07-01_8_Redacted

a-7-ol
PCs
Phosphate AURORA
PCS PNCSPNAM COMPANY, WC.
P.O. SOX MB. AURORA, NO U.S.A. VON
CERTIFIED MAIL
December 16, 2002
Mr. Tracy Davis R�+ fir`''
Division of Land Resources DEC 1 my 2002
North Carolina Department of ENR
1612 Mail Service Center gy:
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Dear Mr. Davis:
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 T. L. Baker reporting on the spillway inspection for 2002.
If you have any questions please call me at [phone].
\/Sim/ncerel/y,,
\L I� 1�tM.INA
J.ICV.1 Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
JCF
Enclosure
PC: Floyd Williams, DLR - WaRO (w/encl)
T. L. Baker (w/encl.)
R. M. Thomas (w/o encl.)
D. J. Millman (w/encl.)
R. K. Jenner (w/encl.)
M. L. Ashy (w/encl.)
D.D. Winstead (w/encl.)
23-04-002-06 (w/encl.)04404� ^ nU
O ��

Phosphate
memo
Date December 3, 2002
To T. L. Baker
From R. M. Thomas
SubjectClay Pond Inspection
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 3, 2002.
The following items on each spillway were checked:
Item Condition
Inlet structures (Columns, Beams, Bracing,
Grating, Ladders, and Handrails) Good except that the Pond 3 north spillway
structure is corroding severely and should be
painted and the safety chains and brackets for
several of the spillways are also severely corroded.
Riser Spool Pieces
Good
- Flashboards
Good
Outlet Pipe, Headwall, Splash Pad,
And Stilling Basin & Baffle
Good
Debris in Flowway
All Clear
0010109096
Ripmp in Outlet Channel
Good
.,`�°'��o...
US4m
If you have any questions, please call.
7027
�aG�"ro'�CI�fE
R� M. Thomas, Senior EngineerA
CC: D. J. Millman

r
PhosphacSte AURORA
PGB P1109RUTE COMPANY. INC.
P.O, BOX a. AURORA NC URA. J!7106
CERTIFIED MAIL
May 6, 2002
Ms. Coleen Sullins, ChiefWar" Quality Quality Section L'L MAY - 8 2p02
Division of Water Quality i
North Carolina Dept. of ENR DEN R
1617 Mail Service Center I I ANn QUALITY SECT
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 '—
Re: PCS Phosphate Whitehurat Creek 401 Certification
DEM #92039
Certification 2748 (originally issued June 30, 1992)
Dear Ms. Sullins:
On April 24, 1992, PCS Phosphate submitted an application for a 401 Water Quality
Certification to DEM (now D WQ) to mine through a section of the channelized
freshwater portion of upper Whitehurst Creek. Approval of the 401 certification was
issued on Jane 30, 1992, and a mitigation channel was constructed as a condition of the
certification. A modification of the certification, in order to relocate a portion of the
mitigation channel, was requested on December 15, 1994, and approved on May 30,
1995. A second modification of the certification was requested on May 28, 1996, which
involved construction of a new channel through reclaimed land and a change in the
completion date for the entire channel system to be tied into the lower undisturbed
portion of Whitehurst Creek. This modification request was approved by DWQ on
December 12, 1996, and stipulated a completion date of June 7, 2003. A copy of the
December 12, 1996 approval is enclosed.
Enclosed is a drawing of the overall plan for Whitehurst Creek restoration. The
reclaimed section of Whitehurst Creek, labeled West Prong on the drawing, is
constructed through overburden material placed by our bucketwheel excavator system.
The channel will carry stormwater coming off the surrounding +120-acre watershed,
which is inside the heavy black line around the West Prong on the drawing, and all of
which is overburden material. There is an approximately 200-foot wide area between the
downstream end of the reclaimed West Prong and the upstream end of undisturbed
Whitehurst Creek that needs to be excavated in order to tie the two sections together.
PCS Phosphate is planning on excavating this area during the second half of 2002 to meet
the June 7, 2003 deadline.
The requirement of the 401 Water Quality Certification is to have a permanent,
continuous hydrologic connection (see December 12, 1996 modification approval)
o'V

'I
between the upper (West Prong) and lower (undisturbed) sections of Whitehurst Creek.
This letter is to make sure that pertinent Units of DWQ, specifically the NPDES Unit, are
aware of the plan.
Once the tie-in is made, the approved mitigation and monitoring plan calls for monthly
grab sampling and analysis of water in the West Prong for dissolved oxygen, pH,
temperature, conductivity, fluoride and total phosphorus. These monthly results will be
reported in the annual monitoring report written by our consultant, CZR Incorporated.
Enclosed is a table showing the analysis results of grab samples collected in March/April
2001 and March/April 2002 from the reclaimed West Prong.
The excavation for the tie-in is scheduled to begin in July. If we do not receive any
comments back from DWQ by July 15, we will assume that there are no DWQ regulatory
issues and we will proceed with excavation. If you or any member of your staff have any
questions, please call me at [phone], or e-mail me at
jfurnessQpesphosphate.com.
Sincj4f�
erely, ///�
C. L�
ey C. Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
Encl.
PC: John Domey w/encl.
Dave Goodrich Wen&
Dave Penrose w/encl.
Jim Mulligan w/encl.
Roger Thorpe w/encl.
Deborah Sawyer w/encl.
Tracy Davis w/encl.
T.L. Baker w/encl.
J.M.Waters w/encl.
W.A. Schimming w/eacl.
23-01-004-26 w/encl.
e-mail: D.D. Winstead
I.K. Gilmore
D.J. Millman
R.K.Jenner
W.T. Cooper

4

State of North CarolinaIT
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Division of Water duality �r
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Atr 1�
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary p E H N F�
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 12,1996
Mr. Jeffrey FUmesfI VENNIFWAt AFFAIRS DEPT
PCs Phosphate
P.O. Box 48 DEC I J l"6
Aurora, NC 27806
Dear Mr. Furness:
Re: Modification of 401 Water Quality Certification
Relocation of upper portion of Whitehurst Creek
DBM #92039
Certification 2748 (originally issued 30 June 1992)
Beaufort County
J;L Sri tn:k . 02-o1- 01
�c= 6aAS
Wrc
3 R p lo0- ly-oo0
NmgAaW
WM
bJ nY
ra- or- 004(- a b
�cc_ ea s
Lll>n 7 GIs
The Certification issued on 30 June 1992 to Texasgulf, Inc. (now PCs Phosphate) is
hereby modified to read as follows:
Reconstruction of the upper portion of Whitehurst Creek shall be completed by 7 June
2003 as described in your letter of 29 August 1996which shall include grading, tree
planting and establishment of a permanent continuous hydrologic connection to the
remaining portion of Whitehurst Creek. Grading and planting shall be done and completed
by 7 June 1998 with the final tie-in to the new channel by 7 June 2003. If these dates are
not met, a S1,000.00 per day penalty will be imposed by DWQ until the creek is
reestablished to assure compliance. In addition an additional 0.4 acre mitigation area shall
be created where the two channels come together. A final mitigation plan for all wetland
and stream mitigation shall be submitted within two months of the date of this letter.
All other conditions of this Certification are still applicable. Please call Mr. John
Domey of my staff at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions.
Sin rely j���I,.'(
Pn
orm HdCvard, 7r.
rx: Jim Mulligan, DWQ Washington Regional
Kristen Rowles, Pamlico -Tar River Found
Central Files ,
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Tracey Davis, Division of Land Resources
Division of Water Quality a Environmentat Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 a Telephone [phone] a FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycledr 10% poetoonaunar paper

PCS Phosphate Water Quality Analyses of the
Reclaimed West Prong of Whitehurst Creek
Date
pH
Total P
Fluoride
TSS
3/7/01
7.4
0.30
1.38
11
3/15/01
7.4
0.15
1.70
8
3/21 /01
7.6
0.12
0.81
8
3/28/01
7.4
0.28
1.31
13
4/5/01
7.6
0.16
1.50
11
4/12/01
7.2
0.12
1.66
8
4/18/01
NA
0.17
1.66
11
4/25/01
7.2
0.32
1.83
10
3/27/02
7.4
1.41
0.98
20
4/3/02
7.3
1.42
1.12
34
4/10/02
7.5
2.00
1.07
68
4/17/02
7.5
0.97
1.19
18
4/24/02
NA
0.47
1.10
NA
m

ZR
L • PORATED
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS RT!.CEZ,V•ED TEL 91o/392-9253
FAX 910/392A139
APR 1 g 2002 czrwOm®aol.com
By:
MEMORANDUM
TO: See Distribution
FROM: Kent Karriker, Jeff Coward
DATE: 16 April 2002
RE: Minutes of the 25 February 2002 meeting for the PCS Phosphate Mine
Continuation permit application
review
I
The sixth meeting for thereview of PCS
Phosphate's Mine Continuation permit
2
application was held at the Washington
Regional Office of the North Carolina
3
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources on 25 February 2002. The
4
following people were in attendance:
5
6
Scott McLendon - USACE
20
David Moye - NCDCM
7
David Lekson - USACE
21
Ed Lynch - NCDCM
8
Bill Biddlecome - USACE
22
Guy Pearce - NCDCM
9
Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate
23
Sean McKenna - NCDMF
10
Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate
24
Kathy Matthews - USEPA
11
Jerry Waters - PCS Phosphate
25
Ron Sechler - NMFS
12
Pete Wind - PCS Phosphate
26
Mike Wicker - USFWS
13
Terry Baker - PCS Phosphate
27
Tom Augspurger - USFWS
14
Deborah Sawyer - NCDWQ
28
William Wescott - NCWRC
15
John Dorney - NCDWQ
29
Shannon Deaton - NCWRC
16
Bob Zarzecki - NCDWQ
30
David McNaught - ED
17
Jimmie Overton — NCDWQ
31
Mary Alsentzer - PTRF
18
Maria Tripp - NCDWQ
32
Kent Karriker - CZR Incorporated
19
Terry Moore — NCDCM
33
Jeff Coward - CZR Incorporated
34
s/4wv
140 INTRACOASTAL POINTE DRIVE • SUITE 301 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5064
TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] culup®col.ccm

35
36 At approximately 10:10 a.m., Mr. McLendon called the meeting to order.
37 He requested that the discussion be confined to alternatives, stating that he did not
38 wish to spend a significant amount of time discussing Project Area. At Mr.
39 Dorney's request, he briefly discussed the content of the 24 January 2002 USACE
40 letter, which defined the Project Area as the Aurora Area but noted that the Aurora
41 Phosphate District would still be considered and discussed in the EIS. Mr.
42 McLendon added that alternatives will be confined to the Aurora Area, but
43 reminded everyone that if any reasonable alternatives arise outside the Aurora
44 Area, they will be examined.
45
46 Mr. Augspurger asked for twenty minutes at the end of the meeting to
47 discuss the cadmium issue and the PCS Phosphate letter to NCDLR dated 21
48 February 2002. Mr. McLendon agreed to set aside time at the end of the meeting Y
49 to discuss the letter.
50
51 The discussion then turned to alternatives. Mr. Smith handed out an 8 % " x
52 11" graphic that depicts potential mine development blocks in the Project Area.
53 This graphic also illustrates previously mined areas and the currently permitted
54 mine. The potential mine development blocks depicted on the graphic are the
55 NCPC Tract, the Area South of Highway 33, the Grace Tract, the Edward Area, the
56 Bonnerton Area, Core Point, and the Pamlico River. Mr. Smith indicated that the
57 Project Area includes approximately 69,000 acres that do not fall under the current
58 permit, but added that PCS Phosphate does not yet know the tonnage of
59 phosphate for all of the potential mine blocks. He also noted that the town of
60 Aurora, the community of Edward, and South Creek are not included in any of the
61 potential mine development blocks.
62
63 Mr. McNaught asked how many acres are in each block. Mr. Smith stated
64 that these acreages have not been calculated yet. Mr. Moye asked if the 69,000-
65 acre estimate includes the Pamlico River and other open waters within the Project
66 Area. Mr. Smith indicated that it does. Mr. Mays asked how many acres of the
67 estimated 69,000 consist of open waters. �Mrr. FF.urness-stated-that-the'Pamlico:j
66 River lease -is -approximately 10;000-acras;9and Mr. Smith indicated that the total
69 open water area within the Project Area has not been calculated. Mr. Wicker
70 asked if the tonnage of phosphate per surface acre is known. Mr. Smith pointed
71 out that this information is contained in one of the graphics handed out during a
72 previous meeting. Mr. McNaught inquired whether the acreage estimate excludes
73 the town of Aurora and South Creek. Mr. Smith indicated that it does not. Mr.

74 kMcNaught : then-estimated-by--visual--inspection--of-the-graphic=that_w,hacP_C.S
75 P_hosphate=reall.y�has gvailable--for-mining-is-around-4b;000� acras�Mr�Smith�2-,,
76 Cagreed-with-this-estimate:) Mr. McNaught asked how many acres compose the
77 NCPC tract. Mr. Furness indicated that the IN.CPC—T. act_covers_approximately i
78 c4500:-acre-s":a. He further explained that PCS Phosphate is trying to look at all
79 potential alternatives, as suggested by Mr. McNaught at the last meeting, by
80 developing and using a set of avoidance principles throughout the Project Area.
81 Mr Furness--stated_that=he eniiisions--a--ldgi'cal:mining_se"quence--f.or_the-P_toject_Area�
82 hat-would=begin_by--lookin g--at-the--NCP_C Tract; and--then-work-around=the--Project]
83 cArea in-a-cfockwise:direction.
84
85 Mr. Furness then asked Mr. McLendon if the generic mine blocks shown on
86 the graphic are a suitable starting point for developing alternatives. Mr. McLendon
87 indicated that they look like an appropriate starting point. Mr. McNaught stated
88 that they look reasonable. He added that establishing the principles for avoiding
89 environmental impacts on the NCPC tract and applying these principles to
90 subsequent blocks would reduce the time and effort required to evaluate these
91 other areas.
92
93 Mr. McLendon stated that the group needs to look at various scenarios on
94 Hickory Point. He cautioned that while there is an infinite number of potential
95 alternatives, the group needs to draw some lines that will capture the full range of
96 variation within a manageable number of alternatives. He added that the issue of
97 Hickory Point needs to be resolved, and he referred to the CZR map (sent out prior
98 to the 17 December 2001 meeting) of the NCPC Tract with three potential mining
99 alignments as a starting point for that resolution. Mr. McNaught pointed out that
100 the graphics presented so far do not have Alternative D overlaid, as he had
101 requested during the last meeting. Ms. Sawyer made copies for everyone of the
102 Alternative D graphic from the last EIS.
I03
I04 Mr. McLendon brought up the issue of considering mitigation during the
105 alternatives analysis. He stated that, ideally, mitigation is not supposed to be
106 considered during the alternatives analysis. However, he added that Hickory Point
107 will have to be restored to a useable form, and the restoration of the watersheds
108 will factor into decisions on alternatives.
Iii%
110 Mr. McLendon asked for a discussion of how the three possible mining lines
11I on the CZR NCPC Tract map were drawn. Mr-M22r:ney-explained-that-NCDWQ-
112 Cused-their-staridal'd=wetland_rating-system to`help-draw-their mining -exclusion line,
3

