.097
0.533
- 1.03
1.12
0.029
0.095
0.545
- 1.06
1.08
0.032
0.094
0.549
- 1.28
Certified Mean 1.09 0.030 0.092 0.517 8.95 1.24
Standard Deviation (0.07) (0.005) (0,006) (0.062) (0.26) (0.25)
NIST #1643d - - - - 113.9 This Study - - - - 112.5 -
Certified Mean 56.02 6.47 1&53 20.5 112.9 72.47
Standard Deviation (0.73) (0.37) (0.20) (3.8) (1.7) (0.65)
Procedural Blanks.
Sample
As
(ug/L)
Cd
(pg/L)
Cr
WIC)
Cu
(PA)
Mo
(ug/L)
Zn
(lit/l-)
Blank 1
N.D.
0.002
0.104
0.034
N.D.
0.086
Blank 2
N.D.
0.001
0.107
0.029
N.D.
0.117
Blank 3
N.D.
0.001
0.127
0.057
N.D.
0.125
Blank 4
N.D.
0.002
0.118
0.040
-
0.093
Analytical Precision as RSD*.
Sample Station As Cd Cr Cu Mo Zn
22 Surface 4.7 9A 9.4 2.1 0.0 1.6
23 Surface 4.2 7.4 7.9 1.7 0.0 0.5
* RSD = (standard deviation 1 mean) X 100

Percent Spike Recovery.
Sample
Station
Element
Spike
(ng)
Spike Recovered
(ng)
Percent Recovery
16
As
1590
1480
93.1
22
As
1620
1520
93.8
GWM 413
As
1640
1570
95.7
Archbell Point
As
1650
1530
92.7
16
Cd
12.0
12.4
103.3
22
Cd
14.4
13.6
94.4
GWM 4B
Cd
12.8
12.8
100.0
Archbell Point
Cd
9.6
10.4
108.3
16
Cr
81.2
80.8
99.5
22
Cr
81.6
86.0
105.4
GWM 4B
Cr
78.8
73.6
93.4
Archbell Point
Cr
80.0
82.0
102.5
16
Cu
200
182
91.0
22
Cu
203
184
90.6
GWM 4B
Cu
199
183
92.0
Archbell Point
Cu
200
199
99.5
3
MO
333
327
98.2
9
MO
572
569
99.5
Charles Tract #1
Mo
364
344
94.5
16
Zn
627
629
100.3
22
Zn
579
530
91.5
GWM 4B
Zn
587
641
109.2
Archbell Point
Zn
764
707
92.5

Method Detection Limits (MDL).
As Cd Cr Cu Mo Zn
(p9/L) (Ng/L) (Nt/L) (ICJ/L) (pg/L) (p91L)
MDL'i 0.008 0.001 0.005 0.003 0.13 0.10
Based on 400 ml aliquots for extracted metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu and Zn), and no dilution for Mo.

MIMMSA`I
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) for the particulate metal analyses.

Results for the Standard Reference Material (SRM) Buffalo River Sediment #2704 and Trace dements
in Water #1643d. Mean and (Standard Deviation). (NIST = National Institute of Standards and Technology).
SRM Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mo
Zn
(%)
(pg/g)
(pg/g)
(Pg/g)
(Pg/g)
(%)
W/O
(pg/g)
NIST #2704 6.01
23.9
3.67
136
99.6
4.09
3.5
434
This Study 6.13
24.2
3.61
139
100.6
4.16
3.5
443
5.95
23.8
3.65
139
99.5
4.08
4.4
446
6,09
24.0
3.60
138
101.9
4.17
3.8
444
6.05
23.7
3.59
132
101.3
4.14
4.6
443
Certified Mean 6.11 23.4 3.45 135 98.6 4.11 - 438
Standard Deviation (0.16) (0.8) (0,22) (5) (5.0) (0.11) - (12)
NIST #1643d - - - - - - 111.9 -
This Study - - - - - - 111.5 -
112.5 -
Certified Mean
- -
-
-
-
-
112.9
-
Standard Deviafion
- -
-
-
-
-
(1.7)
-
(Procedural Blanks.
Sample AI
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mo
Zn
(ng/mL)
(ng/mL)
(ng/mL)
(ng/mL)
(ng/mL)
(ng/mL)
(ng/mQ
(ng/mL)
Blank 1 N.D.
0.61
N.D.
0.05
0.17
30
0.05
20
Blank 2 N.D.
0.30
0.01
0.03
N.D.
N.D.
0.05
20
Blank 3 N.D.
0.56
N.D.
0.02
0.29
N.D.
0.13
20
Blank 4 N.D.
0.40
N.D.
N.D.
0.52
N.D.
N.D.
17
Method Detection Limits (MDL).
AI
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mo
Zn
N
W/O
(pg/g)
W/O
(Og/g)
(%)
Wig)
W/O
MDL* 0.02
5.5
0.05
0.5
0.7
0,02
0.7
35
* Based on 1 mg of suspended matter

Percent Spike Recovery.
Sample
Element
Spike
Spike Recovered
Percent Recovery
Station
(ng)
(ng)
3
AI
2500
2470
98.8
12
AI
2500
2540
101.6
20
Ai
1250
1170
93.6
23 Bottom
A]
1250
1240
99.2
4 Bottom
As
10.0
9.7
97.0
12
As
10.0
9.3
93.0
22 Surface
As
10.0
9.9
99.0
23 Bottom
As
10.0
10.2
102.0
4 Bottom
Cd
0.50
0.54
108.0
12
Cd
0.50
0.53
106.0
22 Surface
Cd
0.50
0.53
106.0
23 Bottom
Cd
0.50
0.54
108.0
4 Bottom
Cr
1.00
0.93
93.0
12
Cr
2.00
1.80
90.0
22 Surface
Cr
1.00
0.94
94.0
23 Bottom
Cr
1.00
0.91
91.0
4 Bottom
Cu
5.00
4.77
95.4
12
Cu
5.00
4.51
90.2
22 Surface
Cu
5.00
4.52
90.4
23 Bottom
Cu
5.00
4.55
91.0
3
Fe
500
459
91.8
12
Fe
2500
2400
96.0
20
Fe
1250
1190
95.2
23 Bottom
Fe
1250
1210
96.8

Percent Spike Recovery (continued).
Sample
Station
Element
Spike
(ng)
Spike Recovered
(ng)
Percent Recovery
4 Bottom
Mo
1.00
0.95
95.0
12
Mo
1.00
0.94
94.0
22 Surface
Mo
1.00
0.99
99.0
23 Bottom
Mo
1.00
0.96
96.0
3
Zn
125
120
96.0
12
Zn
125
114
91.2
20
Zn
125
130
104.0
23 Bottom
Zn
125
124
99.2
Analytical Precision as RSD**
Sample
Al
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mo
Zn
Station
16
2.7
1.0
5.2
7.2
2.7
6.4
10.9
0.6
22 Surface
9.6
1.6
7.3
1.9
0.3
2.8
0.0
6.8
22 Bottom
0.4
1.5
5.9
0.7
2.7
0.5
1.6
2.4
23 Surface
6.0
7.1
6.6
3.4
1.4
2.4
6.7
4.7
'* RSD = (standard deviation 1 mean) X 100

APPENDIX 4.
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) data for the tissue metal analyses.

Results for the Standard Reference Material (SRM) DORM-2 (Dogfish Muscle). Mean and (Standard
Deviation). (NRC = National Research Council of Canada).
SRM Ag
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Se
Zn
(N9/g)
(Pgfg)
(Pg1g)
(Ng/9)
(p9'9)
(pg/9)
W/O
(pg/g)
NRC DORM-2 0.043
18.9
0.045
30.0
2.48
136
1.44
24.1
This Study 0.036
18.5
0.049
32.8
2.30
134
1.40
25.1
0.031
18.8
0.045
29.8
2.27
137
1.36
24.2
0.034
17.4
0.042
29.7
2.31
144
1.34
24.6
0.034
18.4
0.046
31.2
2.37
133
1.48
24.4
0.034
18.2
0.046
31.1
2.18
135
1.45
25.4
Certified Mean 0.041 18.0 0.043 34.7 2.34 142 1.40 25.6
Standard Deviation (0.013) (1.1) (0,008) (5.5) (0.18) (10) (0.09) (2.3)
Procedural Blanks.
Sample
Ag
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Se
Zn
(ng/mL)
(ng/mL)
(ng/mL)
(ng/mL)
(ng/mL)
(ng/mL)
(ng/mL)
(ng/mL)
Blank 1
0.09
N.D.
0.01
0.26
N.D.
121
0.31
22
Blank 2
0.07
N.D.
0.01
0.30
N.D.
121
N.D.
30
Blank 3
0.04
N.D.
N.D.
0.29
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
27
Blank 4
0.05
N-D.
0.01
0.26
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
42
Blank 5
0.07
0.81
0.02
0.21
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
4
Blank 6
0.10
N.D.
0.02
0.19
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
4
Analytical Precision as RSD*.
Sample Station Organism Ag As Cd Cr Cu Fe Se Zn
12
make crab
1.9
3.5
B.3
5.7
3.1
2.7
13.1
0.0
Durham Creek
mate crab
4.6
11
5.4
1.3
4.3
2.9
2.1
1.1
Durham Creek
clams
6.9
0.9
7.5
2.8
1.4
3.4
5.7
0.6
Long Creek
Pumpkinseed
N.D.
7.9
6.3
2.8
6.5
6.7
4.7
1.6
Pamlico River
Longnose Gar
17.7
4.7
8.3
2.1
3.0
2.2
2.2
3.1
* RSD = (standard deviation / mean) X 100