113 which-is-z ne-of---the-possible-mining-lines depicted-on-the4CZR-map-.j He added that
114 there had been considerable discussion over whether to exclude from mining the
115 hardwood forest area known as Section 44. TlsZNorth--Carolina_Natural-Heritage
116 Program-(NCNHP)_evaluated-Section-44-and-said-it-was-not-a--unique-communit
117 therefore�NCDV11Q=did_n6t_exclude it from_tl�e_rniningAre aj Mr. Dorney stated that
118 the NCDWQ line likely excludes most streams and buffers from the mining area,
119 but the line probably will have to move back in some areas to exclude all streams
120 and buffers as they currently are defined by NCDWQ. He added ,that the wetlands
121 avoidance depicted by the NCDWQ line still should be valid.
122
123 Mr. McNaught pointed out that old Alternative D avoided Section 44, and he
124 suggested that a similar avoidance alternative needs to be evaluated during the
125 current EIS process. Ms. Alsentzer asked how long it will take to get an updated
126 version of the NCDWQ line that depicts streams and buffer areas according to
127 current criteria. Ms. Sawyer indicated that it probably will take until this summer
128 since the field determinations are not complete yet.
129
130 Mr. McLendon asked Mr. McNaught if he had been alluding to a similar multi-
131 line map for the Area South of Highway 33. Mr. McNaught indicated that he is
132 interested in seeing such a map because avoidance in the NCPC Tract may not
133 allow a full mine plan there. Itrrtiay=benec`ssaiy-to-siipplement-the_NC.P_CTracrt
134 �mine�plan with part -of the�Area�-South-of--Highway_ - Mr. Lekson added that
135 during the last EIS, the agencies formulated specific criteria for identifying Wetland
136 Areas of Special Concern (WASC). The WASC concept could be used to identify
137 avoidance areas in other tracts.
138
139 Mr. McNaught stated that although NCDWQ did not exclude the wetlands in
140 Section 44 from potential mining during the last EIS, he felt that Section 4r4�was
141 nice habitat. Mr. Dorney stated that NCNHP thought it was nice habitat, but not
142 unique. LMr i�, F�urness indicat6d-that;the area�is Wei g logged___.now:�q
143
144 Mr. McLendon asked if old Alternative B was set up to be reasonable in
145 terms of mine costs, or if it was based strictly on CAMA avoidance. Mr. Moye
146 indicated that it was based on CAMA avoidance. Mr. Furness added that although
147 it was based on CAMA avoidance, the line was reasonable from a mine planning
148 standpoint. Mr. McLendon stated that during the last EIS process, the
149 determination of whether alternatives were reasonable was based on the
150 economics of the entire mining process. Instead ,loo.king-solely at -haw -much_ re
151 Ciswin t#�e�g'� ro d;-ttie-gf'aup-needs-to-consicler�what_it_wi�1_cast-to-recover-the-are_in�
4

152 7a particular,are.a_ana-tr.'ansport-it-to-the-mill As an example of the kinds of costs
153 that must be considered, he noted that the total cost of recovering and milling the
154 ore goes up considerably the farther it must be transported to the mill. Mr. Smith
155 noted that last time, the economic analysis used the unit cost (per ton of
156 concentrate) to develop an annual cost amortized over the 20-year mine plan.
157
158 Mr. McLendon stated that the group now has a starting point for
159 alternatives, and that sooner or later the group will have to begin looking at some
160 alternative lines. He noted that this point in the alternatives development process
161 is a good opportunity for everyone to say what he or she likes and does not like.
162 Q. Dorney volunteered to write potential alternatives on the board. �A `staffing
163 I oint<{: the group composed`the`following_lis.t_of_passiblKalternati.ves�on the_N:CPC�
I64 Tract:
165 c.4 9, PCS Phosphate's current proposal,
I66 - 3 old Alternative B (CAMA avoidance),
167 2,1113 the NCDWQ mining exclusion line (significant wetlands),
168 rl�V. the NCDWQ line with additional avoidance of streams and buffers as
169 they are currently defined,
170 UVO old Alternative D (CAMA, WASC avoidance),
I71 &Y1:7 the narrowest possible "return sweep" toward the southwest after the
172 current Alternative E has been completed.
173
174 Mr. Overton asked how much distance is required to turn the mining
175 equipment for the "return sweep" noted in VI. Mr. Smith stated the depth of the
176 overburden has a big impact, and in the north end of the NCPC Tract, where the
177 ore is deep, it would require a wider area to turn. Mr. Furness added that the
178 width also depends on how many draglines need to fit through the turn. PCS
179 Phosphate prefers to use three draglines, but occasionally they are separated,
180 depending on current mining needs. Mr. McNaught asked Mr. Overton to clarify if
181 he was asking about the minimum width that would allow the return sweep. Mr.
182 Overton said yes, noting that enough room would have to be left to maneuver the
183 equipment.,Smilh,:s ated-tliattahe4=width would:dif#ems depending on whether;
184 CtheyLuse no a draglines orsthree: He further explained that if only one dragline is
185 used on Hickory Point, the other two must be working somewhere else. LH_e_!-no ed�
186 that;-a,ryErecent—operation-involving twos draglines`in—the—southwest_portion of^�
187"Alternative`_E�required=2;.5.0.0jeet;`buf production -was limited during-this-operatio
188 CMr`�>Ullaters;:'imdicafed�that"�optimum�w.idth--.fors three-dragli6es7is-4;000-feet Mr.
189 Lekson asked if the width of the Alternative E land trade that was proposed by PCS
5

190 Phosphate in 2000 was 4,000 feet. Mr. Furness confirmed that it was 4,000 feet.
191 Mr. Lekson stated that he recalled talking to the dragline operators, who stated
192 that three draglines could operate in a 1,000-foot-wide pit. Mr. Smith stated that a
193 1,000-foot pit width is not feasible because each dragline has a 255 foot swing
194 radius, which means each requires a 510 foot circle in which to work. Mr. Lekson
195 reiterated that the USACE spoke with an operator who said it could be done. He
196 added that it would not be optimum, but the group needs to talk about a starting
197 point. Mr. Smith stated that PCS Phosphate could not make production at that
198 width. Because the draglines side cast material as they work, they would make
199 one cut and then have to stop because they would run out of room to work.
200
201 Ms. Sawyer asked if the dispute over the upstream limits of Public Trust
202 waters has been resolved. Mr. Moye answered that g.; ere now—ar:e�two-Lliries
203 JrFpresrenting two-Ndifferent-7op nions of�P:Ublic-Trust, the NCDCM opin on_and�th204 CSRPh so ghats opinibn.�He stated that the current application does not avoid
205 CAMA jurisdictional areas because it impacts areas that NCDCM considers Public
206 Trust.
207
208 Mr.+,McNaught ihen'suggest d;.the; atldition potential-Alternative.Nll.; which
209 ;allowts for, no more. -minis ' e ­"" ,^ p g-on-the7NCPC; Tract -after -the c irrent�permit� expires: Mr.
210 D ey ad&ed Vll to the list. Mr. McNaught noted that VI is a needed step
211 between VII and V, because it allows for the minimum possible return sweep,
212 rather than just picking up and moving when the end of Alternative E is reached.
213 Mr. Fur"'""ne indicated-that-Vhi.s-not considered-an-ooption7:for-PCS-Pho_sghate if -it
214 ini of res-plittiingT,,thercurrentl.y-permitted"Alternative E arxc=_o'n_the-assumption-tha"t
215 the -southeastern T ide 'of_it_w.ill_lie�m�nedg with a narrow strip`ofnewrland#
216 CduriMng 4het return swee SYu`c� ha-a-,sscenario-would-give-up-currently-permittedrland-I
.��+
217 the ,hoperof,-receIVing��a . futur �}m�t_fo� the'�atlditional �st�ip�ofi new�land:� Mr.
218 MWiugfit stated that he understood PCS Phosphate's hesitancy, but said that he
219 would like to consider it as an option. He. expressed the opinion that at least it
220 would be better for PCS Phosphate than picking up and moving the equipment
221 upon completion of Alternative E. �Mr___^5mithr statedtHatF�if�PCS�Phospt�ate r
222 toldtocfayt hat there would=beno_rnore: rngon-theeNCPC�Tract; they -would -not
223splitytheFcu*,rent- mine in,-half-and-mine-haek,�-the� -.would-go-back-stop
224 Mr. McNaught would -hold -true even if a wider return strip is allowed.
225 Mr. Smith said they would have to consider that option.
226
227 Mr. Dorney briefly went over the list of potential NCPC Tract alternatives
228 that he 'had written on the board up to this point in the meeting. Mr. Smith then
R

229 asked if III (NCDWQ mining exclusion line) could be eliminated because it is a
230 variation of IV (NCDWQ line updated to avoid streams and buffers). Mr. Dorney
231 and Ms. Sawyer agreed, and III was erased. After this change, the list of
232 alternatives was as follows:
233 401? PCS Phosphate's current proposal,
234 III? old Alternative B,
235 a!51"1 (blank),
23611/? the NCDWQ mining exclusion boundary (significant wetlands) with
237 additional avoidance of streams and buffers as they are currently
238 defined,
239 tV? old Alternative D (CAMA, WASC avoidance),
240 `I! the narrowest possible "return sweep" toward the southwest after the
241 current Alternative E has been completed, and
242 CUIP. no further mining on the NCPC Tract.
243
244 HMr'Ah..WickeY-7stated:that_P_CS�P_hosphete'needs-an-alternative-wlth-en effi"cler5t
245 (➢scale of �operatio�i.e., a straig'hi Ime_alteinative that -is wide_enough.not to_cause
246 �aperetional-problenTslh He further suggested that if such an alternative can be
247 permitted, then perhaps PCS Phosphate can offer a little more mitigation and
248 restoration of the landscape and topography. tochca umifie`d approacfi_involvmgthe
249 CminingLt l;ernativ.& tf a mmitigation—and theTieclametion/restoration of-the_Iandscape.
250 pwowld4allow the ulYirnate_o4tcome-to be examined=instead-of_just_comparing
251 flevel,o4avdi ange_contained_ wi2hin_eaoh'altemativejj Mr. Smith stated that he likes
252 the idea because alternatives with "sawtooth" avoidance boundaries present
253 operational problems. However, the agencies need to understand that a certain
254 amount of give and take would be necessary to make such an alternative work.
255 Mr. Wicker suggested that such an alternative would contain additional mitigation
256 and reclamation conditions that would not be applicable to other alternatives. Ms.
257 Matthews cautioned that, under the Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines, impacts cannot
258 be bought down with mitigation.
259
260 Ms. Sawyer noted that wetlands in the Area South of Highway 33 needed
261 to be evaluated so they can be compared to wetlands in the NCPC Tract. Mr.
262 Smith indicated that PCS Phosphate has preliminary wetland information for the
263 Area South of Highway 33.
264
265 Mr. Wicker stated his belief that mining can happen without significant
7

266 impacts to wetlands. He acknowledged that his suggested approach may deviate
267 somewhat from the Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines, but if it produces a better end
268 result, it is acceptable in his opinion. Mr. McNaught praised Mr. Wicker's visionary
269 ambition, but noted that he is fearful of how it could play out. M M_cNa"u h—A
270 stated
allowingt�PCS;tk�hPi p;o senhatoen�anental-irrpactsmust^be�aVgiNd-and7-minimized-,-,while
271 �iaiile operation-with-a�reasonable-ret rn-;He-added that
272 if-theTgroU.p-negotiates-too-much:�up=f�ont; a�linecoutd-be dr Wa n�eaclythe�
273proces sthegroup_could_end_up_w.itt�_iessmitigation-than it_expe_-cts:
274
275 Mr. Dorney asked if Mr. Wicker's idea could be a refinement of existing
276 potential alternatives. Mr. McLendon stated that it could, and he added that before
277 the next permit is written, the cadmium issue must be resolved, since it ties into
278 how the landscape will be restored when mining is finished. Mr. Smith asked if Mr.
279 Wicker's recommendation is viable in light of the reservations that had been
280 expressed by some of the agencies. Mr. Wicker questioned whether there is any
281 harm in looking at the option, regardless of whether it eventually is determined to
282 be viable. Mr. McNaught stated that the possible harm is that ultimately everything
283 will play out in an arena of laws, and this idea may be stepping out of the arena.
284 He noted that PTRF has tried for five years to negotiate such an approach with PCS
285 Phosphate with no success. Mr. McNaught further added that the process must
286 determine how best to avoid and minimize wetland loss. He expressed concern
287 that the group could wind up with far less mitigation than it should get if the extra
288 wetlands are given up at the start. C' r. McNaughten'couragedu�the,-gr�oupto
289 maximize -avoidance -and -minimize impacts -while -allowing PCSPhosphate to -be
290 viable; but-he-urged_the-group not_to_n`egotiate_too early`in the -process
291
292 Mr. Wicker stated that the group cannot decide how profitable PCS
293 Phosphate should be. Instead, the group needs to devise something that is a better
294 deal for the company and for the environment. Mr. Wicker stated that the group
295 needs to decide now whether his suggested approach is possible. �MrAOFurness
296 suggested-tl atthe-gro_^up-could-review-theT,approach-aas�an alternative,by-evaluating
297 � rstraigYit line: b� oundaryxwithy a -reasonable pit width�from_bath-an-environmentat=
298 amend-an-ecomomic_standpoint. Ms. Matthews stated that she is not averse to
299 considering any alternative, but she reminded everyone that the group must treat
300 PCS Phosphate consistently with the way other applicants are treated. She noted
301 that Mr. Wicker's approach is not the normal way that Section 404 permitting is
302 conducted. Mr. McLendon confirmed that the group cannot make deals, but the
303 idea can be considered, even if not through the formal process. Mr. Wicker stated
304 that the endpoint of his idea is an alternative, not the permit. iT€hem-pridlimir�arV.
305 alternativ en list on the 'board_wwiras mod.ified�Esuch thatct-he--blank-111--4 came--a-4,

306 straightline alternative wwith_�_fialL-width mining alignment.
307
308 The discussion then returned to whether the width of the straight-line
309 alternatives could be varied by varying the number of draglines that are operating
310 during the return sweep. Mr. Smith stated that PCS Phosphate cannot bring only
311 one dragline back. Mr. Dorney asked what width is required for three draglines.
312 Mr. Smith stated that they have run two at 2,500 feet, but this was on a short-
313 term basis. U.'e'� We'd�that-the YRBE um"�i vidth'�is 3,OOp� eet_'for thr".ee_dcgglines,
314 a-RD. 5.0.02. et=- i mquiredrto�maintain.-Iongz-termzproductioD,,,� He summarized that
315 1,500 feet, 2,500 feet, and 3,500 feet are the necessary widths to operate one,
316 two, and three draglines, respectively. Mr. Lekson questioned whether these
317 widths are really necessary, and he asked about the width of the dragline's
318 footprint. ®MrSmh stattedrthavthe foat—jint is-65feet and theswing radius is
319 0255tfeeft, He added t
W the draglines cannot work right on top of each other
320 because of material side casting. Mr. Lekson said that PCS Phosphate needs to
321 explain why one dragline is not practicable. Mr. Smith stated that the ore supply to
322 the plant would be insufficient with one dragline.
323
324 Mr. Augspurger asked why, given that there is an alternative that
325 allows no draglines to mine back out of Hickory Point, there cannot be an
326 alternative with one dragline mining its way back out of Hickory Point. Mr. Smith
327 stated that it would be necessary to have the other two draglines working
328 somewhere else. Mr. Augspurger suggested two possible options. One option
329 involves using one dragline on Hickory Point and moving two elsewhere. The other
330 involves using two draglines on Hickory Point and moving the other somewhere
331 else. Mr. McLendon stated that some of the alternatives that involve mining small
332 areas of the NCPC Tract would not supply ore for a long-term mine planning period.
333 Mr. McNaught pointed out that these alternatives would involve mining in another
334 location in addition to the NCPC Tract, either simultaneously or sequentially. Ms.
335 Sawyer asked if machinery is available that does not require a 1,500-foot wide
336 space in which to operate. Mr. Waters answered that there is no such equipment.
337 He added that there are minimum width limits imposed by the stripping equipment
338 and the pit depth, as well as the limitations imposed by the draglines.
339
340 iMM...T 1ituf-rness �-comrnentedwthat Alternativess-III-andT-VI-are--variations-of--the
341 z:sanlemprnciplerand-sho.uld,;be-combined'-Hes.uggested-eliminating_Ill,-and:dividing
342 �VI-into ,three rvarva i`ations7-o"n Lhe_6t'.aight-lihaF return-sw:eepTprlriciple: a cge dragline
343 Cpit�ltii_dth;�atwo=drglinepit' %#e7-dFa­­glRfe—_0iCWidth7jine ,piCw,idth:j Mr. Moye
344 agreed that consideration of a no further action alternative and a three-dragline
9

345 straight-line alternative necessitated consideration of alternatives in between; i.e., a
346 one-dragline and a two-dragline straight-line alternative. The alternatives were
347 revised accordingly and the list was moved up to fill the vacant III spot, such that
348 r�Yhe finarlistdws a's� s follows.:
349 CIO PCS Phosphate's current proposal,
350 r 1 Ir.3 old Alternative B,
351 1210V the NCDWQ mining exclusion boundary (significant wetlands) with
352 additional avoidance of streams and buffers as they are currently
353 defined,
354 al WA old Alternative D (CAMA, WASC avoidance),
355 WU:a1. a straight-line return sweep with one dragline,
356 WSb a straight-line return sweep with two draglines,
357 U/ c. a straight-line return sweep with three draglines, and
358 CUI! no further mining on the NCPC Tract.
359
360 Mr. Furness noted that the avoidance areas contained in some of the non-
361 straight-line alternatives would result in pit widths and turn radii that cannot
362 accommodate three draglines. As an example, Mr. Smith noted that the NCDWQ
363 line would not allow a three-dragline operation. s I Furness#stated�tfiat anyS
364 Cdragline.f"s1 that_ete-' a _opera4ii g_onp tha CP_C Tract'—wculd_naed td_be_ope[ating
365 tsomewhererelse'to*maintain-the-supply-ofroreto thei p)anty Mr. Overton suggested
366 it might be possible for one or two draglines to start working in the new area while
367 the remaining machine(s) finish up in the current permit area. Mr. Smith reiterated
368 that the one-dragline and two-dragline alternatives would need to include, as part
369 of the alternatives, an area for the remaining dragline(s) to operate. Mr. Furness
370 added that PCS Phosphate still needs to evaluate whether it is economical to make
371 the return sweep in the NCPC Tract with one dragline. MMrr.-Bake�_stated-tfTaa3here
372 carg*manyc:utility-endcsupport-costs"assoeiaied=vuiYh moving�e-dragline. He noted
373 that PCS Phosphate currently has two pits open, and that the support costs went
374 up substantially when the second pit was opened. QM mitt`- f -stated=that-there
375 Cw uld9be>=si§niticani-adtled_preAtripping-casts_es ociaied_with-having-two-pits
376 &open et_once. The second pit would require either a second bucket wheel
377 excavator or pre -stripping by a dredge, which is very expensive.
378
379 �aM_ss Sawyerbs-'�skedi_if-importing_ore_woulH-be:evaluated-as -analtomativek Mr.
380 McLendon answered that it would, and added that the primary purpose for
381 evaluating it in the last EIS was to separate the processing operation from the
10

382 mining operation. IMM.r,�S_rnith noted tha#the last-ElS'did not -discuss -what -to, .doh
383 with the yg�. psum-,p.roducedF by prpeessing irnpo d ore. PCS Phosphate's current
384 clay/gypsum blend reclamation method would not be possible because there would
385 be no clay to blend with the gypsum and no pit in which to put the material.
386 Therefore, importing ore would require PCS Phosphate to construct more gypsum
387 stacks. Mr. Moye asked if the gypsum could be used for wallboard. Mr. Furness
388 answered that it could not because of the phosphoric acid contained in it.
389
390 Mr. Baker asked to be provided a copy of the guidelines used during the last
391 EIS process to define Wetland Areas of Special Concern (WASC). Mr. Lekson
392 explained that the basic idea behind the WASC concept was to identify high quality
393 wetlands. Mr. McNaught stated that it is a good idea to use the WASC guidelines
394 in alternatives development. He noted that the WASC concept was used last time
395 to develop Alternative D, and he speculated that it might help identify an additional
396 alternative during the current process.
397
398 IMrMgroye rai'sed-th.e"' subj6c of th Public Trust-Shoreliife= AEC; which~is-an-�
399 area .of C�'AMA perrnittingF author ty`thatw^since the Ia§t-EIS`procas
400 gX.piaine �rhat the" _Put lic Trusf,!!a oreline.LAIEC i 7r6-c-ontihUdJ6 bend=that7Ctgnr
401 landwards 3C feet from -the ed a {mean (igY wafer or -,normal -water -level) of all*,
402 Pi I lie Tro EW�� at_ers� Mr. Furness noted that this could require updating the old
403 Alternative B line that forms the basis for the CAMA avoidance alternative. Ms.
404 Sawyer requested that PCS Phosphate provide the group with a legible map of
405 alternatives when the locations of all of the NCPC Tract alternative boundaries
406 have been ascertained. Ms. Sawyer also noted the need to apply the NCDWQ
407 wetlands rating system to the Area South of Highway 33 so that the quality of
408 wetlands in this area can be compared to the quality of wetlands in the NCPC
409 Tract.
410
411 l�/lr. F,ur:Hess 'statedtfZat`gi;eri`_aguielin. a uch'�as void a11=11VAS�Cs`_PCS
412 EPhosph'ate-sould-_develop alternatives-10 other parts -of -the -Project Area-ba_ sed-an
413 tihat'riprinciple� Ms. Sawyer stated that avoidance of streams, buffers, and
414 significant wetlands would be a good guideline for development of avoidance
415 alternatives in the Project Area. IIVIrFurn'ess :asketl the`agroupta-clarify whether aD
416 1consensus had--been-reached--to-apply_thetWASC_conceptuto-dd el"op_avoida cn e
417 alternatives�in-r,other,parts of-,the-Pr�olsct,-Area, in addition #o-the�'NCPC"Tract: Mr-,
418M Lendonrstated�that�that consensusrhad been r�eacf�ed. Mr. Lekson added that
419 the WASC guidelines should be consisten# with those used during the last EIS
420 process to maintain comparability with WASCs identified previously. Mr. Lekson
11

421 offered to locate the documentation that defines WASC so that a copy of it can be
422 included with the minutes of this meeting. [rc p off tFecINASC-guidelines-is.
423 Cencldsedglwith't# -is niemorandum:y-1
424
425 After a short break, Mr. McLendon directed the discussion to parts of the
426 Project Area other than the NCPC Tract, beginning with the Area South of Highway
427 33. Mr. Furness stated that the wetland delineation in that area is mostly done,
428 and Mr. Karriker pointed out the major features of the area on a preliminary draft
429 wetland map. Mr. Karriker pointed out several small streams that penetrate into
430 the area. Mr. Smith noted that an alternative similar to the NCDWQ stream
431 avoidance alternative discussed for the NCPC Tract would remove large portions of
432 the Area South of Highway 33 from consideration for mining. However, M
433 USaw er"r no edU-,RE impacts_toithe--streams_migtit7be alIF— able_with-mitigation anandi
434 MrT.-f-McLena,on aadded�tha the quality -of, then:streams_in_the:.A e-a_S6uth-of�Hig wayh s,
435 r33 is lower.-thalITth q lity�of�the st gms_in -[W�k PC=TractA
436
437 Mr. Smith went on to explain that the..Area^South of; Highway 33' likely- 'ill-
438 supplysignif_ is ntly=fawer-tors-of �pFiosphaterper�acre�than_the_NC,PC=Tract. He
439 added that he is not sure that PCS Phosphate can mine the area fast enough to
440 maintain the phosphate production rate necessary to keep the mill supplied. Mr.
441 Moye asked if mining south of Highway 33 would require moving the mill. NAM
442 Sm th;repfied,-JKat PCS]Ph so pha a will_evaluate—w.hather mining there wduld7require
443 . moving the_mill _but -hem st ed-that,tKe--chemicaLplants_would-not--be'movd.,
444
445 Regarding the evaluation of wetland functions and values in the Area South
446 of Highway 33, Mr. Smith stated that the group needs to establish evaluation
447 parameters and apply them consistently. Ms. Sawyer explained that NCDWQ will
448 screen alternatives in terms of which alternative has the least impacts on water
449 quality. Mr. McLendon stated that the impacts of each alternative must be
450 discussed in light of the quality of the resources to be impacted. He cautioned that
451 there may not always be a purely quantitative or objective way to evaluate
452 resource quality. Ms. Sawyer added that NCDWQ's stream evaluation system does
453 not evaluate the quality of a stream; it is designed just to distinguish streams from
454 stormwater conveyances.
455
456 Mr. Furness noted that NCDCM needs to make Public Trust calls on the
457 streams in the Area South of Highway 33 so that a CAMA avoidance alternative
458 can be developed for that area. Mr. McNaught suggested that the group does not
459 necessarily need to develop the same number of alternatives for each part of the
12

460 Project Area. It is possible that some sets of evaluation criteria will result in
461 alternatives that can be combined. IUWMcLend .anagreed ti�attt�e�group�-shouid�
462 r-not�,attemptyto ,drawl everv;possible �iinevon eucli"tEMdQ:
463
464 Mr. McNaught stated that the Bonnerton area also needs to be evaluated for
465 alternatives. Mr. Smh71ata stt= PCSrPhosphatehas not y_et caiculat"e`d-the.tons
466 a.mt;t.hpee e Bor�neronMarea, bit-he--notedtiat_the_amdunt
n��hoae il,bintly4essthavaan�t`o�ef
,467hosp�eis signifcaphatesavailaklee
468 PCac and ow ultl= not -be_ uone gh#.ova long-term. mine plan_; Mr. McNaught
469 expressed concern that PCS Phosphate has said that mining is not economically
470 viable outside the 30 mine ratio contour, and now appears to be saying that it is
471 not necessarily economically viable within it either. IHe ssaidgt-.hat. PCS`=Pihosphe,
472 mow appearstobe trxyingtoexci�de�Bo nn erton-andthe"Grp tact on:ecanonhic
473 Cgraunclsand�seerns to bepushirig' to d the_NCPC`Tracy t as=the only ecanbmi'cally
474 .viable .;area-. Mr. Smith clarified that he was trying to make the point that
475 Bonnerton does not have enough phosphate to constitute a stand-alone alternative,
476 not that it is not viable in any form. JMr. ° McNa'"ugh�t n,"`oted that`itrriaybe po5sie`#o,
477 CuseBon en rton"in_,c rmbination.wittlr another,.a�ea. Mr. Baker countered that PCS
478 Phosphate needs to proceed with mining in a logical sequence; splitting the
479 draglines up to mine multiple small areas does not fit into a logical mining
480 sequence. Mr. McNaught suggested that PCS Phosphate might use Bonnerton in a
481 temporal sequence, without splitting up the draglines, to make up for avoidance
482 areas on the NCPC Tract.
483
484 Mr. Smith asked whether each tract is going to be a detailed alternative, or if
485 there will be some limit on the number of alternatives to be evaluated in detail. Im. R3
486 11McL1r6ndo:n gg steC Pdah sp_h_ate�.1set%up-a= matrixcontaining-alkof-the
487 a alua iohM`6 eria�tqfor7eadhi -t act. Such a matrix could -facilitate discussions that
488 may allow some reduction in the number of alternatives to be considered in detail.
489 As a hypothetical example, he said that if the Grace Tract and the Area South of
490 Highway 33 turned out to be equal in all respects except higher transport costs for
491 the Grace Tract, then the Grace Tract could be eliminated from detailed
492 consideration. He added thatthe-does notirforeseemalternatiyeson; all=ofrthe-tracts.
493 being carried,�tt rroug!Wdr,-di ailed analysis,.
494
495 Mr. Smith stated that the USACE needs to establish some sort of summary
496 criteria for the preliminary evaluation, but he wondered if that is possible without
497 field visits by NCDWQ and NCDCM to establish stream and Public Trust limits. Ms.
498 Sawyer took the opportunity to clarify the difference between the NCDWQ mining
13

499 exclusion zone and NCDWQ jurisdiction. She noted that the mining exclusion zone
500 is based on high -quality resources, and that not all areas of NCDWQ jurisdiction are
501 necessarily high quality. Mr. Smith suggested that CZR do a preliminary evaluation
502 of NCDWQ stream origins and CAMA jurisdiction using aerial photos and ground
503 truthing. Mr. McLendon added that there is no need for a full field delineation of
504 wetlands and waters for the preliminary evaluation. Mr. Smith asked what criteria
505 would be used to map the natural resources for the preliminary evaluation. Mr.
506 McLendon said that he would need to consider the issue further before giving an
507 answer. As an example of the types of comparisons the preliminary evaluation
508 would involve, Mr. McLendon said that if the Grace Tract and the Edward area
509 turned out to be the same except for higher stream impacts in the Edward area,
510 then the Edward area could be eliminated from detailed consideration. Mr. Smith
511 asked what types of information were needed to make the comparisons in the
512 preliminary evaluation. Mr. McLendon answered that the preliminary evaluation
513 probably could be based on a synthesis of existing information and resources, and
514 that a qualitative discussion might suffice to eliminate those areas that obviously
515 have higher environmental impacts than others. Ms. Matthews suggested using
516 the DOT approach to alternatives analysis. Mr. McLendon replied that he has some
517 concerns about using that approach because it compares areas that have not been
518 evaluated at the same level of effort (e.g. wetlands flagged on some areas but not
519 on others). (Ms. Matthein &AUed''that f.or�the preliminary ve aluafion,_it_probably
520 gould Pbe sufficijj5 o use eS imTfe'6 of� environmental-im acts e�,_.p g-,_str.eam
521 �atage} that a e�aase'cl on�the_best scurr6ntlyw6iiailable-information. Mr._McLendon
522 Card :.Mr, ICarril a greed to_get" togetheEta talk-about_the parameters and_method`s
523 Ito us:e:for the?pr61iminar_y_eva—I—Uatio
524
525 Mr. Lekson noted that waters and wetlands may not necessarily be the
526 factors that eliminate infeasible alternatives in every case. .F eTpgi,n�,_ted ut, thfat=thy
527 'Z'E-dward�and-Borin'erton-are`ai JLcc titai� in m: any-residen a churches,_etc.,_and_may_tKN
528 CeliMinated..based-on-socioeconomic-impacts
529
530 Ms. Sawyer suggested that alternatives should not necessarily be limited to
531 the boundaries of the various tracts if a viable, stand-alone alternative cannot be
532 identified completely within a particular tract. As an example, she said that if the
533 Area South of Highway 33 does not produce a viable alternative by itself, perhaps
534 part of the Grace Tract could be added to it. Ms. Sawyer also noted that
535 NCDWQ's wetland rating system needs to be used in the Area South of Highway
536 33, and that the quality of the waters that would be impacted there needs to be
537 considered.
14