Percent Spike Recovery.
Sample Station
Organism
Element
Spike
(ng)
Spike Recovered
(ng)
Percent Recovery
7A, Crab male
Ag
1.00
0.92
92.0
12, Crab male
Ag
1.00
0.91
91.0
Short Creek, Clam
Ag
1.00
0.91
91.0
Long Creek, Clam
Ag
1.00
0.93
93.0
Long Creek, Crab
Ag
1.00
0.95
95.0
Upper Bond Creek, Crab
Ag
1.00
0.90
90.0
7A, Crab male
As**
10.0
6.8
68.0
12, Crab male
As**
10.0
7.1
71.0
Short Creek, Clam
As**
20.0
15.4
77.0
Long Creek, Clam
As**
20.0
18.1
90.5
Long Creek, Crab
As
10.0
9.1
91.0
Upper Bond Creek, Crab
As
10.0
9.3
93.0
7A, Crab male
Cd**
0.250
0.195
78.0
12, Crab male
Cd`*
0.125
0.089
71.2
Short Creek, Clam
Cd
0.100
0.102
102.0
Long Creek, Clam
Cd
0.250
0.228
91.2
Long Creek, Crab
Cd
0.100
0.091
91.0
Upper Bond Creek, Crab
Cd
0.100
0.092
92.0
7A, Crab male
Cr
2.50
2.25
90.0
12, Crab male
Cr
2.50
2.33
93.2
Short Creek, Clam
Cr
1.00
1.08
108.0
Long Creek, Clam
Cr
1.00
0.94
94.0
Long Creek, Crab
Cr
1.00
0.90
90.0
Upper Bond Creek, Crab
Cr
1.00
0.97
97.0
** Metal concentrations reported from these tissue digests been corrected for percent spike recovery.

Percent Spike Recovery (continued).
Sample Station &
Organism
Element
Spike
(ng)
Spike Recovered
(ng)
Percent Recovery
7A, Crab male
Cu
500
479
95.8
12, Crab male
Cu
500
497
99.4
Short Creek, Clam
Cu
250
239
95.6
Long Creek, Clam
Cu
250
250
100.0
Long Creek, Crab
Cu
250
244
97.6
Upper Bond Creek, Crab
Cu
250
251
100.4
7A, Crab male
Fe
1000
1030
103.0
12, Crab male
Fe
1000
1010
101.0
Short Creek, Clam
Fe
1000
1050
105.0
Long Creek, Clam
Fe
1000
960
96.0
Long Creek, Crab
Fe
1000
995
99.5
Upper Bond Creek, Crab
Fe
1000
982
98.2
7A, Crab male
Se
10.0
10.6
106.0
12, Crab male
Se
10.0
10.2
102.0
Short Creek, Clam
Se
10.0
10.3
103.0
Long Creek, Clam
Se
10.0
10.8
108.0
Long Creek, Crab
Se
10.0
10.2
102.0
Upper Bond Creek, Crab
Se
10.0
10A
101.0
7A, Crab male
Zn
500
497
99.4
12, Crab male
Zn
500
475
95.0
Short Creek, Clam
Zn
250
251
100.4
Long Creek, Clam
Zn
250
241
96.4
Long Creek, Crab
Zn
125
115
92.0
Upper Bond Creek, Crab
Zn
125
117
93.6

Method Detection Limits (MDL).
Ag
(Nglg)
As
(N9lg)
Cd
(pg/g)
Cr
(pg/g)
Cu
(pg/g)
Fe
(Ngfg)
Se
(pg/g)
Zn
(pg/g)
MDL*** 0.002
0.029
0.0003
0.003
0.7
2.5
0.05
0.4
*;* Based on 0.5 grams of tissue (dry weight).

APPENDIX 5.
Evaluation of quality assurance and quality control (QAIQC) results for metal analyses.

The QA/QC results from the source study are evaluated based on the Data Quality Objectives
(DQOs) listed below in Table 1.
All initial calibrations used met the requirement that (r) be greater than 0.999.
All continuing calibrations were within a 10% deviation.
Sediment Metals.
Results for the sediment SRMs met the DQOs. All results were within the certified limits
established by the National Research Council of Canada (NRC).
None of the sediment metal blanks exceeded 5x the MDLs. Reviewers should note that blanks are
in ng/mL (ppb) and MDLs are in µg/g (ppm) and % (where 1 % equals 10,000 µg/g). Therefore, the
Ag concentration of Blank #1, at 0.08 ng/mL (ppb), would be 0.00008 µgiml, (ppm). Corrected to
µg/g material, the blank is roughly equivalent to 0.003 µg/g and 3x lower than the MDL for the
sediment method. The highest blank concentrations were observed for Fe, 152 ng/mL in Blanks #1
and #2. Converted to µg/g material, this concentration is roughly equivalent to 7 µg/g, and less than
the MDL value of 0.001% (10 µg/g). The blank concentrations for Cd, Mo, Se and Zn are all
similarly below their respective MDL values.
Matrix spike recoveries for the sediment samples were within the range of 90-110% for all elements
except Cd from Station 8 (87.2%). No spike correction was applied because the other spiked
samples all exceeded 90°/6 recovery for Cd.
Analytical precision from laboratory duplicates was better than 10% for all elements except Ag and
Cd in sediment from Station 17 (12.9% and 23.6%, respectively). The lower precision for these
elements in this sample is due to their very low concentrations. The DQO requirements for
analytical precision were met (Table 1).
Dissolved Metals.
Results for the dissolved metal SRMs met the DQOs. All results were within the certified limits
established by the NRC and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
None of the dissolved metal blanks exceeded 5x the MDLs for As, Cd, Mo and Zn. Reviewers
should note that both the dissolved blank metal concentrations and MDL values are in µg/L (ppb).
The greatest blank concentrations relative to MDL values were observed for Cr, at 0.104-0.127 µg/L.
The bulk of the Cr blank is derived from the membrane filters required in the
extraction/preconcentration procedure. These fitters are acid -washed prior to use, but a small
amount of residual Cr remains. This small, residual Cr cannot be removed from the membrane
material without significantly damaging the filter. The blank concentrations for Cu also exceed 5x
the MDL. In this case, the blank is not filter related and comes from the reagents needed to preform
the metal extraction/preconcentration. Reagents from several commercial sources were tested and
only the highest purity materials were selected for use.
Matrix spike recoveries for the dissolved metal samples were within the range of 90-110% for all
elements.
Analytical precision from laboratory duplicates was better than 10% for all elements.
Particulate Metals.

Results for dissolved metals in the SRMs met the DQOs. All results were within the certified limits
established by the NRC and MIST.
None of the particulate metal blanks exceeded 5x the MDLs. Reviewers should note that blanks are
in ng/mL (ppb) and. MDLs are in µg/g (ppm) and % (where I % equals 10,000 µg/g). Therefore, the
As concentration of Blank #1, at 0.61 ng/mL (ppb), would be 0.00061 µg/mL (ppm). Corrected to
µg/g material, the blank is roughly equivalent to 3 µg/g and 2x lower than the MDL value. The
greatest blank concentration was again observed for Fe, 30 ng/mL in Blank #1. Converted to µg/g
material, this concentration is equivalent to 30 µg/g, and —7x less than the MDL value of 0.02% (200
µgig). Blank concentrations for Cd, Cr, Cu, Mo and Zn are all below their respective MDL values.
Matrix spike recoveries for the particulate metal samples were within the range of90-110% for ail
elements.
Analytical precision from laboratory duplicates was better than 10% for all elements except Mo in
particulate samples from Station 16 (10.9%); however, the DQO requirements for analytical
precision were met (Table 1).
Tissue Metals.
Results for metals in the tissue SRMs met the DQOs. All results were within the certified limits
established by the NRC.
None of the tissue metal blanks exceeded 5x the MDLs. Reviewers should note that blanks are in
ng/mL (ppb) and MDLs are in µg/g (ppm) dry weight. Therefore, the Ag concentration of Blank #1,
at 0.09 ng/mL (ppb), would be 0.00009 µg/mL (ppm). Corrected to µg/g material, the blank is
roughly equivalent to 0.004 µg/g and 2x greater than the MDL value. The greatest blank
concentration was again observed for Fe, 121 ng/mL in Blanks #1 and #2. Converted to µg/g
material, this concentration is equivalent to 5 µg/g, and 2x greater than the MDL value of 2.5 µg/g.
Of the remaining analytes, tissue blank concentrations of Cd, Cu and Se were below their respective
MDL values; As, Cr and Zn blank concentrations ranged from 1-4x their NML values. Thus, the
DQO requirements were met.
Matrix spike recoveries for the tissue metal samples were within the range of 90-110% for all
elements except As in two tissue digests (averaging 69.5% and 83.7%, respectively) and Cd in one
tissue digest (averaging 74.6%). Arsenic and Cd concentrations in these tissue digests have been
corrected for their low spike recovery. Empirically, the low recoveries seem to havebeen associated
with tissues and organisms that were noticeably oily in texture. A modification was made to the
digestion procedure to correct this problem; the amount of hydrogen peroxide used to oxidize the
tissue samples was doubled. Subsequently, all matrix spike recoveries were within the desired 90-
110% range.
Analytical precision from laboratory duplicates was better than 10% for all elements except Ag in
Longnose Gar from the Pamlico River (17.7%) and Se in crab tissue from Station 12 (13.1%). In
the case of Ag, the comparatively low precision is due to the very low tissue concentrations present.
For Se in crab tissue from Station 12, the relatively low precision may be due to inhomogeneity
between the samples of crab flesh; however, the DQO requirements for analytical precision were met
(Table 1).

Table 1 Data Quality Objectives and Criteria
Element or
Sample Type
Minimum Frequency Data Quality
Objective/Acceptance Criteria
Initial Calibration Prior to every batch
of samples
Continuing Must end every
Calibration analytical sequence;
for flame, repeat all
standards every 5
samples; for graphite
furnace and ICP-MS
recheck standard
after every 10 samples
3-5 point curve depending on the
element and a blank. Standard
curve correlation coefficient
r >- 0.999 for all analytes.
% RSD !,� 15% for all analytes
SRMs from NRC One per batch of Values must be within f 20% of
and NIST 20 samples accepted values for >85% of the
certified analytes and within f 25%
for Hg.
Method Blank One per batch of No more than 2 analytes to exceed
20 samples 5x MDL unless analyte not detected
in associated sample(s)
Matrix Spike and One per batch of %RSD 80-120%
Spike Method Blank 20 samples
Lab Duplicate One per batch of RSD <25% for 65% analytes
20 samples

.H�M/.'4�/ "'
t, �/' I ♦���i ♦�i ►:��� �i�i+ice � .���� i`� �1
09,
�4a w 45 * ''i * +i�� ��` �'���♦��*� ICI'
i

DATE TO ASSISTANT B=a 1 —• QQQ DATE TO SUSAND
LOGGED IN Q
U�
MINTING CHECKLIST FOR ROUTING
Company ��� '- Project Name /",,7
Permit No. D?'�� County Date Received ?1
Reviewer
Please make copies of check to include with Central Office and
Field office files and log in checks.
* ❑ New ❑ Renewal V Modification ❑ Transfer ❑ Release
❑ Additional Information ❑ Fee Needed
Fee Received: Amount`'UU
Please routePo:
0 �2twr,41vk) Field Office
❑ Wildlife Resources Commission
* ❑ Archives and History
❑ Other:
Date Routed ' 3 /—
Date Routed
Date Routed
Date Routed
Suspense Date for Comments: (Date received +30 days,
not on weekend)
❑ Please note the following:
r
*SUSAN: Please make file and return Checklist and file to Reviewer
EM
White Copy to Field Office Yellow and Pink Copies to File Goldenrod Copy to Susan

DATE TO ASSISTANT QQQ DATE TO SUSAN
LOGGED IN
M NING CHECKLIST FOR ROUTING
Companyr x Project Name
Permit No. cJr�' County Date Received ` .,;74
Reviewer
Please make copies of check to include with Central Office and
Field Office files and log in checks.
* ❑ New ❑ Renewal �j Modification ❑ Transfer ❑ Release
❑ Additional Information ❑ Fee Needed
Fee Received: Amount
Please router -to:
0i.x'd�'��� _ Field Office
❑ Wildlife Resources Commission
* ❑ Archives and History
❑ Other:
Date Routed 13-3
Date Routed
Date Routed
Date Routed
Suspense Date for Comments: Date received +30 days,
P �
not on weekend)
❑ Please note the following:
7 ,
'u W" /
'--
V
*SUSAN: Please make file and return Checklist and file to Reviewer
White Copy to Field Office Yellow and Pink Copies to File Goldenrod Copy to Susan

P V V
Phosphate VAURORA
P.O- BOX 48, AURORA, NC 27806
PAY TO THE ORDER OF
North Carolina Dept.
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh NC 27611
phbank Delaware
One Penn's way
New Castle, DE l97PO
62-20
311
March 23, 2000
CHECK
CONTROL NUMeE579472
R
AMOUNT
$500.00**
Of ENR �d
C/

PCS
Phosphate
PCS PHOSPHATE C
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA,
March 27,
Mr. Tracy Davis
State Mining Specialist
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
Division of Land Resources
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27687
Dear Mr. Davis:
AURORA
In reviewing the mapping associated with the September 1998 Mine Permit 7-1 modification on
the NCPC Tract, we discovered a small area in the "Ancillary Area" category inadvertently left
out. This area is highlighted on the enclosed maps, and totals 0.8 acres. These ancillary areas, as
you may recall from 1998, are included in the mine permit for use as surface facilities (haul
roads, pipeline corridors, existing office and maintenance buildings, lay -down yards, etc.).
PCS Phosphate would like your approval to modify Mine Permit 7-1 by adding the 0.8-acre
piece on to the "Ancillary Areas" category in the area highlighted on the enclosed drawings.
Enclosed is a check in the amount of $500.00 to cover the modification fee.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
jincerely,,
Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
JCD:Pwo
Enclosures
PC: Floyd Williams - DLR, WaRO
w/encl.
T. L. Baker 100-14-000
w/encl.
H. M. Breza
w/encl.
12-04-001-48
w/encl.
I. K. Gilmore
w/encl.
W. A. Schimming
w/encl.

NCDENR
JAMES 8. HUNYJR.
GOVERNOR
WAYNE MCDEYITT
SECRETARY
CHARLES H. GARDNER
P.G., P.E. DIRECTOR
AND STATE GEOLOGIST
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate
P.O. Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
March 28, 2000
27806
J�1
RE: Mining Permit o. 07-01
Aurora Phosphate ine
Beaufort County
Tar - Pamlico River Basin
Dear Mr. Furness:
Your request for a modification to Mining Permit No. 07-01 for
the above referenced mine in Beaufort County has been approved.
The modification is to extend the deadline for submission of the
earthworm portion of the cadmium study from April 1, 2000 to May
1, 2000. The extension is to allow your company time to work with
its consultant to finalize the report.
Please attach this approval letter to your current mining permit
document for this site for future reference. The permit number, mine
name, and expiration date will remain the same as before the
modification.
As a reminder, the permitted acreage at this site is 12,915
acres and the overall bonded acreage is 11,467 acres.
LAND QUALITY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2761 1-7687 TELEPHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EpUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - SOq RECYCLED/10% POST-CONsu MIER PAPER

Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Please contact Mr. Tracy
Davis of this office at [phone] should you have any questions concerning
this matter.
Sincerely,
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
CHG/td
07-01 pcs.cdreport. mod
cc: Mr. Tracy Davis, P.E.
Mr. Floyd Williams, P.G.
Ms. Monika Sharma - WRC
Mr. Bradley Bennett - DWQ
Mr. John Dorney - DWQ
Mr. David Lekson - COE
Mr. Nat Wilson - DWR

Earthworm Cadmium Report Deadline
Subject: Earthworm Cadmium Report Deadline
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 12;24:50 -0500
From: JFurness@,Pcsphosphate.com
To: [e-mail]
Dear Mr. Davis:
Mine Permit 7-1 for PCS Phosphate currently states that the report on the
earthworm portion of the cadmium study be submitted to DLR and other
agencies by April 1, 2000. We have just received the draft report from
Aqua Survey, Inc., the firm that performed the study. It is 60 pages long
and pretty involved. We have not worked with this firm before, and the
report is in pretty rough shape. It is confusing at times the way it is
laid out and formatted, the executive summary is over 13 pages long, and
discussion is intermixed with results instead of in distinct sections.
In order for us to work with Aqua Survey in re -formatting the report and
making it clearer and more understandable, we request a 30-day delay in the
required date for submission, to May 1, 2000. In the long run, this will
be more efficient for everyone involved, because if it is submitted as -is,
we will spend a great deal of time answering questions and clearing up
confusion from agency personnel trying to read and follow the report.
Thank you for ,your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Jeff Furness
l of 1 3/24/2000 125 1'M

Re: Gamy sham ra: BoMew Mm/Putam Mine
3/23/2000 5:37 PM
of ,

Action ID No. 198800449
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
PUBLIC NOTICE
REV I S I ONIMODIFI CATION
January 13, 2000
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY INC., Post Office Box 48, Aurora, North Carolina, 27806,
has applied for a request for an amendment of Department of the Army Permit Number
198800449. On August 27, 1997, The U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers Pursuant To Section 404
Of The Clean Water Act Issued To PCS Phosphate Company Inc. A Department Of The Army
Permit No. 198800449 For A Surface Mine (Open Pit) Operation To Mine Phosphate Rock
Identified As Alternative E And Described In The EIS Issued For This Project. The Permitted
Wetland Loss Is 1,263 acres And The Permit Expires On December 31, 2017. The Approved
Area Of Work Includes All Of Alternative E Except That Bottomland Hardwoods Located In
Mine Block 20 Are Excluded. PCS Phosphate Has Revised The The Proposal To:
a. DELETE ALL OF MINE BLOCK 20.
b. DELETE THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF ALTERNATIVE E (EXCEPT
FOR 1.1 ACRES NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE RAILROAD LOCATION).
c. INCREASE THE WIDTH OF THE CENTRAL PORTION OF ALTERNATIVE E.
A public notice was issued on December 23,1999 that did not contain the map titled "Proposed
Changes For Permit Amendment" PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. dated November 29, 1999.
This Public Notice Revision/Modification includes the described map.
The following description of work is taken from data provided by the applicant in a letter dated
October 13, 1999. The proposed permit modification would change the boundaries of the
approved area of work to include 17.7 fewer acres of wetlands and would reduce wetland
mitigation requirements by 36.5 acres. The enclosed map shows the location and proposed
L/L/ � r/4 P,944�1

-2-
changes to the original permitted area. The report reflects the recent collection and analysis of
1999 biotic communities data as requested by the Wilmington district Corps of Engineers. The
proposal is to reduce the wetland impacts for the proposal area from 162.3 acres to 144.6 acres
and to decrease the wetland mitigation from 324.6 acres to 288.1 acres. Additionally the
proposal is to increase the upland impacts from 57.7 acres to 111.5 acres within the proposal
area. These reductions and additions are illustrated in the enclosed map titled "Proposed
Changes For Permit Amendment" PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. dated November 29, 1999.
This proposal shall be reviewed for the applicability of other actions by North Carolina
agencies such as:
a. The issuance of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality NCDWQ).
b. The issuance of a permit to dredge and/or fill under North Carolina General Statute
113-229 by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM).
c. The issuance of a permit under the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) or their delegates.
d. The issuance of an easement to fill or otherwise occupy State-owned submerged land
under North Carolina General Statute 143-341(4), 146-6, 146-11, and 146-12 by the North
Carolina Department of Administration (NCDA) and the North Carolina Council of State.
e. The approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Land Quality
Section, North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR), pursuant to the State
Sedimentation Pollution ControI Act of 1973 (NC G.S. 113 A-50-66).
The requested Department of the Army (DA) permit will be denied if any required State or
local authorization and/or certification is denied. No DA permit will be issued until a State
coordinated viewpoint is received and reviewed by this agency. Recipients of this notice are
encouraged to furnish comments on factors of concern represented by the above agencies directly
to the respective agency, with a copy furnished to the Corps of Engineers.
This public notice revision is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment period specified
in the notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this revision. Requests for public hearing
shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.