539
539 Mr. McKenna cautioned the group not to compare the NCPC Tract to the
540 other parts of the Project Area as a trade-off. He stated that PCS Phosphate plans
541 to mine the entire Project Area eventually, so the group needs to give them
542 alternatives that work, in every tract, rather than trading off one block against
543 another.
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
Mr. Furness noted that a field delineation of wetlands and waters in the
Sonnerton area was done during the last EIS process, and that a similar field
delineation of the Area South of Highway 33 is nearing completion. He said that
the USACE now needs to decide on the level of effort for evaluating the Grace
Tract and the Edward area. He suggested an "office" delineation of the pertinent
environmental parameters, based on available information. This preliminary
evaluation could be used to determine which alternatives to drop on the first cut.
Mr. Augspurger asked Mr. Smith and Mr. Furness to explain their proposed
capping plan to the group. Mr. Furness began by reminding the group that for the
last several months, Drs. Logan and Chaney had been reviewing, independently of
each other, all of the studies, literature, and agency recommendations pertaining to
the cadmium issue at PCS Phosphate. Mr. Furness noted that Dr. Logan did not
review the main study report because he wrote part of it, but he did review the
earthworm study, pertinent scientific literature, and the recommendations that have
been made by the agencies. I Mrrt Eurn�"e svrfurther_ezpfained-that DDr.-Logan_had
Mr. Wicker interjected that Dr. Logan had also stated that such a cap would need
to be managed intensively to keep the reclamation areas perpetually covered by
shallow -rooted plants such as Phragmires.IMr;LF.urness+.wenf onIto explain thatiDr
onif) Mr. Furness stated that Dr. Chaney had concluded that there
no unacceptable risk for wildlife exposure to cadmium. "slble
15

577 accurnulated highi leV 1st of :cadmium};, o,r capping, ,V e�Feclamation_areas:� Mr.
578 Furness further explained that PCS Phosphate then looked at the Logan and
579 Chaney recommendations and the agency recommendations in light of the
580 equipment that is available to cap the reclamation areas. Based on these
581 considerations,�,PaCS�P.hosphate prtoposes�tacaps al�.clayllg_ypsum ,blendpqreclamatip
582 areas, s.tertingc with R 4,,a�nd „all newec��'recla am tio�' i)e iaAZNd continuingrwith.-all.
583p will�tie �ptaced-such-that 7.0
584 percentof;; the surface area_isK ca�vered with_a_cap_that=is anaverageof-ate least:
585 feeCRE-ig-E
586
587 Mr. Augspurger asked Mr. Furness to explain the source of the 70 percent
588 coverage proposal. fI171rA r�'ess i�, cf,Ecated tFr 70�,per�cent ,is what�PCS�4P�hca phate
589 th, inks" it=cane re'asonabl.y�achieve_w'tth�their�coriveyor belt;spread�ng equiprtient.� He
590 noted that they cannot spread the cap material with bulldozers or other heavy
591 equipment because the surface of the reclamation areas is too soft. Mr.
592 Augspurger lasked what PCS Phosphate means by an average cover of 2 feet.1IM,0
593 Furness anew®ed that l e depE -i cdverage ,w. ,i11Trarige�'from 20�or 25 feet no
594 'the conveyo�rto' zerowatth��edge�oftFie_ ac p fa�the"st°a:w:a.y�'from the'co.nVeyor; He
595 further explained that the 70 percent coverage is based on PCS Phosphate's
596 logistical experience and is justified by Dr. Chaney's opinion that the uncapped
597 reclamation areas pose no risk to wildlife. Mr. Wicker noted that Dr. Chaney did
598 say he would not recommend growing crops on the reclamation areas.
599
600 9M"ugspurger said fie thinkj;I that PC-S Phosphate's-proposal7cherry=picks--
601 ..Logan s and' Dir.,'LChaney_'s_reviews''t7obtain,just-the.'recommendations-that
602 se _PCS-P-1 p rests e's-inte. He noted that Dr. Logan said in his review that
603 he supports the USFWS and NCWRC recommendations. Mr. Augspurger also
604 noted that Dr. Chaney said that without further remediation, the reclamation areas
605 are not suitable for agriculture, and that cover soils would reduce exposure to
606 cadmium. Mr. Augspurger urged the group to keep in mind the backgrounds of Dr.
607 Logan and Dr. Chaney. @He stated that both specianr�contaminantson small
608 Epreas of agricultural soils,�'ar�d that neither�is�a wilalife.�� xxicologist'�with_e p cep
609in?�la_____��_r�dsc_ape-le�vel;�'issues� He noted that Dr. Logan encouraged maintaining a
610 Phragmites monoculture in perpetuity, which illustrates a lack of understanding of
611 the local ecology and the scale of the management activity that would be involved
612 with such a proposal.
613
614 �Mr Augspurger.:expressed� cdn a tha PC.Sr.P_hosphate �ia_d submittedJC
615 Z,prr- ZoP I difectly 'tQ_NCD�R'�wi#hour ir�c uding._many of-ths_other�°agencies_inµtiie
16

616 p�e,niit,re�ie.wR group, Mr. Furness responded that he has never had a clear vision
617 of which agency ultimately will resolve the cadmium issue and how the issue will
618 be resolved. i-He .andMih, fhr ont—tK, -TP-Sy.Phwas=rmute he responding
619 to`�conditibn of the existing U.SACE Section 404 permit_antl th a isti g NCDLR
. -~ 3 �_�=
620 crnine per�mith re eforethe.y dcfressed ;the.pr„op;osairto that. agencies .that. `are'
621 r�esp nso inso iblfo`��en°farciiig Yth'ose`_"conditions(NCDIR .andUSACE ain consult"atianwith`�
622USl=WSan:d NCWR�G} Mr. Augspurger asked if PCS Phosphate is just looking for
623 regulatory compliance in the context of the existing permit, or if it is trying to
624 achieve a long-term landscape solution to the cadmium issue. CMr, Mcendoii =
625statedthat the�nextpermiti wilt notrbissued+w,ith'ou ras___ oivingthecadm.iurrmissue:
625 f:ledfiha #ha USA ill re re PCSRhosphate_to take rnitigatr��e,measures
627 kfor theexistingp mitnd tFiatthose_sarnemeasres=lil<ely_w.ill_b�"requi ed^fo'"r the`°
628 next+ Re�rr�itA Ms. Matthews noted that cadmium probably will need to be
629 addressed in the EIS in terms of secondary and cumulative impacts. NIrM, cLendon
630 , said that�ifft_he�USAYCE_app'ro e's PCS° Ph'ospli'ate'$ current proposalTfor-dealing�with%
631 C the9 P P Y 'Y
`"cadrnfum� issue rn�=;the : contexts of th ee�cist�n _ ermit,'�the ro osalwer. �likel
632 Cwill— ae om the_s�ofutlon tYthe"ca'dmidm is"s s for `the-next'patmit" Isa o!
633
634 Mr. Augspurger then gave a summary of USFWS's views regarding PCS
635 Phosphate's cadmium capping proposal. He stated that if the ultimate goal is to
636 walk away from the reclamation areas with deep-rooted trees in perpetuity, the cap
637 needs to be thicker than 2 feet. He said that the PCS Phosphate proposal is
638 inadequate because it does not define the post -reclamation landscape, and because
639 70 percent coverage is not enough. He stated that USFWS will recommend to
640 NCDLR that the proposal is unacceptable. fR7eFsf@rther said that `'tffe Chaney,, and,4:
541 c Logan, re iews " dnii'..&K �edorrimendations do —not —refute 5 USI -WS s eaflier
642 re_commen'dati'ans_`aS�claimed�by-F?CS'�P_h So ghat Dr. Chaney's review focused on
643 human health and did not address the issue at hand. Dr. Logan agreed with the
644 five points that USFWS made in their recommendations; the only issue he raised is
645 how thick the cap should be. Mr. Furness noted that Dr. Chaney told him verbally
646 that grain crops for human consumption could be grown on the uncapped
647 reclamation areas, which implies that if crops for human consumption can be
648 grown safely on the reclamation areas, there should be no unacceptable risk to
649 wildlife. Mr. Augspurger closed his summary by saying that PCS Phosphate's
650 proposal of 70 percent coverage is a start, and the USFWS will continue to work
651 with PCS Phosphate and the permitting agencies to develop an acceptable solution
652 to the cadmium issue.
653
654 l�he ,meetin esulted7 i'n'_the following asks that_need_to_be_completed_to-all w
655 [th—e-1valte nr a ives�an'al.ysisTto tiproce®d� (not_necessarily listed-7in the order.-inti whibhJ
17

656 they witf occur):
657
658 � Based on currently available information, CZR, in coordination with the
659
USACE and PCS Phosphate, will conduct a preliminary evaluation of the
660
alternative tracts within the Project Area. This evaluation will include,
661
but not necessarily be limited to, technical and economic feasibility,
662
streams/non-wetland waters, CAMA jurisdiction, WASC, other wetlands,
663
and socioeconomic impacts. -The products of this evaluation will include
664
a map of the Project Area depicting parameters evaluated, and a matrix
665
table comparing the potential impacts to each parameter among the
666
various tracts.
667
668
2.
NCDWQ, PCS Phosphate, and CZR will complete stream origin
669
determinations on the NCPC Tract and the Bonnerton Area.
670
671
73,N
Upon completion of the stream origin determinations, NCDWQ will revise
672
their avoidance line for the NCPC Tract.
673
674
C4.:)
PCS Phosphate will evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of a
675
one-dragline and a two-dragline straight-line return sweep on the NCPC
676
Tract. This evaluation will include a conceptual evaluation of opening a
677
second pit to accommodate the dragline(s) that would not be used on the
678
NCPC Tract. A specific evaluation of costs and logistics associated with
679
a second pit cannot be conducted until the location of the second pit is
680
identified.
681
682
CZR will revise the NCPC Tract preliminary alternatives map to depict the
683
revised NCDWQ avoidance boundary, a revised "old Alternative B" that
684
accounts for the 30-foot-wide Public Trust Shoreline AEC, and any
685
technically and economically feasible straight-line return sweeps. The
686
legibility of the map will be improved.
687
688
C._63
NCDCM, in coordination with PCS Phosphate, will determine the upper
689
limits of Public Trust waters (according to the NCDCM definition) on the
690
Area South of Highway 33.
691
692
CZR will use the NCDWQ wetlands rating method on the Area South of
693
Highway 33 so that NCDWQ can develop an avoidance line for this tract.
694
695
To
CZR, in consultation with the USACE and PCS Phosphate, will develop a
696
map depicting possible alternatives for the Area South of Highway 33
697
(similar to the map for the NCPC Tract).
18
pis

698
699 SL9�s PCS Phosphate and USFWS will continue to work toward a solution to
700 the cadmium issue that is acceptable to both.
701
702 The meeting adjourned at approximately 1 p.m. If you feel that we have
703 omitted or inaccurately depicted any of the issues that were discussed, please
704 submit your comments to us in writing. Please list the appropriate page and line
705 numbers? in your comments.
706 Distribution
Mr. Scott McLendon
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Terry Baker
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Ms. Kathy Matthews
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Section -Region IV
Wetlands Management Division,
61 Forsyth Street Southwest
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Ms. Mary Alsentzer
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
Washington, North Carolina 27889
19
Mr. David Moye
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mail
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Guy Pearce
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. William A. Schimming
Potash Corp.
P.O. Box 3320
Northbrook, IL 60062
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650

Mr. David M. Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. William J. Biddlecome
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Sean McKenna
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Mr. Tom Augspurger
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
20
Ms. Deborah Sawyer
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Jim Mulligan
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Roger Thorpe
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr, Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers' Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Ross Smith
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806

Mr. Jerry Waters
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Pete Wind
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr, Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Floyd Williams
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Ms. Joan Giordano
Albemarle -Pamlico National Estuarine
Program
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
21
Mr. William Wescott
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Frank McBride
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
4552 Winstead Store Road
Nashville, NC 27856
Mr. Bob Zarzecki
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road
Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Jimmie Overton
North Carolina Division of Water
Quality
ESB Lab
1621 Mall Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Ed Lynch
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889

Mr. Tracy Davis Ms. Shannon Deaton
Division of Land Resources North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Land Quality Section Commission
North Carolina Department of 1721 Mail Service Center
Environment Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1721
And Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center Mr. James M. Hudgens
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 CZR Incorporated
140 Intracoastal Pointe Drive
Suite 301
Jupiter, Florida 33477-5064
22

CZR,, N CORPORATED su�E 20 T a s. Ec� way 1
Environmental COnsuttan[6 JUPITER, FL 33477.7238
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
is october 1991
Mr. David Lekson
O.S. Army Corps of Engineers
310 Main street
Washington, NC 27889-4968
Re: Texaegu3.t�Juriadietional_�etlkr�ds:� QuaZity`Criterial
Dear Mr. Leksont
2 am &ending, at the regAest of Pete Moffett, a copy of "Criteria for
seLavation of High Quality Wetlands." The criteria raflaats your disouesioin with
Pete Moffett, Jeff Furness, and Bruce Bolick, on Wedneeday Last. Two copies of
the jurisdictional wetland graphsc are enclosed, highlighted by color, applying
the high quality wetland criteria and dopiating the high quality wetland.
Keaee Cali Pete Hoffett if you have any questions prior to your meeting
with Pate and Jeff Furneea on Friday, 18 October 1991 to discuss the enclosed
criteria and mapping.
JM s d j s
aaa P.J. Moffett 1
T.J. Re0an, Jr.
I.A. SChiwing
J.C. Furneas
T.C. Younger, Jr.
C.W. Housa
V.R. Tinsley
C.Q. Heekins
CP-C745.10
S :ncerely e-
Cze INCORPOR&TS
Jame)K. Hudgens
President
LQG/Zoo'd 59sco
HSV-L- 2:V5n 66E:SL62SC E: G: d0a.Zu':8V

�rtarii t ,�galaek gyp;'Ni ti-C—lft a'ern "ae-�
Natural �prtaclpally undisturbed) wetlands (creaks, brackish marsh complex,
battwlapd hardwood forest, and pocoaln-bay forest; also some hardwood
foreat atsae)
High value to wildlife and fishecise
Water quality or hydrological values, especially as filters and buffers
along major drainegee
-. Public er political perception of particular wetlands
Large tracts of undisturbed wetlands
Areas which will remain jurisdictional wetlands under proposed tuuwal
Major Aressi in Add1 ign to C ke p nakish March Comnlax,
Rottomland Hardwood forest, and Pom in -bey Invest
Designated Rich QUAlity Wetland in the T if pyvl i Atea
1. Hardw**d forests adjacent to Perfer Crank
High Quality due to proximity to bottomland hardwood forest; nerve as
buffers and filters.
2. HnrdweaG Pore ee Sn Northwestern Derr *t the Western tract
Large, undisturbed tract bounding bottomland hardwood forest. Located
along the Suffolk Scarp.
3. Large hardwand forapt tract Adift0antx1ft Of ON LOSS-andAide
of ai 193A
Large and relatively undisturbed, high level of vegetative diversity.
Borders upper Porter Creek. Located along the Suffolk Scarp.
4. BArdwggA forest in the Contral pest hart of the Western Tract
Large, undisturbed tract bounding pocosin-bay forest along the Suffolk
Scarp.
5. Hardwood fQrAatA AdiAgOat rrLtjtMrV to PAmlimo River soar
the T*rwa*ulf outfall *anal
Relatively undisturbed hardwoods bordaring bottomland hardwood forest and
brackish marsh. Act to buffer And filters.
a. Pine forest adjacent to Ruddy cut
A very wet pine forest contiguous to bottomland hardwood forest and
brackish marsh. High plant species diveretty, with many typical"peeosin
species.
LOG/zW d S96if FS'd:.1 'a_YSC ..::SG6ZSZ li 5i ZJOZ,:O'tdtl

k
f
�.Haxdnoxth946
This is 4 large, relatively undisturbed hardwood tract located in the upper
headwaters of two drainages.
8. Ra w ra%t area Along—ugggr.Dgink_vater Creek
This hardwood wetland area is intarepersed with hardwood upland islands
along the upper reaches of brinkwater Creek. It serves as a buffer and
filter to the crack and is fairly good wildlife habitat.
LLG!#GO'd 5�8E# HS`�n; E^'dS!1 65Ei8L6Z�Z rt�9. Z40Zkz0'tid'd