-3-
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered properties, or properties Iisted as being
eligible for inclusion therein, and this worksite is not a registered property or property listed as
being eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register constitutes the
extent of cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of
the presence of such resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or
historical data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that the proposed activity
will affect species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts,
including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public interest.
Evaluation of the probable impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest
requires a careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular case.
The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal mast be balanced
against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to authorize a proposal, and
if so the conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the
outcome of the general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern for
both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which may be relevant to the
proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects thereof. Among those are
conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values,
fish and wildlife values, flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive
Order 11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and
conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs,
considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For
activities involving the placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a
permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit would not comply
with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the preceding
sentence and any other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the
District Engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and
evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the
Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this
proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species,
historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public interest

-4-
factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment
(EA) and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to
determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA) permit will not be
made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives
State certification required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers
whether or not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the DA permit serves as application
to the NCDWQ for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed
at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies
of such materials will be furnished to any person requesting copies upon payment of
reproduction costs.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water Act
certification should do so in writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687, on or before
January 28, 2000, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received
in this office, Attention: William J. Biddlecome, Washington Regulatory Field
Office, Post Office Box 1000, Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000, until 4:15 p.m.,
January 28, 2000, or telephone [phone], extension 27.

Action ID No. 198800449
APPLICANT: PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
January 13, 2000
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY INC., Post Office Box 48, Aurora, North Carolina, 27806 has
applied for a request for an amendment of Department of the Army Permit Number 198800449.
On August 27, 1997, The U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers Pursuant To Section 404 Of The Clean
Water Act Issued To PCS Phosphate Company Inc. A Department Of The Army Permit No.
198800449 For A Surface Mine (Open Pit) Operation To Mine Phosphate Rock Identified As
Alternative E And Described In The EIS Issued For This Project. The Permitted Wetland Loss Is
1,263 acres And The Permit Expires On December 31, 2017. The Approved Area Of Work
Includes All Of Alternative E Except That Bottomland Hardwoods Located In Mine Block 20
Are Excluded. The Original Public Notice Was Issued On August 1, 1988. PCS Phosphate Has
Revised The Proposal To:
a. DELETE ALL OF MINE BLOCK 20.
b. DELETE THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF ALTERNATIVE E (EXCEPT FOR
1.1 ACRES NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE RAILROAD LOCATION).
c. INCREASE THE WIDTH OF THE CENTRAL PORTION OF ALTERNATIVE E.
The following description of work is taken from data provided by the applicant in a letter dated
October 13, 1999. The proposed permit modification would change the boundaries of the
approved area of work to include 17.7 fewer acres of wetlands and would reduce wetland
mitigation requirements by 36.5 acres. The enclosed map shows the location and proposed
changes to the original permitted area. The report reflects the recent collection and analysis of
1999 biotic communities data as requested by the Wilmington district Corps of Engineers. The
proposal is to reduce the wetland impacts for the proposal area from 162.3 acres to 144.6 acres
and to decrease the wetland mitigation from 324.6 acres to 288.1 acres. Additionally the
proposal is to increase the upland impacts from 57.7 acres to 111.5 acres within the proposal
area. These reductions and additions are illustrated in the enclosed map titled "Proposed
Changes For Permit Amendment" PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. dated November 29, 1999.

4
DJSTkJRBED HERBACEOUS ASSEMBLAGE (DH)
5
DISTURBED SHRUB — SCRUB ASSEMBLAGE (SS)
7
HARDWOOD FOREST (HF)
8
MIXED PIKE — HARDWOOD FOREST (MF)
12
PONDS (PO)
WETLAND WITHIN PERMIT AMENDMENT AREA
UPLAND WITHIN PERMIT AMENDMENT AREA
CANALS
PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY
ALTERNATIVE E INDEPENDENT OF
PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY
FUTURE N & S RAILWAY
100' WIDE
W-1
m
PROPOSED CHANCES FOR
PERMIT AMENDMENT
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
AS SHOWN /29/99
0
22.00 00
SCALE IN FEET
Habitat
JA�.. JXUAWcuto' Ac► resAcres
UPLAND 111.5 1 N/A I N/A I 7.7T N/A N/A
WETLAND
4 (DH)
25-9
2:1
5 (SS)
19.8
2:1
7 (HF)
92.5
2:1
B (MF)
5.3
2:1
12 (PO)
1.1
WETLAND TOTAL
t44.6
51.8
0.01
0.0
39,6
106-3
2:1
212.6_
185.0
52.3
2:1
104.6
10.6
3.7
2;1
7.4
1.1
0.0
0.0
288.1
162,3

PCS Phosphate 12-31-99 Modification Request (Permit #07-01 Beaufort Co.)
Subject: PCS Phosphate 12-31-99 Modification Request (Permit #07-01 Beaufort Co.)
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:02:04 -0500
From: Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>
To: Tracy. Davis @ncmail.net, [e-mail], [e-mail]
Tracy:
on 1-6-00 I made a visit to PCS Phosphate to make a field review of
the three modification
request in the December 31, 1999 letter from Jeff Furness to Charles
Gardner. I met in the mine
office with Mike Breza, Web Walker, Jeff Furness and Tex Gilmore and
then a field inspection
was made regarding the modification request. Following I will list the
modifications and my
comments after each listed modification:
1. Request approval to allow the placementof a limited amount of dredge
spoil into the R-6
gypsum/clay blend reclamation area. This request would allow PCS to
utilize the R-6 area
during repairs to the dredge land booster pump or land discharge
pipe and would also allow
them to cap the R-6 area with dredge sweepings of silty material
during the final dredge cut
in the 240 acre block (northwest corner of EIS Alternative E). I do
not see any problems with
this modification request.
2. Request to relocate the area that is being utilized to clarify water
from the mine area. The
current clarification lake will need to be eliminated when
prestripping on the NCPC tract
begins in early 2000.The proposal is to pump water from the nime
area to the southern half
of the R--3 blend reclamation area and to the center of R-2 blend
reclamation area . I do
not see any problem with this modification request.
3. Request to clear 2 acres of land near the mine construction entrance
to provide an access road
to re-route a power line. This work must be accomplished in the
very near future as part of
the mine advance,I discussed this with Charles (You were out of the
office) and we agreed
to give PCS verbal approval to commence this activity.
If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call.
Thanks:
Floyd
1 01' 1 1/14/200011:44 AM

Re: Mine Permit 7-1 Modification Request
Subject: Re: Mine Permit 7-1 Modification Request
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 16:11:1 S -0500
From: Charles Gardner <[e-mail]>
Organization: Division of Land Resources
To: [e-mail]
CC: Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>, Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>,
Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>
Jeff, I'll print your message and add it to your modification request.
Charles
Jl±[e-mail] wrote:
> Dear Charles:
> Floyd Williams was on -site yesterday afternoon looking at the areas
> involved in our request to modify Mine Permit 7-1 dated December 31, 1999.
> one of the modifications involves the approval to Use the southern half of
> the R-3 reclamation area to clarify water from the mine area before it is
> discharged out a NPDES permitted outfall. During our meeting with Floyd,
> Mike Breza requested approval of an option to also use a small portion of
> the center of the R-2 reclamation area for the same clarification purpose.
> Floyd looked at the area involved in this request also, while he was here.
> Wouldxou Please add this R-2 use to the modification request y_ou are
> currently reviewin ? Hopefully you can print this e-mail and attach it to
> our request letter, however if I need to send you a typewritten letter,
> please let me know.
> Sincerely,
> Jeff Furness
> Senior Environmental Scientist
> PCS Phosphate
> [phone]
Charles Gardner, P.G. R.E. <ch rles. ardner nernail.net>
State Geologist and Director
N.C. Division of Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1 of2 1/10/2000 9.45 AM

DATE TO ASSISTM �- DATE TO SUSAN
LOGGED IN I1 6 s'
MINING CHECKLIST FOR ROUTING
Company —�y S f} kn _ Project Name ��
Permit No. -01 County Date Received
Reviewer
Please make copies of check to include with Central Office and
Field Office files and log in checks.
* ❑ New ❑ Renewal 0 Modification ❑ Transfer ❑ Release
❑ Additional Information ❑ Fee Needed
�FZ Fee Received: Amount Qb to
Please route to: -5)
❑ V Field Office Date' Routed
❑ Wildlife Resources Commission Date Routed
* ❑ Archives and History
❑ Other:
Date Routed
Date Routed
Suspense Date for Comments: (Date received +30 days,
not on weekend)
❑ Please note the following:
*SUSAN: Please make file and return Checklist and file to Reviewer
White Copy to Field Office Yellow and Pink Copies to File Goldenrod Copy to Susan