November 15, 1991
Regulatory nranah
Mr. P. J. Moffett
Texaegulf, Inc.
Poet Office'. Box 68
Aurora, North Carolina I7805
Dose He. Moffatt&
On November 15, 1991, we met with personnel from a number of the resource
agencies, Pamlico -Tar River FGend&Liani Texdegulf♦ and Coastal Lone Resources
Corporation to dimouse, and coma to an agreement on, guidelinea fur developing
an additional alternative that provides for avoidance and minimization of
$motion 606 wetlands. The peimary purpose at the meeting was to identify the
wetland &ream that should be avoided in the development of a mining scenario
that aatiafLoe a wetland &Valdese& and minimization goal. a copy Of the
meeting attendance list is enclosed.
andNminimisea�Pmp'ecEctolindet This mining scenario should be called
alternative D. The wetland habitat map that was previously developod at the
inception of this alternative and wan presented and discussed at thu meeting
should be used as a baseline for identifying wetlands that should be included
an areas ef.upeeinl concern. In addition, we request that the protect area be
reviewed to determine it there sea additional areasthat.. should be included.
La1 drainage basin integrity (water quality, filter, buffer, eta.)
�b1 large, or Contiguous, or mature, principally undisturbed and/or
disturbed wetlands of higheat value to fish or wildlife.
It Cassava clear during the discussion@ that there wan also the need to
expand the no-Pederal-aetlon (no permit required) alternative to meet a twenty
yoar mine plan (i.e., mining uplands for as long AD, poseible and then mining
wetlands with avoidance and minimisation taken into consideration am per
alternative.p. This expanded aa-Pedexal-aation alternative should be
evaluated and presented in the SIS.
i
i
G90 /590'E 5F9fd
F.SY4 9_YSj. 66c165L6Z;Z E1191 ZUZ.ZG'ddV

-2-
par preyiaus discussions with Toraagulf and CZR, Inc., we believe that t o
no action alternative (no permit required or permit denial) should be
discussed within the report and used as a baseline condition tar comparing and
evaluating 4111 of the alternatives. in addition, the no-Fedaral-actlon (no
pormit required) alternative has been generally dismissed by Teaasgulf because
it does not allow for enough mining area to most the company's underlying
purpose and. need. Your position on this alternative, as wall as for all
We encourage you to review this guidance and consider how it can boot be
accomplished. No would like to meat with you soon to discuss approaches and
share ideaswithyou. If you have guestlone regarding this matter, Contact
Mr. Hugh Maine, EIS project Manager, at telephone [phone] or Mr. David
Franklin, Regulatory project Manager, at telephone [phone].
HOSE FILE:T08.11
Sincerely, CESAW-CO-E/FRANKLID/my
CESAW-CO-E/NINEFOADNER
CEBAW-CO-E/WKQHT/e
MAIL
CESAW-CO-E/Fi LF.S
Enaloaores
0. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
I
LDC/90L'd S9S[t
HSYN 9]y9,n. 66SSS1.62S2 SI:sI 2002.2U-tl2Y

It
-3-
I
Copy Purnirhed with enclosures
Mr. Bruce aplick
CZR, Ito. 1
4709 College Acres Drive
university Place, Suite 2
Wilminrlton,; NC 28403
Mo. L.X. (M,£ke) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Poet offices Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 276:6-3726
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region IV
Wetlands Regulatory Unit
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Ooorgia 30565
Mr, Cenni.o Stewart
North Carolina wildlife
Aesourca4 Commission
512 North Salisbury Strout
Raleigh, North Carolina 27687
Mr, Jahn Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
uorth Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post office Box 27667
Ra;.aigh, North Carolina 27611-1687
Ma. Deborah Sawyer
Water Quality Section
Division o! Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Enviro=ent, Health and
Natural Resources
Post OMCa Box 1507
Washington, North Carolina 278a9
Blind Cop£os Furnished (with enclosures):
CESAW-CO-EWJLEKSON
CESAW-PD-E f BRINE
Mr. David McHaught
Pamlico -Tar River Foundation
Poet Office Box 18S4
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Terry Moors
Division of Coaatal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 1S07
Washington, north Carolina 27889
Me. Katy Went
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of
Environment, realth and
[natural Resources
past Office sox 1507
Washington, North Carolina 27ESS
Mr. Larry Hardy
Habitat Conservation Divicion
National Marine Fieheriea Service
Pivers Island
Boaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Pete Moffett
Texasgulf, Inc.
Poet Office sox 48
Aurora, North Carolina '47606
I
L001�_OQ'd C?eC.71 RCNM 97'eqn 4a^TC,d:C7 er•r* 7nn'Y vr•„��•

U4'D r
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Division of Land Resources
Charles H. Gardner, P,G., P.E. Land Quality Section
Director and State Geologist
April 10, 2002
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
RE: Blend Dike R-2
BU EAF-006-H
Beaufort County
Dear Mr. Furness:
Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
This is to acknowledge receipt of your application dated April 8, 2002 for the modification of the
subject dam. The application was received in our office on April 9, 2002.
Applications requiring an approval to modify a dam will be reviewed by this office. We
endeavor to respond to applications within 60 days of receipt of the application. Due to our
current workload, however, please be advised that it may take considerably longer than 60 days
to respond.
Please contact Mr. Floyd Williams, P G, Regional Engineer, at telephone number (252) 946-
6481; Ms. Tami V. Idol, El, Assistant. State Dam Safety Engineer, or me at telephone number
[phone] should you have any questions concerning this mattdf.
Sincerely,
James W. Caldwell, El .
Assistant State Dam Safety Engineer
!_and Quality Section
JW C/
cc: Mr..-Floyd-Williams,-P_G------,,
Mr. Tracy.Davis, PE
Mr. Jim Mulligan
Mr. Robert Chiles, Jr., PE
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 , 919-733-4574 / FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604
An Eaua! Crx tuniiv % Affirmative ?cticn Emplover— 40916 Recvcled 1 10% Post Consumer °goer

RSc5N0�1
upl4DRES Phospha a ___ AURORA
PCB PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
P.O. BOX 418. AURORA, NC USA rnos
Certified Mail--�,"�� (o"✓<
April 8, 2002
Mr. Jim Simons
-Division of Land.Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1612
Re: Modification of Blend Dike R-2
Dear Mr. Simons:
Use of the R-2 dike area for active placement of clay blend stopped in July 1990, and a
cap of mill clay was complete in May 1994. Tree planting for final reclamation was
completed on the R-2-area in February 2002. PCS Phosphate would now like to work
toward declassifying the R-2 dike, and removing it from the inventory of dams. _
PCS Phosphate is requesting approval of a modification to the R-2 dike to allow for the
construction of an open channel spillway at the southeast comer of R-2. Plans for this
spillway are detailed in the enclosed report by Robert M. Chiles Engineers titled "Dike
Decertification Reclaim Area #2 PCS Phosphate Co. Inc.", and six accompanying
drawings. Included in the Chiles report is a report written by Law Engineering and
Environmental Services, outlining their analysis of the plan.
After construction is complete,an application will be made to declassify the dike. If you
have any questions regarding this request, please call me at [phone].
-
(/Sincerely,
w4,r IC.. &CO
.jlt!Iffr�ey C. Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
Enclosures
PC: Charles Gardner, DLR-Raleigh
w/o encl.
Floyd Williams, DLR-Washington
w/encl.
R.M. Chiles
w/o encl.
J.A. Tice
w/o encl.
23-04-001-59
w/encl.
\\aurdatal\u-envalAdminisnationlPersonnel FilesTumess\20021Apra-2 Dike Spillway Apr S.doc

Rw [Fw rMem;"gl
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Meeting]
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:46:42 •0500
From: Tmcy Davis <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>
CC: Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>, Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
Thanks for the update, Floyd.
In light of time and resources, I believe I will wait until the EIS process has gone alitlle farther before I
attend another meeting. Once the primary players have decided the scope of study and how they will
proceed, then I could participate on behalf of die Mining Program. It appears that at this point, the mining
permit is the farthest thing from everyone's mind.
I will continue to coordinate from here with Tom Augpmger of USFWS and Jeff Furness regarding the Cd
issue that is pending with the current DLR mining permit. How Charles eventually handles this with the
current DLR permit will certainly be of interest to the review agencies involved in the second EIS project
(I could then attend one of the meetings to let them know how DLR plans to handle the Cd issue in any
future mining plans).
I hope this is ok with you ... and thanks for all YOU do for the Mining Program!
Thanks. Tracy
Floyd Williams wrote:
Tracy.
Just thought I would pass this on to you and you may come if
possible.
Thanks for all the work you do for us,
Floyd R.
Subject: Meeting
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:44:20 -0600
From: "McLendon, Scott C SAW" <[e-mail]>
To: "Alsentzer Mary (E-mail)" <info@ptrforg>,
"Biddlecome, William SAW"
<William.J.Biddlecome@saw02. usace.army. mi I>,
"David Moye (E-mail)"
<david. [e-mail]>,
"Deborah Sawyer (E-mail)"
<deborah.wwyer@ncmai l.net>,
"Floyd Williams (E-mail)"
<floyd.williams@ncmail. net>,
100 W 812002 5A7 PM

Re: 1Fw: Mteeti�]
"Jeff Furness (E-mail)"
<jfurrless rr pcsphosphate.com>,
John Dorney <john.domey cr ncmail.net>,
"Karricker Kent (E-mail)" <czrwilm cr aol.com>,
"Kathy Matthews (E-mail)"
<matthews.kathy rx epamail.epa.gov>,
"Lekson, David M SAW"
<David.M. Lekson@saw02. usace. army. mil>,
"McNaught Dave (E-mail)"
<dmcnaught a environmentaldefense.org>,
"Mike Wicker (E-mail)"
<mike_wicker a fws.gov>,
"Ron Sechler (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Ross M. Smith (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Sean McKenna (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
Terry Moore
<Terry.Moo re a ncmail.net>,
"William A. Schimming"
<[e-mail]>,
"William Wescott (E-mail)"
<wescotwg@m ai 1. wi 1 dl i fe. state. n c. us>
To All.
Based an the response to my earlier message, it appears that Monday Feb. 25 is the best day to meet to discuss
alternatives for the proposed mine continuation at PCS Phosphate. Please mark your calendars accordingly. I
would like to begin at 1000am in the DENR conference room in Washington.
Scott
251-4725
........................................................ ...................... .
Tracy E. Davis, P.E. <Tracy.D►avis yncmai1.net>
State Mining Specialist i
5 Division of Land Rcsourccs
NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
2 ol'3 1/28/2002 5A7 PM

PCS
Phosphate
AURORA
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC U.S.A. 27806
Certified Mail
November 26, 2001
Mr. Tracy Davis
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of ENR
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Dear Mr. Davis:
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 T. L. Baker reporting on the spillway inspection for 2001.
If you have any questions please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
J. Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
JCF
Enclosure
PC. Floyd Williams, DLR - WaRO
(wlencl.)
T. L. Baker
(wlencl.)
R. M. Thomas
(w/o encl.)
D. J. Millman
(w/encl.)
R. K. Jenner
(wlencl.)
M. L. Asby
(wlencl.)
12-04-002-06
(wlencl.)
00-14-000
(w/o encl.)
ls)a� /
%�- Cq pi'J,

PCs
Phosphate \\\ memo
Date November 15, 2001
To T. L. Baker
From R. M. Thomas
SubjectClay Pond Inspection
I conducted a yearly inspection of the spillways for Clay Ponds No. 31 4A, 5A, and 5B at the
Charles Tract as required by our permit. The inspection was carried out on November 14, 2001,
The following items on each spillway were checked:
item
Condition
Inlet structures (Columns, Beams, Bracing,
Grating, Ladders, and Handrails)
Good except that a portion of the Pond 5B southern
spillway access walkway has been removed and
should be restored to its original condition, and the
Pond 3 north spillway structure is corroding severely
and should be painted.
Riser Spool Pieces
Good
Flashboards
Good
Outlet Pipe, Headwall, Splash Pad,
And Stilling Basin & Battle Good
Debris in Flowway All clear except that debris should be removed from
the Pond 3 south spillway outlet and Pond 5B north
spillway inlet.
Riprap in Outlet Channel Good urae
If you have any questions, please call. 1'Z CA��/
{SEAL
( s
R. M. Thomas, Senior Engineer i 7027 .y e
CC: D.1. M llman �sNclpdEE%'e`;e
F �a°
•�6.'QT. M. � Jae

PCS \ e
Phosphate ` AURORA
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY INC.
PO. BOX 48. AURORA, NO U.S.A. T M
CERTIFIED MAIL
December 3 L 2001
Mr. Charles Gardner, Director
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Dear Mr. Gardner:
ti.- JAN 2 2002
As required by our Mining Permit No. 7-1, enclosed are the descriptions of reclamation
activities for the last half of 2001, and the reclamation plans for the first half of 2002.
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,
jjcr�7MSl
. Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
JCF
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.)
J. M. Waters / D. J. Millman
(w/ attach.)
R. K. Jenner
(w/ attach.)
1. K. Gilmore / J. Schmid
(w/ attach.)
T. L. Baker
(w/ attach.)
12-04-002-02
(w/ attach.)
00-14-000
(w/o attach.)

PCS Phosphate - Mine Site Reclamation
Contents:
• Actual Reclamation for the Second Half of 2001(July 2001 —December 2001)
• Description
• Drawings
• Planned Reclamation for the First Half of 2002(January 2002 — June 2002)
• Description
• Drawings

Actual Reclamation for the Second Half of 2001
(July 2001— December 2001)
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
With cover crop maturation, spraying for weed control and ground preparation for tree
planting was completed on approximately 245 acres of the R-2 area. Winter tree planting
began in December with the larger sapling trees on wide spacing. These trees included
five to seven foot tall Sycamore, Green Ash, Nuttall Oak, and Cottonwood trees.
Seedling planting is scheduled and will start as soon as the seedlings go dormant in late
December or early January. Tree growth monitoring of previously planted trees continued
for comparison with the tree growth in the R-1 area.
R-3
As in R-2, with cover crop maturation, spraying for weed control and ground preparation
for tree planting was completed on approximately 315 acres of the R-3 area. Winter tree
planting began in December with the larger sapling trees on wide spacing. These trees
included the same species as in R-2. Seedling planting is scheduled and will start as soon
as the seedlings go dormant in late December or early January. Tree growth monitoring
of previously planted trees continued for comparison with the tree growth in the R-1 area.
Water levels were controlled using an outlet valve that discharges into the 007
outfall canal. The ponded areas in the south end of R-3 are being used for mine water
clarification ponds. Water quality continued to be monitored, and this area continued to
dry and consolidate.
R-4
Water levels of the existing ponded area were controlled using the pumps located'between
R-4 and R-5. Water quality continued to be monitored as the water was transferred to the
009 outfall canal. Bucketwheel spoil was placed in this area during the second half of
2001.
R-5
Bucketwheel spoil was placed over some of the northern sections of R-5. This area
continued to dry and consolidate. Water levels of the existing ponded area were
controlled using the pumps located between R-4 and R-5. Water quality continued to be
monitored as the water was transferred to the 009 outfall canal.

Actual Reclamation for the Second Half of 2001
(July 2001 — December 2001)
CONTINUED
R-6
Some sand tailings water from the R-7 blend containment dike construction was
discharged into this area during this period. Preparations are being made to drain the
process water to the process water system upon completion of the R-7 dike construction
that is adjacent to R-6.
R-7
The sand tailings dikes around the perimeter of this area continued between R-6 and R-7.
Process water from this area was transferred to R-8.
R-8
The blend was placed in this area during the second half of 2001. The sand tailings plug
was constructed at the north end of R-8. Process water from this area was returned to the
process water canal and to the Recycle Lake.
Whitehurst Creek
Tree planting was completed in the Whitchurst Creek uplands early in the year. Continued
monitoring of vegetation growth and water levels and quality was done in this area.
Utilities and pipelines were removed from the eastern side of the West Prong project area
in preparation for the reconnection to original drainage.
Charles Tract
Design work on the outfall from Clay pond 5A was done. This outfall will allow
the application for release of Clay Ponds 3, 4A and 5A. Clay Pond 5A was chopped and
ssprayed for weed control in preparation for an anticipated late 2001 tree planting.
Seedling planting is scheduled and will start as soon as the seedlings go dormant in late
December or early January.
Continued monitoring of tree growth and water levels were done in Clay Ponds 3,
4A, 5A, and 5B.
Gypsum Stack No. 2
Removal of gypsum and shaping of the stack was done during this period. An
eighteen -inch layer oftopsoil/clay mix was placed on 55 acres and a stabilization ground
cover was planted. The goal is to remove these acres from the cooling pond stormwater
catchment area.

Planned Reclamation for the First Half of 2002
(January 2002 — June 2002)
Continued monitoring of tree growth in this area is planned. Dr. Broome will be
evaluating the growth for reference as additional areas are planted.
Approximately 245 acres of seedlings are planned for planting in R-2. Species are to
include Green Ash, Sweetgum, Sycamore, Swamp Chestnut Oak, Sawtooth Oak, Bald
Cypress and Eastern Red Cedar. Tree growth monitoring will continue for comparison
with the tree growth in the R-1 area. Design of the d&e decertification spillway will be
finalized.
R-3
Drainage ditch cleaning will be completed as necessary. Approximately 315 acres of
seedlings are planned for planting in R-2. Species are to include Green Ash, Sweetgum,
Sycamore, Swamp Chestnut Oak, Sawtooth Oak, Bald Cypress and Eastern Red Cedar.
Tree growth monitoring will continue for comparison with the tree growth in the R-1 area.
The ponded areas in the south end will continue to be used for clarification of stormwater
and water quality will continue to be monitored.
R-4
Continued drying and consolidation of this area is planned. Placement of a layer of
bucketwheel spoil will continue during the first part of this period.
Water quality will be monitored as the water is transferred to the 009 outfall canal.
Bucketwheel spoil will be placed in the northern side of R-5 during part of this period.
Stormwater runoff will be returned to the R-4/R-5 pump and transferred to the 009 outf dl
canal. Water quality will be monitored. This area will continue to dry and consolidate.
R-6
Some of the process water from R-7 will continue to be transferred through R-6. Upon
completion of the adjacent portion of the R-7 blend containment dike, process water will
then be returned to the process water system and stormwater will be directed to the
Dredge Spoil lake. Drainage ditching will commence to facilitate drying of the dredge
spoil capping material. This area will continue to dry and consolidate.

Planned Reclamation for the First Half of 2002
(January 2002 — June 2002)
CONTINUED
R-7
Sand tailings water will continue to be placed in this area during the fast half of 2002.
Construction of the containment dike around the perimeter will continue.
R-8
Blend placement will continue in R-8. Process water from this area will continue to he
returned to the process water canal and the Recycle Lake. Some tree planting is planned
on approximately 30 acres of bucketwheel spoil along the east side of R-8.
Whitehurst Creek
Continued monitoring of vegetation growth and water will be done in this area The
bottomlands are available for connection to the original channel following resolution of the
issue of where to monitor stormwater. This should give adequate time to meet the June
2003 deadline for connection to the original channeL
Charles Tract
Clay pond 5A is to be planted with Green Ash, Sweetgum, Sycamore, Loblolly Pine, and
Bald Cypress seedlings. Continued monitoring of vegetation growth and water levels will
be done in this area Continued planning work will be done for the construction of the
final spillway, which will establish drainage for Clay Ponds 3, 4A and 5A.

Re: regulation of phosphate mining
Subject: Re: regulation of phosphate mining
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 11:59:09 -0500
From: "Karen Collins" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Dear Mr. Davis-'ILanks so much for your prompt and informative reply. 1 will check the organizations you referred to.
Sincerely, Karen
>>> Tracy Davis <[e-mail] 04/02/02 10:32AM>>>
Thanks for yom message.
Our NC Mining Act of 1971 does not consider or supersede local zoning
regulations or ordinances. Thus, we issue a mining permit based solely
un environmental and public safety issues at the site in question,
regardless of the zoning. If we issue a stale mining permit and the
she is zoned urn industrial, then the slate mining permit is no good to
the permitlee until he/she resolves the zoning issue directly with the
local government (although in our eyes the mine could begin operation
immediately upon issuance of the Nate mining permit). Likewise, if the
local government does have the area zoned end there are special
con litiws for the operation of the mine, the pemunce must meet these
conditions in addition to the stale issued moving permit (NOTE; it is
up to the local government, not the State, to enforce its conditions).
In light of the above, our Departmental does not have infonnntion nn local
zoning ordinances or local permit requirements across NC. You may went
to visit the NC League of Municipalities or the NC Association of County
Commissioners web pages to see if they have informatio alin keys on
local requirements with respect to min* operations. Presently, I am
not aware of any local inning requiretuunis governing our me phosphate
mine near Aurora, NC ... PCS Phosphate's Aurora Phosphate Mine,
I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have fuller questions.
Tracy Davis
Karen Collins wrote'.
> Hello, Mr. Davis - l am Director of the Mention County, Florida
> Department ofEnvironmental Protection. We are working on a revision
> of our County's 1981 Phosphate Mining Ordinance. We have been asked
> by our Planning Commission to survey otherjurlsdictions to nose how
> they regulate phosphate mining, W that we on make sure we have the
> best (most stringent, I assume) regulation in the U.S. 1 have already
> found your 1971 Mining Act and the Administrative Kinks that implement
> that law. Do any Counties in NC have their own ordinances specific to
> phosphate? Fhauks in advance for you assistance in this matter. Karen
> Collar s-Plemimg
1 of 1 4/2/2002 12:01 PM

ANS • R•GRAM
FROM:
❑ URGENT ASAP ❑ NO REPLY
DntE.
AT EWION OF
TO:
suarEc. /
.{
Lm
:.+Lt Nr a4,,"N,h.cct
T.ii.
i1 •%..
l� ;.�%tfyt,(..
.I.L
'NTIk- r :�74
,fey � N
U.
REMY
11
l/5r.z{
y, 1.
SENDERrr'In max;°�" P" pit .I'd WhIle.....It fit «i°"eo°e�0 el v ANS-R-GRAM if folded If °:'�:"Pr*Per seS°, 1, 11°m .ioee:, a'� :Pvo'
caviare wa.,, °

, 12 26-2002 OA:JB FAX
i
Gam
�a WA
o
NCDENR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE
943 WASHINGTON SQUARE MALL
WASHINGTON, NC 27889
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
TO: !O ' eo
/TARc7 1J'
FAX:
NUMBER:
FROM:
DATE:NO. PAGES (including cover page)
COMMENTS: E - s ppf=vim._.-. 4, p G
i

k k S

� Q2/20/2002 04:28 FAX 902
t"�CS A%es s as
, q f �ae
4Fo4y K# c�M
-39 Z-9z n
It
sss 95/6•as4rri _-
n�:a`Q�°T.. 1�Ct� . / .._ asa • 94t
---- /YWIP-AadC
VVA �s i/iJesProo ..._ zsa- 32z— �iz_r-
UJ:�1;>.,, �IJesco'N' I�CWR-C _ .. As q�ll� ; . •1 1
ev 5 zo x.2
mot,
sus 8;c_y_�

02r26,2002 04:12 FAX
zot
�a WA
f
NCDENR
TO:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE
943 WASHINGTON SQUARE MALL
WASHINGTON, NC 27889
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
FAX 2 n
NUMBER:
FROM:
DATE:
NO. PAGES (induging-cover page) n
u r o ra

lawo am mum)
300FOJd uopenullu
00
QUIN 040441004d 80d
MOM
1 :`7
. 7 rr
411
. 71
Dr
MEW
.0 J*4
po vjlQd sma
zo im
M TT:tO C009/99/90

i-
_,...
i
gm i iK&iEFM�fiFA
i
I�
d
��r(ifLrflifrtAilC�yif`% iih 1

1
s\
\'i � R.�F
•
a•
yyp�.
v
\t 41
\ �
w i
_ \\: `. 'i \1�KM�:try`r(� •Vw�
\,.-C. •"-4'" N)t1X-. 'lV:-• •�\'-Ry�K`�C;.. -
,yam
\'.,�.:_
1
,
--., b; ''Tt c t,r; F�\(W•wa, .. .i)i
ry\'s\yr;'^1 S `.?t: \: •, -itr�.V �`�.
�
..
kh •".4 \YC' � V't?_\. ytta`'
'^-� \h..eer '��"\'\Nr1-. `�.
v
a
4 14 1 \
y
J 1
•
'\r r n . .'IZCi�iw, e;
,•�-,-trs ,. ��. p,a\�x.
..
rwht.
�

' },'. t`A
1.\!'Mi•`�c`\?W`rr(�'".�kklt�tJ'f`r'�1
.. 'sCey�t`�����'.,[�.
/
C
;,i . �.. .. `.� � \� ,�,. �, ,,,y,.V t't,+,\tiSv .* ' 7,,r_.....v {v.':,M tr• y, .'.'..�.
, {
n Y; l,c of"(. !Kt ':,�. h`u•,'`�- .. 2l'\',v3�li?i....
11
— , - \"t"
110 cn
_....- ,� �..{Vr. ,�uzN_-y; .W''K •;{1►.CY �,Ya" "1.'«'[_ .:C�'C >,' `'��s�`

December 17, 2001
Fcs
Agenda
PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation
1. Review of events since last meeting
2. Purpose and Need statement
3. Project Area
(1�6SiNATFi - /.(11�Fi/Ol�I r✓ukTlDlJ /%1�'
4. Preliminary discussion of alternatives
Hickory Point
Current proposal
Old Alternative B
DWQ Mine Exclusion Line
Bonnerton
Area south of Highway 33
5. Update on Cd

-Of %7d
nr7�

,S-

.%rfrmorL.VC-
JEfF �rz.�ess
- Rl�v1-zc,✓
l�vie �U�t3}n�kF'
S1,Ha.�, n a.II,11�c�#av,
W��1; NcBr�c�e
Bake*-
t?o), //eSGe/ yr
,��D �yNC t/-
�%rol/
Q!,^^ r-
Ufp VUV`C
I w
�e�aioL, 5cB✓
ev%wey
'. Sob 2arze.cL«
jo,+., St�YlS
C�IZ
9i© -34Z- Yzs3
�cs �AospAPre
asa - saa - gay9
Pm
&w,•row�
9rF s&� a6a
mc)NrZc
Rl&11933-3(o33
NC W RL�
asa 91LQ- 6qa t
�c w'Rc..
asz-45')-ass4
P6S PAOSPXiee..
75-a-3;ZR-8a63
1✓�lfs �/cD
asa >af 621 sa
m
OWa - FAT - dwl
2SZ- 94t,- (04%+1 zF
NCixa9/c�.x2p
�2szi 9t�6•GY�i X2vl
GZR
Oeft) 3qz - `j253
D/1 tv
909
wo4i,j$;
zs2 64yg/xa3;
914- �-33-�i4z-Cv
414-93"3-9b�1�
zsa•`t`(o-6 (%I
9�9-�53-994�
lRwl-I3a—�i'!�

Deer ems o
an-yc av
NSV
:.e axone..
,o ai 1,
ore •,e ewrw
nxae.s sv :�
-ONI'ANVdNOO 3AVBdSONd'SOd
ernrm o rumwY on —
.•—•.
wuwe a w��nw
mioe
n
nuu eormew - su. or.
a �J
wx.w �uvK n wuv cn.-u>w.
� _ _ _ ____
aiainm uuo•
- me: - meueo
- e
vrneur nwrwu�
- peruro
cr.wn n
eeem am:ww.
ex.,,ruu
s
a.nn �
nu.m
.ae wows
a
s®o
,
I
i oz-1 ufz, �r ,,

[Fwd: FW: Response to letter of November26,2001]
Subject: [Fwd: FW: Response to letter of November 26, 2001]
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:42:25 -0500
From: Floyd Williams < [e-mail]>
To: "Tracy E. Davis, P.E." <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Response to letter of November 26, 2001
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:21:28 -0600
From: "McLendon, Scott C SAW" <[e-mail]>
To: "Alsentzer Mary (E-mail)" <info@ptrforg>,
"Biddlecome, William J SAW" <[e-mail]>,
"David Moye (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Deborah Sawyer (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Floyd Williams (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Jeff Furness (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
John Donley <[e-mail]>, "Karricker Kent (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Kathy Matthews (E-mail)"<[e-mail]>,
"Lekson, David M SAW" [e-mail]>,
"McNaught Dave (E-mail)"<[e-mail]>,
"Mike Wicker (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Ron Sechler (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Ross M. Smith (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Sean McKenna (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
Terry Moore <[e-mail]>,
"William A. Schimming" <[e-mail]>,
"William Wescott (E-mail)"<[e-mail]>
To All:
Attached is the response from PCS to our letter dated November 26, 2001 regarding Purpose and Need and Project Area.
Please review prior to our meeting in Washington on Monday.
Scott McLendon
---Original Message --
From: [e-mail] Imailto:RSmith(Uesohosnhate.coml
Seat: Monday, December 10, 2001 1:52 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Response to letter of November 26, 2001
Scott:
We have received and reviewed your letter of November 26, 2001.
Our response is attached. The original signed document will be forwarded
to you via postal carrier.
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Thanks.
Ross
1 of 2 12/13/2001 12:05 PM

[Fwd: FW: Response to letter of November 26, 2001 ]
(See attached file: WTC response to COE letter 112601.doe)
Name: WTC response to COE letter 112601.doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document
WTC response to COE letter 112601.doc (applicationlmsword)
Encoding:base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
2 of 2 12/13/2001 12:05 PM

CERTIFIED MAIL
December 10, 2001
Mr. Scott C. McLendon
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 29402-1890
Re: Response to letter of November 26, 2001
Dear Mr. McLendon:
We have received and reviewed your letter of November 26, 2001
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. ('PCS Phosphate") has considered your request to remove
open waters from the project area and to accept the definition of Public Trust waters
advanced by several state agencies. PCS Phosphate continues to believe the definition of
Public Trust waters advocated by these agencies is without basis in law. PCS Phosphate
will endeavor to resolve this dispute; however, PCS Phosphate does not believe that this
dispute over the proper interpretation of a state law issue should delay the processing of
the permit application. With regard to the alternative of mining the open waters of the
Pamlico River, PCS Phosphate believes that this alternative should be identified as being
within the Project Area and analyzed in the NEPA documents; however, PCS Phosphate
is willing to delay detailed consideration of this alternative if other suitable alternatives
can be identified.
PCS Phosphate maintains that the Project Area should be defined as the un-mined portion
of the Aurora Area (mine ratio 30 contour). The Aurora Area has been defined based on
on characteristic data obtained from actual geologic sampling. The Aurora Area is of
sufficient size to provide the opportunity to evaluate other alternatives as determined
through the EIS process.
PCS has considered the issue you have raised regarding the parenthetical phrase
("approximately 20 years") in the proposed Purpose and Need. Due to the size of the
investments in property, personnel, and equipment, it is essential that a long-term
systematic and cost effective mine advance is provided through this permitting process.
However, PCS does not believe there is any problem considering other long-term
alternatives which may be more or less than 20 years.