DATE TO ASSIST DATE TO SUSAN 1,t ��7p
LOGGED IN rr� "
I
MINING CRECKLIST FOR ROUTING
Company �� S�:.�"'�/... Project Name
Permit No.
d1?-? County Date Received `" r4
Reviewer r' '
Please make copies of check to include with Central Office and
Field Office files and log in checks.
* ❑ New ❑ Renewal 0 Modification ❑ Transfer ❑ Release
❑ Additional Information ❑ Fee Needed
.41
Fee Received: Amount 4p,-g bi)
Please route to:
❑ k�Y _ Field Office
❑ Wildlife Resources Commission
(&'&� �Iv6'
Date Routed
Date Routed
* ❑
Archives and
History
Date Routed
❑
Routed
Other:
Date
Suspense Date for
Comments:
(Date received +30 days,
not
on weekend)
❑
Please note
the following:
-
rL.4: �' i
� .S'f ✓
rl.Alir�
I
*SUSAN: Please make file and return Checklist and file to Reviewer
White Copy to Field Office Yellow and Pink Copies to File Goldenrod Copy to Susan

PCs
Phosphate WAURORA
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NG 27806
PAY TO THE ORDER OF
October 28, 1999
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Cftanh DOawan3
One Penn's way
New Casffe. DE 19720
CHECK NUMBER
CONTROL [ C Q 9 2 9
NUMBER J v O
AMOUNT
$500.00**

r
PCS
Phosphate
AURORA CL-Fr,-
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. A /'4 + tt
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC U.S.A. 278M ( 1
December 31, 1999
Mr. Charles Gardner, Director
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Gardner:
RECENED
I.Al 3 .00
DIV. iANDRM.
PCS Phosphate requests approval of three modifications to Mine Permit 7-1. These
modifications are outlined in the paragraphs below.
As you are aware, PCS Phosphate Mine Permit 7-1 was modified to allow for dredging the upper
overburden on 240 acres in the northwest corner of EIS Alternative E. The dredging operation
began in July and is continuing. We request approval of a mine permit modification to allow the
placement of a limited amount of dredge spoil into the R-6 gypsum/clay blend reclamation area.
There are two scenarios when this would occur. The first is when repair work is required to
either the dredge land booster pump or land discharge pipeline. A Y-valve in the dredge spoil
pipeline ahead of the booster pump would be used to divert dredge spoil into R-6 when repairs
are needed. The second scenario is to cap the R-6 area with the dredge sweepings, which is the
silty material in the final dredge cut. The R-6 reclamation area will be capped at grade, which is
approximately +15 msl.
The second modification is to relocate the area that we use to clarify water from the mine area.
Our current clarification lake is scheduled to be eliminated when we begin prestripping on the
NCPC Tract early next year. We propose to pump water from the mine area to the southern half
of the R-3 blend reclamation area to allow the turbidity to be reduced, and then discharge it out
an NPDES permitted outfall. A 5-foot freeboard would be maintained at all times between the
water level and the top of the R-3 dike. Water levels in the R-3 dike are still being monitored
weekly using piezometers, as called for in the Approval to Impound for the R-3 dike.

N .

IV
The third modification request is to clear 2 acres of land near our mine entrance to create an
access road and re-route a power line. This acreage is currently within Mine Permit 7-1,
however it has not previously been shown as "affected land”. The location of this activity is
shown on the two drawings enclosed with this letter, one of which shows the sediment and
erosion control measures to be utilized during the work.
Enclosed is a check in the amount of $500.00 to cover the permit modification fee. If you have
any questions regarding these requests, please call me at [phone], or e-mail me at
J fumess @pcsphosphate. com.
Sincerely,
4
J ey . Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
JCF:po
Enclosures
PC: Floyd Williams - DLR, WaRO
w/encl.
W. T. Cooper, Jr.
w/o encl.
T. L. Baker / 00-14-000
w/o encI.
M. T. Harris
w/o encl.
H. M. Breza
w/o encl.
I. K. Gilmore
w/o encl.
D. J. Millman
w/o encl.
R. K. Jenner
w/o encl.
R. M. Thomas
w/o encl.
W. A. Schinuning
w/o encl.
12-04-001-53
w/encl.

PCS
Phosphate
AURORA
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC U.S A. 27806
December 22, 1999
Mr. Tracy Davis
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of ENR
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Davis:
DEHNR t
DEC 2 819'
LAND ClU�!
In a letter from the DLR dated November 5, 1992 approving of dike reclassifications, an
inspection of the dike spillways is required to be done annually by a registered
professional engineer and a report submitted. Attached is a copy of a memo from R. M.
Thomas, P.E., to B. A. Peacock reporting on the spillway inspection for 1999.
If you have any questions please me at [phone].46 0. q )
Sincerely,
. Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
JCF:pwn
EriC105Ure5
PC:
Floyd Williams, DLR - WaRo
(w/encl.)
R. M. Thomas
{w/o encl.}
D. J. Millman
(w/o encl.)
M. L. Asby
(w/encl.)
12-04-002-06
(wlencl.)
00-14-000
(w/o encl.)

PCS
Phosphate
Date December 15, 1999
To B. A. Peacock
From R. M. Thomas
SubjectClay Pond Inspection
memo
Location
Location
I conducted a yearly inspection of the spillways for Clay Ponds No. 3, 4A, 5A, and 5B at the
Charles Tract as required by our permit. The inspection was carried out on December 14, 1999.
The following items on each spillway were checked:
Item Condition
Inlet structures (Columns, Beams, Bracing,
Grating, Ladders, and Handrails) Good
Riser Spool Pieces Good
Flashboards
Outlet Pipe, Headwall, Splash Pad,
And Stilling Basin & Baffle
Debris in Flowway
Good
Good
All clear except Clay Pond 3 south and 5A spillway
outlets. Debris should be removed.
Riprap in Outlet Channel Good
If you have any questions, please call.
R. M. Thomas, Senior Maintenance Engineer
CC: D. J. Millman
SE AL `
7027
dpii�' 7 �Ouoea�mp M�© �Qo
6
a��°ij�raatse� �9,���

r�
PCS
Phosphate AURORA
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC U.S.A. 27W6
December 7, 1999
Mr. Charles Gardner, Director
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Gardner:
O
F�E�V
� DEC J S 1999
Please find listed below a Cadmium Study update for November 1999.
• The third round of soil sampling for the earthworm study was conducted on 2 November
1999.
• The second renewal of soils for the earthworm study was conducted by Aqua Survey, Inc.
(AST) on 8 November 1999.
• The third (Day 60) samples of earthworms for cadmium concentration analyses were
taken by ASI on 9 November 1999.
• The fourth (Day 80) samples of earthworms for cadmium concentration analyses were
taken by ASI on 29 November 1999.
• Revisions to Dr. Terry Logan's draft report on cadmium in soils, . vegetation, and
terrestrial organisms were received on 23 and 30 November 1999.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
ncerely,
j- C .1 A,"NO
Je ey . Furness
Se 'or Environmental Scientist
PC: Tom Augspurger — USFWS
William Wescott — NCWRC
Floyd Williams — DLR, WaRO
John Dorney - DWQ
W. A. Schimming
15-04-006-08
BAP 100-14-000

J
PCS
Phosphate
�A
AURORA
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC U.S.A. 27806
November 3, 1999
Mr. Charles Gardner, Director
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Gardner:
Please find listed below a Cadmium Study update for October 1999.
5V
DIN, LAND M-
NO V Q 81999
• Terrestrial organism analyses were completed by Ohio State University (OSU) on 1
October 1999.
• The first renewal of soils for the earthworm study was conducted by Aqua Survey, Inc.
(ASI) on 10 October 1999.
• The second (Day 40) samples of earthworms for cadmium concentration analyses were
taken by ASI on 20 October 1999. Mortality during the 40-day period was minimal.
Lumbricuc terrestris suffered higher mortality than Eisenia foetida (4.6 percent versus
0.4 percent).
• A draft report on cadmium in soils, vegetation, and terrestrial organisms was received
from Dr. Terry Logan (OSU) on 30 October 1999.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
qiWerely,
a "M11
Je ey C. Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
PC: Tom Augspurger — USFWS
William Wescott — NCWRC
Floyd Williams — DLR, WaRO
John Dorney - DWQ
W. A. Schimming
15-04-006-08
BAP / 00-14-000

Tea
'F-'7
'PPCS��� t SV9
Phosphate A U R O R A
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. W LAND REF
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC U.S.A. 27808
September 1, 1999
Mr. Charles Gardner, Director
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Gardner:
Please find listed below a Cadmium Study update for August 1999.
• Efforts to get the earthworm bioaccumulation study underway continued during August.
Efforts focused on getting the lab (Aqua Survey, Inc.) under contract. The first round of
soil sample collection is scheduled for September 1, 1999. Example soils were sent to
Aqua Survey in August and an analysis of percent organic matter was done on each
sample.
Terrestrial organism sample analyses were delayed by a malfunction of the graphite AA
furnace at Ohio State University. Repairs are scheduled to be made in the first week of
September, and sample analyses are anticipated to be completed in mid -September.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
incerely,
(jAA1""
4'*-6
ey C. Furness
or Environmental Scientist
PC: Tom Augspurger — USFWS
William Wescott — NCWRC
Floyd Williams — DLR, WaRO
John Dorney - D WQ
W. A. Schimming
15-04-006-08
00-14-000

RECEIVED
PCs AW in '99
Phosphate AURORA ry��
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. 1.MD RES.
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC U.S.A. 27806 L.
August 5, 1999
Mr. Charles Gardner, Director
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Gardner:
Please find listed below a Cadmium Study update for July 1999.
• Analyses of the terrestrial animal samples by Ohio State University began in early
July. Sample analyses were scheduled to be completed by the end of July.
• On 12 July 1999, CZR and PCS Phosphate selected Aqua Survey, Inc. to conduct the
earthworm bioaccumulation study.
• On 13 July 1999, CZR sent a letter to the USFWS asking for a modification to the
earthworm study protocol to allow for renewal of the sample soils every 30 days
throughout the duration of the study. The renewal approach is intended to eliminate
potential problems caused by waste buildup and supplemental feeding.
• By letter dated 22 July 1999, the USFWS concurred with the sample soil renewal
approach.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
AM
Je rey .Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
PC: Tom Augspurger -- USFWS
William Wescott — NCWRC
Floyd Williams — DLR, WaRO
W. A. Schimmng
15-04-006-08
00-14-000

#41 c tt4-
RECFn►Fn
PCS r g4vtRf
Phosphate AURORA OCT 2 '99
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC U.S.A. 27806
October 6, 1999
Mr. Charles Gardner, Director
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Gardner:
E�CENE
OCT 151999
Please find listed below a Cadmium Study update for September 1999.
DN LAND RES
0
• The first round of soil sample collection for the earthworm study occurred on 1
September 1999.
• The earthworm study being done by Aqua -Survey Inc. began on 10 September 1999.
• The second round of soil sample collection for the earthworm study occurred on 28
September 1999.
• The first sample of earthworms for cadmium concentration analyses was taken on 30
September 1999. Mortality during the first 20 days of the study was minimal.
• Terrestrial organism sample analyses were completed on 1 October 1999 by the lab of
Dr. Terry Logan at Ohio State University.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
incerely,
1 hey. Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
pc: Tom Augspurger— USFWS
William Wescott — NCWRC
Floyd Williams — DLR, WaRO
John Dorney - DWQ
W. A. Schimming
15-04-006-08
00-14-000

0

Y
Action ID No. 198800449
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
PUBLIC NOTICE
REVISION/MODIFICATION
Ey, -99
December 23, 1999
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY INC., Post Office Box 48, Aurora, North Carolina,
27806, has applied for a request for an amendment of Department of the Army Permit Number
198800449. On August 27, 1997, The U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers Pursuant To Section
404 Of The Clean Water Act Issued To PCS Phosphate Company Inc. A Department Of The
Army Permit No. 199811449 For A Surface Mine (Open Pit) Operation To Mine Phosphate
Rock Identified As Alternative E And Described In The EIS Issued For This Project. The
Permitted Wetland Loss Is 1,263 acres And The Permit Expires On December 31, 2017, The
Approved Area Of Work Includes All Of Alternative E Except That Bottomland Hardwoods
Located In Mine Block 20 Are Excluded. PCS Phosphate Has Revised The The Proposal To:
a. DELETE ALL OF MINE BLOCK 20.
b. DELETE THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF ALTERNATIVE E (EXCEPT
FOR 1.1 ACRES NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE RAILROAD LOCATION).
c. INCREASE THE WIDTH OF THE CENTRAL PORTION OF ALTERNATIVE E.
The following description of work is taken from data provided by the applicant in a letter dated
October 13, 1999. The proposed permit modification would change the boundaries of the
approved area of work to include 17.7 fewer acres of wetlands and would reduce wetland
mitigation requirements by 36.5 acres. The enclosed map shows the location and proposed
changes to the original permitted area. The report reflects the recent collection and analysis of
1999 biotic communities data as requested by the Wilmington district Corps of Engineers. The
proposal is to reduce the wetland impacts for the proposal area from 162.3 acres to 144.6 acres
and to decrease the wetland mitigation from 324.6 acres to 288.1 acres. Additionally the

r
-2-
proposal is to increase the upland impacts from 57.7 acres to 111.5 acres within the proposal
area. These reductions and additions are illustrated in the enclosed map titled "Proposed
Changes For Permit Amendment" PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. dated November 29, 1999.
This proposal shall be reviewed for the applicability of other actions by North Carolina
agencies such as:
a. The issuance of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality NCDWQ).
b. The issuance of a permit to dredge and/or fill under North Carolina General Statute
113-229 by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM).
c. The issuance of a permit under the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) or their delegates.
d. The issuance of an easement to fill or otherwise occupy State-owned submerged land
under North Carolina General Statute 143-341(4), 146-6, 146-11, and 146-12 by the North
Carolina Department of Administration (NCDA) and the North Carolina Council of State.
e. The approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Land Quality
Section, North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR), pursuant to the State
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (NC G.S. 113 A-50-66).
The requested Department of the Army (DA) permit will be denied if any required State or
local authorization and/or certification is denied. No DA permit will be issued until a State
coordinated viewpoint is received and reviewed by this agency. Recipients of this notice are
encouraged to furnish comments on factors of concern represented by the above agencies
directly to the respective agency, with a copy furnished to the Corps of Engineers.
This public notice revision is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment period
specified in the notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this revision. Requests for
public hearing shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered properties, or properties listed as
being eligible for inclusion therein, and this worksite is not a registered property or property
listed as being eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register
constitutes the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and he is

1192
otherwise unaware of the presence of such resources. Presently, unknown archeological,
scientific, prehistorical, or historical data may be lost or destroyed by work under the
requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that the proposed
activity will affect species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the
public interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts which the proposed activity may have on
the public interest requires a careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in
each particular case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether
to authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, are
therefore determined by the outcome of the general balancing process. That decision should
reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. All
factors which may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental
concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards and flood plain
values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and
accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food
and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the
needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the placement of dredged or fill
materials in waters of the United States, a permit will be denied if the discharge that would be
authorized by such permit would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agencies'
404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable guidelines or
criteria, a permit will be granted unless the District Engineer determines that it would be
contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and
evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by
the Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for
this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered
species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public
interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental
Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need for a
public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity.

r
Cl
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA) permit will not
be made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or
waives State certification required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ
considers whether or not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and
307 of the Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the DA permit serves
as application to the NCDWQ for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed
at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ), Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies
of such materials will be furnished to any person requesting copies upon payment of
reproduction costs.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water Act
certification should do so in writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687, on or before
January 7, 2000, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be
received in this office, Attention: William J. Biddlecome, Washington Regulatory Field
Office, Post Office Box 1000, Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000, until 4:15 p.m.,
January 7, 2000, or telephone [phone], extension 27.

40
December 23, 1999
APPLICANT: PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY INC., Post Office Box 48, Aurora, North Carolina, 27806
has applied for a request for an amendment of Department of the Army Permit Number
198800449. On August 27, 1997, The U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers Pursuant To Section
404 Of The Clean Water Act Issued To PCS Phosphate Company Inc. A Department Of The
Array Permit No. 199811449 For A Surface Mine (Open Pit) Operation To Mine Phosphate
Rock Identified As Alternative E And Described In The EIS Issued For This Project. The
Permitted Wetland Loss Is 1,263 acres And The Permit Expires On December 31, 2017. The
Approved Area Of Work Includes All Of Alternative E Except That Bottomland Hardwoods
Located In Mine Block 20 Are Excluded. The Original Public Notice Was Issued On August
1, 1988. PCS Phosphate Has Revised The Proposal To:
Mae -an lA", 1kKG3 "Ur1rN M-0 1LiZ6)C0"1
b. DELETE THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF ALTERNATIVE E (EXCEPT FOR
1.1 ACRES NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE RAILROAD LOCATION).
c. INCREASE THE WIDTH OF THE CENTRAL PORTION OF ALTERNATIVE E.
The following description of work is taken from data provided by the applicant in a letter dated
October 13, 1999. The proposed permit modification would change the boundaries of the
approved area of work to include 17.7 fewer acres of wetlands and would reduce wetland
mitigation requirements by 36.5 acres. The enclosed map shows the location and proposed
changes to the original permitted area. The report reflects the recent collection and analysis of
1999 biotic communities data as requested by the Wilmington district Corps of Engineers. The
proposal is to reduce the wetland impacts for the proposal area from 162.3 acres to 144.6 acres
and to decrease the wetland mitigation from 324.6 acres to 288.1 acres. Additionally the
proposal is to increase the upland impacts from 57.7 acres to 111.5 acres within the proposal
area. These reductions and additions are illustrated in the enclosed map titled "Proposed
Changes For Permit Amendment" PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. dated November 29, 1999.

1'-k'V4-7
PCS
Phosphate
AURORA
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
P.O. BOX 48. AURORA, NC U.S.A. 278N
December 30, 1999
Mr. Charles Gardner, Director
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Gardner:
JAN 3 '00
lANDW.
As required by our Mining Permit No. 7-1, enclosed are the descriptions of reclamation
activities for the first last of 1999, and the reclamation plans for the first half of 2000.
Attached to the descriptions are support maps No. 21-199RPSA and 1 HOORPSP.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
i
ffrey C. Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
JCF:pwo
Attachments
PC: Floyd Williams - DLR, WaRO
(w/ attach.)
T. J. Regan, Jr.
(w/ attach.)
W. T. Cooper, Jr.
(w/ attach.)
W. A. Schimming
(w/ attach.)
M. T. Harris / D. J. Millman
(w/ attach.)
R. K. Jenner
(w/ attach.)
1. K. Gilmore / W. R. Walker
(w/ attach.)
T. L. Baker / 12-04-002-02
(w/ attach.)
00-14-000
(w/o attach.)

PCS Phosphate - Mine Site Reclamation
Actual Reclamation for the second half of 1999
(July 1999 — December 1999)
R-1
Continued monitoring of tree growth in this area was done. Dr. Steve Broome is
evaluating the growth for reference as additional areas are planted.
R-2
Approximately 35 acres were sprayed for weed control, chopped to cut down vegetation,
disk harrowed and planted. The cover crop that was planted consisted of winter rye with
ladino clover, sweet clover, and alfalfa. Tree growth monitoring continued for
comparison with the tree growth in the R-1 area.
R-3
Water levels were controlled using an outlet valve that discharges into the 007 outfall
canal. Water quality continued to be monitored.
Approximately 240 acres were sprayed for weed control, chopped to cut down
vegetation, disk harrowed and planted. The cover crop that was planted was the same as
that planted in R-2, consisting of winter rye with ladino clover, sweet clover, and alfalfa.