PCS Phosphate requests that the Corps make a determination of "Purpose and Need' and
"Project Area," regardless of whether consensus on these matters can be achieved, and
then proceed with the development of altematives for evaluation. Please continue to
communicate through Ross Smith (252-322-8270) or Jeff Fumess (252-322-8249) during
this pemritting process.
Sincerely,
William T. Cooper, Jr.
General Manager, Phosphate Production
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.

[Fwd: Meeting December 17]
Subject: [Fwd: Meeting, December 17]
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 09:06:03 -0500
From: Floyd Williams <Floyd.Willi=@ncmad.net>
To: "Tracy E. Davis, P.E." <'[e-mail]>
Subject: Meeting, December 17
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 06:25:51 -0600
From: "McLendon, Scott C SAW" <[e-mail]>
To: "Alsentzer Mary (E-mail)" <info@ptrforg>,
"Biddlecome, William J SAW" <[e-mail].=y.mil>,
"David Moye (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Deborah Sawyer (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Floyd Williams (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Jeff Furness (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
John Domey <[e-mail]>, "Karricker Kent (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Kathy Matthews (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Lekson, David M SAW" <[e-mail]>,
"McNaught Dave (E-mail)"<[e-mail]>,
"Mike Wicker (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Ron Sechler (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Ross M. Smith (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Sean McKenna (E-mail)" <[e-mail]
Terry Moore <[e-mail]>,
"William A. Schimming" <[e-mail]>,
"William Wescott'(E-mail)"<[e-mail]>
rf•7_ll
This is to confirm our meeting on Monday, December 17, 2001 at 1000am at the DENR offices in Washington. The
purpose of this meeting is to finalize the purpose and need statement and project area for the proposed PCS Mine
Continuation.
I have also been provided with a map showing the currently proposed mining line, the "old" Alternative S, and the
"Mine Exclusion Line" proposed by DWD. I will bring these with me and if time permits, I would like to discuss these
as possible alternatives.
Scott McLendon
910-251.4725
I of IV13aWl 12:01 PM -

[Fwd: CONT"MANT ASSESSMENT OF FIS... ENTS ni IN THE LOWERPAMLICO RIVER,]
Subject: 1Fwd: CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT OF FISH, RANGIA CLAMS, AND
SEDIMENTS IN IN THE LOWERPAMLICO RIVER,1
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 17:29:26 -0500
From: Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>
To: "Tracy E. Davis, P.E." <[e-mail]>
CC: "Charles Gardner, P.G. P.E." <[e-mail]>,
Jim Simons [e-mail]>, Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>
Thought you would be interested in this since river bottom sediment
samples taken near
the Phosphate Nine some time ago contained high levels of Cadmium.
Thanks,
Floyd R.
Subject: CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT OF FISH, RANGIA CLAMS, AND SEDIMENTS IN
IN THE LOWER PAMLICO RIVER,
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 17:05:13 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], wcs [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
I think some of you have Been this report but I wanted to make sure. It is
now on the internet at the following website:
htto;//nc-es.fwe.aov/ecotox/contamfishclam.html
1 of 1 12/5/2001 10:22 AM

r_
E-
D-
e-
I I I I I I I I I I I
ex
I m
11.0
(
u
xl%+
sc
XISH
Xlxc
X'AxiJPS-ACID
n.ro
u.b
❑ a
N 55011#,
�I LIIN.
If 99
I,p
-
X1117 xlx.sl Inge Met mom
11-
I1,74
es
1195
14M
f\ PAVED AREA
%w
EDGE OF EXI G 141
WAY
PROPOSED STF PLANT
X14. 19
U1M14 I R
in X10
_
1 4p%Ilb]ArIR
X14G1 xllY X94}0 '.1]XG
LAsIlm
Remelt Po K,7sepi'lePMEAPC
x1{bM
sw ram „
weuuxx4xAdE
xll.4x xll�l EXISTING
MAINTENANCE
mlla x1l COMPACTED GRAVELIx.
STORAGE YARD PROPOSED STF PLANT
x"isWAREHOUSE14M
ase�
7-7.17'1
�—_
BUILDING
I, s: P"JaSM-PAVED AREA_119
11 Po
EXISTING ROADWAY - EXISTING ROADWAY
Hxa�y].Dmx
Ixs
PROPOSED STF PLANT ']14
- `ASP LWAr
hII
Oa ¢
n
" -
c z
i
xxxsx
I
AD.n I I.i
� l—J
Nrw
'
IIDxe
Ito t413
-
EXISTING I I�it
COMPACTED GRAVEL I e - FUTURE STF PLANT
hx
I
STORAGE YARD I� EXPANSION
xlx.xl
z PROPOSED STF PLANT1
o IMIT OF DISTURBANCE
a ce' w
XISTIN
ID.ee
a
ID.0 In,
��-- XISTIN RENCH
_y EXISTING TRENCHx°a `�
IMP
a
t8'
o
I w
xIx.14
xr
�
I
o
I
y
PROPOSED PAVED- R� J
Isa 1S'B xxxa» a 3
PROPOSED STF PLAIJT
LIMIT OF DISTUREIAN,E
a
�
GRAPHIC SCALE
Z
/ b 0 30 Ill
(p
1W
N
/
%%
R21
�
r
PROPOSED 5TF f
LA ( IN FEET
41MIT OF DI UREANCI
t inch = 40
It
floe
I
{jl]Ai
1
xxp.10
XI3X
xix.t
,Sx ISI. I
xlDxlnxD
I
I xl1.w xlue xrem
xI2.=9Re>a
xlxpx
%ille
it"
%ngOan I
I xass xn.n xnle
xn.m
I
I
I
I LOCATION OF SEDIMENT FENCE SHOWN IS APPROXIMATE.
-q•�.�,,,.ro L'--J
ACTUAL LOCATIOii 'rfiLL bE DEFENUANI UN L7&AVAIIUNr
LUI:AIIUN
OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, AND ACCESS ISSUES
DURING CONSTRUCTION.
� SEDIMENT FENCE
SHEEI 1 OF 2
a4
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.;
ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
NEW KERN. NORTH CAROLINA i
Intel
A me
"U°° °PANS
Dnewnc nu
ololcrxxc
DNI[ 9-12-06
'
�"" T•=ao
PCS�\\\
SEDIMENTATION
& EROSION CONTROL PLAN
PC
R
Phosphat
APrpo1�oL
oRAxwc xD.
PROPOSED STF PLANT
-flor
a-W
INITIAL IswE
roe
PC
RLIC
RM QNI.ES P
AURORA DIVISION
1',.^�'>: •}� �
DWG
APPRvm
Na
DAM
mews/Aveswx
er
ox.
APP.
APP.
D
I

adz asJUMFINT
FrecF (GO I FmCFI
DEFINITION
pl at
h,I, ,aka at Ibe bollom•stMohed. Md
set-
pertea by poste.
PWPIEE
10 After e°I by
11 dpmps `to
eeucln9 HirSediment
Noclty o1 shortt allow
sediment deposition.
CONDITIONS WERE
PRACTICE MPVES
Below • oil disturbed same lees Nan 1/4 acre pole
IN It of hens,
be ethe
fence 'habit agenci ngfence art the` •ubmergeld
o b,M1ad the lease.
mullt east n1 image moos streams.
Eltclreot or
PLANNING
CwSIDExATIaa
as
Dookirl Moore a me stoners pool forma behind
the fen". 1Fe direct flows to
specified '"P Itim Urgent appropriate_
the
poutionln< o team ale by prorWng
paled wore the fence. Plan it am n
°°
at eagle points b Of ate Image
e_ ..A
in the answers a dimmimim control likes
:tan
temp le alw placed
iighllyeoff the °mlaer. Thb may be pad b the
by
des5r w tea hallow Norm flows
massealmr
lotlml serumdisturbed vestment
��fo
Seim files agree no function elan
rlderd a
me ° i°°:titer. ConTdeaths dies, herg dlwrteg
aolf
e y ith a e ae.mi fence eoaa
eta
and sedimentation producers that would n t
oine:me a
DESIGN CRITERION
EtAufre cheatach; a ranlageearea a no greats than
Maine the lance 0i far the 10-y peak Slam
runoff.
from he
°ftee
b<nlengin`_
ealtnei ma imumv id
board °
fence woo not Assam the Pec,naatle ,
AQedNrmt
men In RabM 6,82a
e
Ensure 1hpt111tm1 death of 'ash a fi rice nest
5 let m
Y Point rig
If nil M< outletsa Prmded� ,lope Ian 1F
be inarem<a beyond mNM Tome 6.63
may mot m
a but each from The arms should be determined
kedo•Ion along
the ones area he the The vdocIty of te
now at me ounce donq he fence hmld a
ILGNI.
Reeplog with Tooke YmPmd, am.
TABLE 5.5 a
SLOPE S10PE
Np%MAUN LOPE LENGTH )
ND FIT MNNN LENGTH
SEDIMENT FENCE IS
¢t 1 dgfl
APPLICABLE
] la SA J5
50
10 toI"Di R55
]0% 18
Punish: a norm spasm a other owlet pro -
tactics mi for °Este nap `-
y Pont
top The sediment fence. on pure] d< rem -
the
wore t
`lean,,
he al a protected onfarced mUe
Rose not exceed I °n and Thai support pest acing
do,, ire eei 4 It.
The lance
mn`ue.°Efu is°
yalmml
`begs lop on r accpiMle for
period• p to so eon
CDNSmUC9CN
SPICIFICAIIONS
MP.TERIALS
i set Anteelc Ntm fabric a Pumping
Nisen0dn.arii lela
moneOnNc"epdwryn. which ter,
fmninq to the
aseem
requirma 0 brown In Bil
Synthetic Rnel fabric houla lam nrmAdot
to
file
of 0hmoom: of eq°eoliea` old, construction
u0
at a temperature range of to 1200 Regime F.
z. Enloe that poets ale sediment faces me
`Imi..Ll
N/trio er an sunsets
itt$ties wish length
1 4 IL Notre aura IMI sleet podia here areas -
time 10 rehearse I tel the bhra.
E. For emtareemirt
of standard Writes idler
Fabric.usmwtire
l nce airy ominimum 4 gouge and
pg oll o1 a Inches
TABLE
fi6ID
PHYSICAL
SEDIMENT
FENCEFFABRIC Passing 85fi (min)OOIRENENTS
G.y 9 ;cites fete SOtr°n+rl;-
2o;1t1
Very Flow Rote OD gal/ag fl/min (min)
coesmucT
1. Csmtwn msediment ediment bang, of standard
strength an strength amhetm filter Add-
2. Enp1mm that me mightof the sadism From
ground.3
.uler-
sufficient 0 cause`ailu e c strut'fa
hen
5. Construct the inter fiti from a nmme d
cto
rIp000lI t to the length of the barrier ode
only a1 a °suupport `posit
xlsten IheelOf^e cloth
pushed) Fast
4, Sup
art standard etmn m tiler fabric by
e imtmed tt ly P the lightly, sae f
the.
past,
,be hem i or, balm t lee
inch long. ue ,s. Lima the »ire mesa
y
patient to tie ballwn of the bmar.
5, Nfien o ,ir msM1 t fence b used. pas
°bemsame°nmea °oche
tumid aayy(ntothe Around
Mlmum r 18 Inches
0. Extra somtm inter fabric ells a-ll pistt
tg ls,.
the directly
r ,ea filer°`fabric to
amity
ISTIE / mmN
T. Essaple a Irma ppro+imet try 4 lmIke3 wide
ere"a cPinches
alam°lo
ng Pdn`a ons.�it posts
8. 9ockrvl the Irma with mates soil or
grawel placed poor Use little aarim.
9. Do not attoa the later fabric to assul 9
MAINTENANCE Import sedroart firi 00 lead week Md
afterThermalh tic tll, Make ny rears reaches
tem. dma"n loses cr orelfin Ke,` epllacese
promptly, Ifemwe speed sell nl days
Remewe sediment im a cuss ley to provide
reduce Fmrsomine e an the fenceine o ke euster HMI the we i°° and
Remove al leasing materials and unstable sediment
li`°OR{:° fire m Pl The n to F de and stabilize Rev`e
pTopariy etabniad.
Compacted fill
Backfill min 811
thick layer of gravel
ref
1 14w
V—trench
Extension of fabric and wire
in+n +11Teb +iir Fen
Filter fabric
Figure 6.62a Installation detail of a sediment
fence.
PROJECT NARRATIVE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
THE CURRENT SITE IS A COMPACTED GRAVEL STORAGE YARD WITH PAVED
DRIVES BETWEEN THE STORAGE RACKS.
SITE DRAINAGE
THE SITE DRAINS TO A LAKE THAT IS RECYCLED TO THE PLANTS PROCESS
COOLING WATER SYSTEM,
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
THE STORAGE FACILITIES WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE PROJECT SITE.
SEDIMENT FENCE WILL BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN
THE FOUNDATION OF THE STRUCTURES WILL BE EXCAVATED
PILING WILL BE DRIVEN TO SUPPORT THE BUILDING STRUCTURES
CONCRETE PILE CAPS WILL BE FORMED AND POURED.
STEEL COLUMNS WILL BE ERECTED AND PLANT MODULES ARE INSTALLED.
PAVED LOADING AREA WILL BE GRADED AND PAVED,
SITE WILL BE CLEANED UP AND DRESSED WITH GRAVEL OR MINE REJECTS
PC
PhosphaItt AURORA DIVISION
ot"4&Z✓CO R!p¢zp
yp LOCA1101) \
Y �lJ
M 4 Bp10T IIIM
vim
AUROR4�
111 ttla
papa _ � %
Fall
11I A/�I
2'I s
CRAP n11L
SHEET 2 OF 2
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
NEW BERN, NOirN CAROLINA
newmno DATE 9-12-06
JY Nr.
PLAN ER scALE Nrs
CRAM Ili
owG{