Actual Reclamation for the second half of 1999
(July 1999 — December 1999)
CONTINUA)
R-4
Water levels of the existing ponded area were controlled using the pumps located in R-4.
Water quality continued to be monitored as the water was transferred to R-3. This area
continues to dry and consolidate.
R-5
Water levels were drawn down and controlled using the pump installed in R-5. Water
quality monitoring continued as the water was transferred to R-4. This area continued to
dry and consolidate.
R-b
Sand tailings continued to be discharged into this area during this period.
R-7
Bucket wheel spoil, blend, and occasionally sand tailings water was discharged into this
area during this period.
RIPb
Reclamation of Gypsum Stack 2 was started. Approximately 400,000 cubic yards of
gypsum were moved during this period. Some initial shaping of the outer slopes was also
done.
Whitehurst Creek
Continued monitoring of vegetation growth and water levels were done in this area.
Preparations to plant the upland area around Whitehurst Creek in the spring were done.
Charles Tract
Continued monitoring of tree growth and water levels were done in Clay Ponds 3, 4A,
5A, and 5B.

Planned Reclamation for the first half of 2000
(January 2000 --- June 2000)
R-1
Continued motoring of tree growth in this area is planned. Dr. Broome will be evaluating
the growth for reference as additional areas are planted.
R-2
The ditches are to be cleaned out in this area to facilitate continued drying and
consolidation. An additional 95 acres are to be chopped and stomped to firm up the
surface. A plot of tree saplings is to be planted in the southwest corner. This plot should
consist of cottonwood, green ash, sycamore, and sweetgum trees. Tree growth
monitoring will continue for comparison with the tree growth in the R-1 area.
Water quality will continue to be monitored.
R-3
The ditches are to be cleaned out and extended in this area to facilitate continued drying
and consolidation. An additional 135 acres are to be chopped and stomped to firm up the
surface. Two plots of saplings are to be planted, one in the northwest corner and one
within the central portion that has an established cover crop. These plots should consist
of cottonwood, green ash, sycamore, and sweetgum trees. Additionally a stand of red
cedar and longleaf pines are to be planted along the R-3 l R-1 dike.
Water quality will continue to be monitored.

Planned Reclamation for the first half of 2000
(January 2000 — June 2000)
CONTINUED
R-4
Water levels of the existing ponded area will continue to be controlled using the pumps
located in R-4. Water quality will be monitored as the water is transferred to R-3. Some
ditching will be done to assist the area dry and consolidate. Some chopping and
stomping to firm up the surface is planned.
R-5
Water levels of the existing ponded area will continue to be controlled using the pumps
located in R-5. Water quality will be monitored as the water is transferred to R-4. This
area will continue to dry and consolidate.
R-6
Sand tailings will continue to be placed along the East Side of R-6. Process water from
R-7 will continue to be transferred through R-6. This area will continue to dry and
consolidate around the inactive areas of the perimeter.
R-7
Bucket wheel spoil, blend, and occasionally sand tailings water will continue to be placed
in this area during the first half of 2000.
G-2
Reclamation of Gypsum Stack 2 will continue. Approximately 450,000 cubic yards of
gypsum is planned to be moved during this period. Some shaping of the outer slopes will
continue.
Whitehurst Creek
Tree planting is planned in the upland area surrounding Whitehurst Creek. There are
approximately 50 acres that have been identified for this planting. Species to be planted
include sweetgum, sycamore, green ash, and lobloIly pine. Continued monitoring of
vegetation growth and water levels will be done in this area.
Charles Tract
Continued monitoring of vegetation growth and water levels will be done in this area.
Preliminary planning work will be done for the construction of the final outfall which
will establish drainage for the remaining ponds.

P7; * *.#* <
NORTH CAROLINA D E,�IT OF
ENvIRONMENT AND NATO "SOUFACSS
DivisivN
July 27, 1999
i� N RESOURCES
t�Epxo
lggg
TO: Mr. William Wescott
JAMES S. HUNT JR.
�R Habitat Conservation Program Coordinator L
;} Wildlife Resources Commission l
M; FROM: Susan B. Edwards
WAYNE (NCDEVITTV Mining Program Secretary
SECRETARY Land Quality Section yt�{
SUBJECT: Mining Permit Modification Request for PCS Phosphate
Aurora Phosphate Mine - Permit No. 07-01
CHARLE9 H. GARDNER Beaufort County
P.G.. P.E. DIRECTOR
Please find attached for your review a copy of the mining permit modification
request for the above referenced project.
Please review this information and advise as to the probability of this operation
having unduly adverse effect on wildlife and freshwater fisheries (G.S. 74-51 (2)).
Please respond by August 26,1999 so that we may complete our review of this
request within our statutory time limits.
As is the case in our review of all mining permit applications, renewals and
modifications, this office will carefully review all proposed erosion and sediment
control measures to ensure that they are sufficient to restrain erosion and off -site
sedimentation. However, any comments your agency can provide regarding effects on
wildlife and freshwater fisheries would be greatly appreciated. If your staff wishes to
perform a site inspection, it is recommended that they contact the person submitting
this request to set up a convenient date and time. Also, please send a copy of your
comments to the person noted in the application. RETURN ALL APPLICATION
MATERIALS AND MAPS WITH YOUR REVIEW COMMENTS TO THIS
OFFICE.
Your continued cooperation in the review of these type requests is greatly
appreciated. Please contact Mr. Tracy Davis at [phone] if you have any
questions.
/SBE
Attachments
cc: Mr. Floyd Williams
LAND QUALITY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
P.O. 90X 27687, RALEIaH, NORTH CAROLINA 2761 1.7687 TELEPHONE [phone] FAX (919) 7t s-8801
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

Re: Permit Mod Status . 0
Subject: Re: Permit Mod Status
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:43 :1 S -0700
From: Tracy Davis <Tracy,Davis a ncmail.net>
Organization: NCDENR - Land Quality Section
To: [e-mail]
I've gotten Floyd's comments (he has no problems with the modification), but I am
still waiting on Wildlife's comments. Their deadline was yesterday, 8/26. If I
don't have their comments by Monday morning, I'll call them and proceed
accordingly. Hopefully, I have an approval letter in the mill by the end of next
week.
[e-mail] wrote:
> Tracy:
> We were wondering what the status was of the Mine Permit 7-1 modification
> .request to .include 112 acres currently under permit under affected land, and
> revise the erosion and sediment plan drawing accordingly. The request letter was
> dated July 22 and Floyd made a site visit on August 6.
> Thanks for any information.
> Jeff
Tracy E, Davis, P.E. <[e-mail]>
State Mining Specialist
Division of Land Resources/Land Quality Section
NC Department of Enviroiunent and Natural Resources
Alt-
/Vq cam-''
P-
10fl 08/27/1999 9:57 AM

i 0

PCS Phosphate Permit Modification Request . 0
Subject: PCS Phosphate Permit Modification Request
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 14:10:1 S -0400
From: [e-mail],nc.us
To: [e-mail] (Tracy Davis)
Memorandum:
To: Tracy Davis, P.E.
State Mining Specialist
From: Floyd R. Williams
Regional Engineer
Land Quality Section
Washington Regional Office
Subject: PCS Phosphate 112 acre Permit Modification Request
Area ( Mine Permit 7 - 1 ) Beaufort County
On August 6, 1999 1 met with Jeff Furness and inspected the
additional 112 acre area where PCS has requested to be included
in the above subject mine permit. The additional area is located
in the southwest portion of the NCPC Tract and extends almost
down to the new alignment of Hwy 306. This is an additional area
of the Phase 1 advance into the old NCPC area.
The additional affected land in within the EIS Alternative E
permitted by the Corps of Engineers and N. C. Division of Water
Quality. I do not see any problems with adding this area to the
Phase 1 mine advance into the old NCPC Tract.
1 of 1 09/09/1999 2:46 PM

0 •

DATE TO ASSISTANT
DATE SUSAN -746�
LOGGED IN Q�
�E.7 Cam•
MINING CHECKLIST FOR ROUTING
Company ,�,�^ Proj ect Name
y7-�I Count Date Received r
Permit No. y
Reviewer 11�
Please make copies of check to include with Central Office and
Field office files and log in checks.
* ❑ New ❑ Renewal 0. Modification ❑ Transfer ❑ Release
❑ Additional Information ❑ Fee Needed
0 Fee Received: Amount
Please route to:
Z]pv}4 d 1qvl✓ Field Office
iCJ Wildlife Resources Commission
* ❑ Archives and History
® Other: yw/'�- � f it
Date Routed /—,2-7 p
Date Routed
Date Routed
Date Routed
Suspense Date for Comments: �� �! (Date received +30 days,
not on weekend)
Z1Please note the following:
*SUSAN: Please make file and return Checklist and file to Reviewer
White Copy to Field Office Yellow and Pink Copies to File Goldenrod Copy to Susan

0 0

DATE TO ASSISTANT DATE *SUSAN I' i
LOGGED IN
1VIIN NG CHECKLIST FOR ROUTING
Company �� Project Name
Permit No. d� v9 County Date Received
Reviewer
Please make copies of check to include with Central Office and
Field Office files and log in checks.
* ❑ New ❑ Renewal 0 Modification ❑ Transfer ❑ Release
❑ Additional Information ❑ Fee Needed
0 Fee Received: Amount
Please route to:
Field Office
Wildlife Resources Commission
* ❑ Archives and History r
El Other- r' 4 1 trite
Date Routed" 7
Date Routed
Date Routed
Date Routed
c
Suspense Date for Comments: c / (Date received +30 days,
not on weekend)
Please note the following:
4A 1 11, 4.,
0-Y
*SUSAN: Please make file and return Checklist and file to Reviewer
White Copy to Field Office Yellow and Pink Copies to File Goldenrod Copy to Susan

0 0

u u 41M] Ju
JAMES B. HUNT JR.TO
GOVERNOR
WAYNEMcDEVITT,.`'
SECRETARY
�. CHARLES H. GARDNER
F?G., P.E. DIRECTOR_
AND STATE GEOLOGIST
0
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
July 27, 1999
Mr. William Wescott
Habitat Conservation Program Coordinator
Wildlife Resources Commission
FROM: Susan B. Edwards%L_
Mining Program Secretary
Land Quality Section
SUBJECT: Mining Permit Modification Request for PCS Phosphate
Aurora Phosphate Mine - Permit No. 07-01
Beaufort County
Please find attached for your review a copy of the mining permit modification
request for the above referenced project.
Please review this information and advise as to the probability of this operation
having unduly adverse effect on wildlife and freshwater fisheries (G.S. 74-51 (2)).
Please respond by August 26, 1999 so that we may complete our review of this
request within our statutory time limits.
As is the case in our review of all mining permit applications, renewals and
modifications, this office will carefully review all proposed erosion and sediment
control measures to ensure that they are sufficient to restrain erosion and off -site
sedimentation. However, any comments your agency can provide regarding effects on
wildlife and freshwater fisheries would be greatly appreciated. If your staff wishes to
perform a site inspection, it is recommended that they contact the person submitting
this request to set up a convenient date and time. Also, please send a copy of your
comments to the person noted in the application. RETURN ALL APPLICATION
MATF,RTALS AND MAPS WITH YOUR REVIEW COMMENTS TO THIS
OFFICE.
Your continued cooperation in the review of these type requests is greatly
appreciated. Please contact Mr. Tracy Davis at [phone] if you have any
questions.
/SBE
Attachments
cc: Mr. Floyd Williams
LAND QUALITY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SECTION (9T 9) 733-2423 FAX (S191 733-0900
ra
P.O. Box 27687, RALEIGH, NORTH CAAOLINA 2761 1.7687 TELEPHONE [phone] FAX (S19) 71 5-8801
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

0 •

PCS
Phosphate AURORA
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC 27808
PAY TO THE ORDER OF
North Carolina Dept, of ENR
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
CMW* DmWd a,a
One per's way
NBw C SW. DE T9720
0 1
11 311
CHECK NUMB
7 S
CONTROL 562163
Jury 227 1999 NUMBER
AMOUNT
$500.00**

0 •

r
0
PCs
Phosphate
AURORA DIVISION
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC 27806
July 22, 1999
Mr. Tracy Davis, Mining Specialist
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Davis:
EV
JUL 2 5 1999
PCS Phosphate has refined its mining plans for Alternative E on the NCPC Tract since the
Alternative E acreage was added to Mine Permit 7-1 on December 22, 1998. The revised plan
calls for mining to occur in the southwest portion of the NCPC Tract almost down to the new
alignment of NC 306. This additional affected land totals 112 acres.
The area that Phase I will now affect is highlighted in the attached Figure 7 from Robert M.
Chiles, P.E. This figure replaces Figure 7 in the erosion and sediment control plan submitted and
approved as part of the December 22, 1998 permit modification. Also enclosed is a check for
$500.00 to cover the permit modification fee. The additional affected land is all within EIS
Alternative E, permitted by the Corps of Engineers and N. C. Division of Water Quality, and the
Mine Permit 7-1 boundary permitted by DLR.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
QhO�WC44S
J ey C. Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
JCF:Pwo
Attachment
PC: Floyd Williams - DLR, WaRO
w/attach,
B. A. Peacock / 00-14-000
w/o attach.
M. T. Harris
w/o attach.
I. K. Gilmore
w/o attach.
D. J. Millman
w/o attach.
R. M. Chiles
w/o attach.
12-04-001-48
w/attach.

JUr.22.1999
9:03AM P OWD 0
NO.495 P.1/3
PCS PHOSPRATF - AURORA DIVISION
AURORA, NC
FAX No. 2521322-4444
Transmittal Cover Sheet
Date; aA� iii
To: a��av� s�.� �� 4) 7 33 r (v
From: �k 'emuw r44s
Confidentiality Notice
The information contained in this fax transmittal is privileged and confidential and intended for the
addressee only. If you are neither the intended recipient nor the employee or agent responsible for
delivering this message to the intended recipient, any disclosure of this information in any way or
taking of any action in reliance on this information is strictly prohibited. if you have received this
fax in error, please notify the person transmitting the information immediately.
******************************VFW**********Weir*********************
Number of Pages, including this cover sheet:
Special Instructions I � Q
�a-tea'44 .
a-
Zf you should have any problems with this transmittal please call PhyllisOrmond,
Environmental Affairs Dept, - PCS Phosphate at 252/322-4111, Ext. 8667.
4,9, A a'w� W (21 1 A q�-� X,

0 •

0 0

t
JUL.22.1999 9:O4AM P OR
D
NO.Q85 P.3/3
0
or
•A, it .�
O�NN
k I ff
A,vi�nA„
•:• `•'•'�'•_ '•'•'.'• � hx^, � "°"\ ,��"� CAR "`•.,,
loll
11:1,244 SR9IYF1{T rfirNK.
rX DO M KCMG
mw
' •' r•��i : """" I i 043 AM nw . drol WUTS
ro : "r r�'Miw~ir Aa w i�}�0�1y i lilm OW
U � � .— t - ' . ,:: _.._.. , ... _. _.... � � •' M � ni rw +iit �rre� •n� o.n��
A �. •7 A Ljr -1 � 11 � .�; . " �+,r..! + _ rani TN.i
`• tY��yf�A •7 ^r- arpog FAW WATIPIP 114" woEv To was rWI 7-1
• +I I I, 4 0' 14
y ' / T I • I WE 46WWARM Wf%R OIa
t fl ` �."°
' � t D � Kr wr.0 oeo wrn
j i A ` 1 "x` r....� • 1. Boom • n r4wrol1ew IW
.f AdLd ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
- _ - ` `• moo Boa— o 4 ...w Nw um
.a.A

A �

WIN
[
�
f
it
,�,'•?
l�!� r
r
�
�
n'I�+';
�t 'y
� �►*s� 'tom
�
1i
,/�
rr
a';�1
l� •�
-
`
�/
i
_��
sw 7 r r ]I • � f r
fit'{�
1•,
.�_
I{
. _ �
� ��1l.+�
. _ � i�
_►� _..ter_
I
r ROBERT M
0

i
i
i
•

d d
� z
G-5
ro
I 70
00 �
I
..'...•.'.`.'.'.'.... .
�p ..............
um
� z
M
D �
�1 fTl
F r
0 :> D
n) D
H
CD F-
o z Z
I
F-
z < z
C m —I
D r
M
L F1
z
z �
a
7u
G-3/4
i0ap�A•,
TAVTa"A6VIA�a�A
.iY�'•'.i_. ► .t...i.. ..:ice#', z
a
I . L
-•.L
.i. 4. 1 r'
RECYCLE LAKE
v r
LEGEND PREVIOUSLY PLANTED AREAS
"— TO BE CHOPPED AND DISK HARROWED
6v TO BE PLANTED WITH TREES
0 — AREA DRYING FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
-- NCSU TEST PLOTS
— GYPSUM TO BE RECLAIMED
GYPSUM RECLAIMED
— LAKE AREA
--_-_-_ SURFACE DRAINAGE DITCH
0 — ACTIVE BLEND STORAGE AREA
— SANDTAILINGS DISCHARGE AREAS
— BUCKET WHEEL SPOIL ADVANCE
— DREDGE SPOIL ADVANCE
— MINING AREA
0' 21000, 4,000' 61000'
l I h�
BAR SCALE

ro
c
u
0
d D
D
D
� 3 �
D
z z
C Frj E-
F- < D
-< z
TO
V
F9
F z
t
17 0
7
G-3/4
- . L. I .1
BE-
J.1
...... ..........•"
RECYCLE LAKE
r
I
LEGEND
- PREVIOUSLY PLANTED AREAS
9- SPRAYED, DISK PLOWED AND SEEDED
- AREA DRYING F❑R FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
- NCSU TEST PLOTS
-- GYPSUM RECLAIMED
Q- LAKE AREA
------- SURFACE DRAINAGE DITCH
0 - ACTIVE BLEND STORAGE AREA
- SANDTAILINGS DISCHARGE AREAS
- BUCKET WHEEL SPOIL ADVANCE
DREDGE SPOIL ADVANCE
�- MINING AREA
0` 21000, 4,000' 61000'
BAR SCALE

t.
..;�

'J
1
i
r
+
I
IJ
�%
-,
�J Ifr7 f
�
A.4 •r♦a•�. ,, s.
Fff i =• ♦'! •aa �•♦r,
.r •.a
• • f a
.... 1 41ti1i
.ti f . ,.. �•. f.. a
••f'L
�
1r.1�
F
' .i•
11
l
f
1
1
1
`
f
11 I
1 I
�1.
r
1
1
r • : r
a

I

Legend
6 a ab
aaaaa as Trees
Cover Crop
C Drying for Reclamation'
Water
�] Active Mining Area G-6
R-5 for Spoil � . � G-2
J.JJ:�J%l R-b for Spoil A ff
R-7 Blend Placement
0 Dredge Activity f ;='-�'� 4-7
0 Sand Placement
0 Trees Planted
� Chopping and Plowing'
for Planting �;., ,r , ,` L• _ �__; .�
t --
-- Dig and Clean Ditches
for Drainage
r aim i
r
y
' Y
Active %
Mire
F'
I
IIr.. �nuyr�ill�iirr k �, ,..I
pre
oil
r -
Ar
- -- Y __
.Y
.1.I ali_ ti
I~� -
R_7
Active A
Mine ;a

r 5