a-
c-
11.64
Ova
W
%1%vv
93
XIJN
X,29
x13»
PHOS-ACID
n.m
9
❑
--9D
,999
fL,B
9B
X4„
X125, 169e +OK
%K9.
1
ILA
%
i
9e
IIft
PAVED AREA0
%N�
x
EDGE OF EXI G
0 WAY
RQPOSM IF —PLANT
X141°
LIMIT QL PISTUREMCEom
12,21
lift
AK
I
11N,e%,I,b
/
%IL»
J
G5MLXWY]B
] %Ilb
593
BI03 K
L ;
KNIT
ro9u[ vnt
Ila
m
nI6M
I va1E9IR9 flow
/ ,IIIJ4
� >•
I%IIIM
I\ HIM? )(Ill)(IllEXISTING
MAINTENANCE
.427
Woo
.%nJx COMPACTED GRAVEL ' °
An»
„. 6
\
STORAGE YARD PROPOSED STF PLANT
%%s
,9
WAREHOUSE
s»
I
I
BUILDING
,,„
,,.0—eaoPnsED�AVFn ARFA_,
12. Ift
I I
EXISTING ROADWAY I EXISTING ROADWAY
I
Its
y +low
I
„
I PROPOSED STF PLANT `)
p 0
12
I
I
I
a o45P LWAY
F EST =7. V' I
I B C
O
n.le
I
n.J1 I
al -
will
I
19a I .
n o
,.» 14,]
18
le)e
EXISTING ( -
COMPACTED GRAVEL °' FUTURE STF PLANT
_
I
STORAGE YARD I EXPANSION
X1221
a
N PROPOSED STF PLANT
10J
oz
la»
�?I w d`
ELM
a
1')'
IaB, a41
- XISTIN RENCH G
''w
EXISTINGTRENCH
%au
0
I
a
1
'axe
¢ y
PROPOSED PAVED A�,2FA — — — _ — J
,J:e
Aw1an n. 3
PROPOSED STF PLANT
LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE
&
GRAPHIC SCALE
V
40 ° 211 b
8D
I60
ns
e2l
PROPOSED TF
LA (wET
41MIT OF DI TUR
NCI 1 Inch = 40
iL
(,09x
.1tB,
Al
I ID
X,x]B
'`E12)Affws
1576 1574
%10_MI°.ro I
I
I %,ue AMID %Itm
%If J>AIPbT
%I2.22
Hui
„
Al I
I Ann %M.74 III
Ill
NO IE
I LOCATION OF SEDIMENT FENCE SHOWN IS APPROXIMATE.
X19.>I6,» L-
ACTUAL LOCATION WILL BE DEPENDANT ON EXCAVATION,
LOCATION
OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, AND ACCESS ISSUES
DURING CONSTRUCTION.
---�- - - SEDIMENT FENCE
AR91
SHEE 1 OF 2
`
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
ENGINEERS ANO CONSULTANTS
NEW BERN. NORTH CAROLINA
°RA%111e
RUTIMMI MAMM
NRANNa III
pU[9ANo
A)S NO..
°Art 9-12-06
ocEan
PC
SEDIMENTATION & EROSION CONTROL PLAN
Phosphat
AURORA
fpr
ER
o9AKN9x°.
-
R-a
INRAL ISSUE
ro�
n
AMC
DIVISION
PROPOSED
STF PLANT
DWG#
111PRp„�
Na
"IT
_ Vwx / RE11m
er
tl%.
AtP.
ANA
N
a
f
E
0
a

6.62
O6nxI11601
of dt`eLp-
Afourrragarth boil m.`Stretches.
nld at the an
ported by Feet,
pLNPGdE
by
mdoes `to
re Clog the�ywoelly of sheet allow
a dmenl dolumpl .
PRRAACTICEA LIMS
Oslo, s dI disturbed draw less the, 1/e ace per
LOU R of fence.
once i shout domoging`the Orem on the` eobmm`Wil
area behind the fen,.
Do not t fmces acrom ebMma.
atcm%or wales cup,
PLANNING
CONSIDERATIONS
Deposition occ e o the swam, pool farms behind
the fence. me "algn`n d;r ct nods to
specifiedarmn 0 the iena.' or by a o y appropriateO
m cuea behind Me fence Plan depesn°m
i`° avibie Pone too promote routine
In`the e seas and mamesimma =stt al nits,. AAar
aliment false etc o diversion PI placed
n,gmiy off the c norm. tint. y be d by me
tleailin elatMbee P`Or wend uniform sedimeent
la wotW to depo:iiian areas.
Sedimentry°her°teaoi3Or
00dreinoeewhere thridges
If As. Confining dr angst Cocos
ry me sediment dance a as
°oat n sea seat mote° p awe that w mer n t
otherwise occur.
Mil CRITERIA Elyer tmarhat a drfoj�earm le no greater than
Matce We fence stable for the Io-yr peak storm
R.
ensurethat°tins manomonstores bmllength bennet
sediment force does t cede its spe sfacr e °
shown In Table 6.1
exceed 1 5\ithat anytnpoint aany Ne lence.does not
If incomes, In re eased ee d are Insider.alonem Table
but rit from td"a°areamaed thy determined
a•d Trees. Mona can potentialeIan
Me at the m,o to` `donsIxtne'1fame shouulld be i "cue
hall with Table SIMd, g^rpmr, a.os
TABLE 6.620
pAXMUN SLOPE MICH SLOPE 0 E
AND SLOP FOR IS t£HGiH ft
SEDIMENT IS 2 to 5% i]5
G S
02
1l to Ross
a30F IS
anon` coffele for `ona`n it Or florPoint eta-
top the aeari fenceD° co newel de rr -
lens. Ensue that the m Rought
of not seat n Mef
doine Temp a \ protected supparaf`p`est Women;
does not exceed A It.
ge oealgn life of a methods sediment fence
Would be 6 months during is Only accepmble far
peiwm up to 60 droe.
cwSTRUCyo
SPECIFICATIONS
MATERIALS
t Uee o synthetic Nicer fabric 'ode
sheet f polypropylene, nrlm, ly°es a,,. r
N
ne land Ixcn f carRlilm by the
manufacturer supplier
as laming to the
rcwircnants abase , Tame
I
�,hassioctmSyntheticy
Itinoneri°eili °Piereminimum
1e
Faargo to°120
Oi 0 temperature Of o degrees F
2. Enawe that poets for a "eon fenrn e
either g-n diameter pane. 2-dwhaaneter Oda.
IIs Mead II tees Ith minimum length
oLSI
sure
f A 1L eke gnat tee poss noon pros
Now m aartote tminag the lomc.
reinforcement of standard nren� h fbmrmd
there.3Far
fence gouge
th of
a mximumwmash
spacing fit FAna
TABLE 6a2b Cp FE
MOMENT PENCErfABRIC Filtering Effluence 659 (min)ONIhENEN15
20%(ts Strength
flan zo b/In I (m i'-
Slurry Raw Rate 0.3 gov" ft/inn (min)
CONSTRUCTION
mmngttd of extra strength syntheue rote Otlsoera
n.
2 Enpsure seat tK hoot t Me sedmmt fence
doesffaace, tan o cw`n`ed at exceed 18 Marto at wlulhe t of darer
Iyfoot l To ra 1 the tucti
& Construct the III mere ]ram o cantmueus
flaoanm`°t xtenth jAnts one length f the haver. to amid
elth`ovethe le ue`n°tthh Ant pa at as support all
if
I.
a. Sup at emmerd Fri That fable by
thema R �'erMetmed e r ly = the poop, side f
posts nag heavy duly wire flow °la ewt I
euppmt tInch o the bottom of Me tench. red. E,hend the i mesh
5. Risen a ,ire mash witspart fence To used, space
minimum
be often
Inches.
Into the grcrif ound Support
posts
6. Extra MCI filter mbrlc with 6-It past
SRame or wire the fibersofabric diselly toort
pai
rasasgNEp u
and e`'� ches detrench no theelmswsien Inches m posts
,no Leroy, Iron the barrel PFAIR,, 6.6]0).
& Doi the trench with Compacted 30 Or 0
gr el placed awl the filter Issue.
2. Do no olwn the After louts to eeistiag
red.
MAINTENANCE Iftr sediment famous Map Of tenet week and
Immedmt°`hNy °MrUl. Make my relyted°repoia
SM,Id the miIIam or beof caneimnelltttirc. replacnu
e it Alp
promptly. NMi burlap wry 6o mys.
eee4ate sediment PRO fora to cResttrf m aPromote
reduce pressure out the fins lake ore to M
u domNing the fence during cmmaW.
Remove dl /mciny alerlole arNWadeY arable aMimenl
it oiler ine ono ?Mue a aroto ge deeoldd st eelen
property utabYlieC.
Compacted fill
Backfill min 8"
thick layer of gravel
V—trench /
Extension of fabric and wire
Infn fhpa franrrh
Filter fabric
Figure 6.62o Installation detail of a sediment
fence.
PROJECT NARRATIVE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
THE CURRENT SITE IS A COMPACTED GRAVEL STORAGE YARD WITH PAVED
DRIVES BETWEEN THE STORAGE RACKS.
SITE DRAINAGE
THE SITE DRAINS TO A LAKE THAT IS RECYCLED TO THE PLANTS PROCESS
COOLING WATER SYSTEM,
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
THE STORAGE FACILITIES WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE PROJECT SITE.
SEDIMENT FENCE WILL BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN
THE FOUNDATION OF THE STRUCTURES WILL BE EXCAVATED
PILING WILL BE DRIVEN TO SUPPORT THE BUILDING STRUCTURES
CONCRETE PILE CAPS WILL BE FORMED AND POURED.
STEEL COLUMNS WILL BE ERECTED AND PLANT MODULES ARE INSTALLED.
PAVED LOADING AREA WILL BE GRADED AND PAVED.
SITE WILL BE CLEANED UP AND DRESSED WITH GRAVEL OR MINE REJECTS
PhPCB`\w\
osphat AURORA DIVISION
D"NNC
Pe.6r!✓cb 9P
PROJECT
LOCA110N
51
B
VICINITY ffAP
SHEET 2 OF 2
ROBERT Me CHILES, P.E.
ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
NEW RERN. NORRI CAROUNA
w6xETmxe MW 9-12-06
U9 NO.
PLAN FDA My`E NITS
DWG#

CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT OF FISH, RAN ... LOWER PAMLICO RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA hip://nc-es.fws.gov/ecolox/wntamfishci m.hh I
CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT OF FISH, RANGIA CLAMS, AND SEDIMENTS
IN IN THE LOWER PAMLICO RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636--3726
Anton M. Wicker
Project Biologist
L.K. Mike Gantt
Project Leader
October 1994
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service / Southeast Region / Atlanta, Georgia
Abstract: Samples of sediment, rangia clams (Rangia cuneatal gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), and
longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus) were collected from five sites in the lower Pamlico River and analyzed
for elemental contaminants, organochlorines, aliphatic hydrocarbons, and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons. Most sample concentrations were either beneath the detection limit or too low to be
associated with biological impacts. However, sediment sample concentrations of cadmium and fluoride
were observed at levels that could be associated with biological impacts at one of the sites which was
located near the discharge from a large phosphate mining operation.
Key Words: Pamlico River, Fluoride, Cadmium, Sediment, Rangia C1am,Fish
Preface
This draft report addresses work funded and performed under environmental contaminants study identifier
92-4FO7 and USFWS contaminants catalog number 4100003.
Questions, comments, and suggestions related to this report are encouraged. Inquires should be directed to
the Service at the following address:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636--3726
The Fish and Wildlife Service requests that no part of this report be taken out of context, and if reproduced,
the document should appear in its entirety.
12/512001 10:23 AM

CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT OF FISH, RAN ... LOWER PAMLICO RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA hup://nc-a.fws.aov/e tox/mnm fishclnm.hi I
Introduction
Methods
Results and Discussion
Summary
Literature Cited
Figure 1. Pamlico River sample sites.
Contents
Figures
Tables
Table 1. Site water salinity, temperature and sediment composition.
Table 2. Trace element contaminant concentrations in sediment composites.
Table 3. Trace element contaminant concentrations in rangia clam composites.
Table 4. Trace element contaminant concentrations in fish composites.
Table 5. Organochlorine concentrations in gizzard shad composites.
Table 6. Aliphatic hydrocarbon concentrations in sediment and rangia clam composites.
Table 7. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in sediment and rangia clam composites.
1. INTRODUCTION
Work recently conducted has documented heavy metal pollution of sediments in areas of the Pamlico River
(Riggs or al. 1989). Concem exists over the transfer of heavy metals into fish and shellfish although such
mechanisms are poorly understood. The lower Pamlico River receives discharge from one of the largest
phosphate mining operations in North America and has been the location of several fish kills and disease
outbreaks recently (Noga et al. 1989). Contaminant data for biota in the AlbemarlePamlico drainage are
limited (NC Division of Environmental Management 1991; Benkert 1992). The objective of this study was
to expand the existing contaminants baseline data in the Albemarle —Pamlico area.
2. METHODS
Sediment samples were collected at a depth of about three feet from October 21-23, 1991 at five sites in the
lower Pamlico River. The Chocownity Bay sediment sample was collected of the northeast bank in the first
embayment northwest of Fork Point. The Kennedy Creek sample was taken approximately 400 meters
southwest of the water tower off the opposite bank. The Broad Creek sample was taken on the west bank
2 of 16/7/52001 10:23 AM

CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT OF FISH, RAN ... LOWER PAMLICO RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA http://nc-es.fwe.govinotox/contamfishclom.htmi
approximately 3 km upstream of Mcgotters Marina. Bath Creek was sampled approximately 15 meters
offshore from the wooden bulkhead at Archbell Point, across from a group of large pine trees in the
hunting preserve field. The Pamhw River sediment was taken approximately 75 meters offshore from the
effluent discharge creekjust east of the Texasgulf plant. Latitude and longitude coordinates were recorded
for each site (Figure 1) so that sites could be accurately revisited using loran navigational equipment.
Longnose gar (Lepisasteus asseus) and gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) were collected with gill nets.
Rangia clams (Rangia cuneata) were collected with a clam rake or small dredge. Salinity and temperature
were measured mid --water at each site. After collection fish and clams were wrapped in aluminum foil and
placed in wet ice. Five core sediment samples were collected at each site with a 5 cm inside diameter PVC
core sampler inserted to an approximate depth of 7.5 cm. Core samples were emptied into a stainless steel
container and homogenized with a stainless steel spoon. The homogenate was split into two parts; a portion
for inorganic analysis was placed in a plastic bag and a portion for organics was placed in a
chemically --cleaned glass jar. All sediments were stored on wet ice in the field.
Upon returning from the field, clam soft tissues were removed, placed in a stainless steel container and
homogenized with a
Pamlico River Sample Sites
Ketmedy C(eek Bath Creek
(35N 38 OR 77W 06 30) (35N Z7 Z0; 7 W 69.
NO Broad Creek
(35N 21 IT 1sW 57 00)
pamllw River
chocOWinity Bay (35N 23 00, 76W 46 05)
(35N 30 30, 77W 0375) J
1
stainless steel spoon. The clam sample homogenate was then split into two chemically cleaned glass jars
and frozen. Clam composites consisted of 17 to 50 individuals per site. The fish were measured to the
nearest mm total length and weighed to the newest gram. Samples were stored in a freezer prior to
shipment on dry ice for laboratory analysis.
Elemental contaminant analyses were conducted at the Environmental Trace Substance Research Center,
Columbia, Missouri and organic analyses were conducted at the Mississippi State Chemical Laboratory,
Mississippi State, Mississippi. Organochlorine scans used electron capture capillary gas chromatography,
and PCB results were confirmed by mass spectrometry. Lower levels of detection were 0.01 ppm except
for toxaphene and PCBs which were 0.05 ppm. Aliphatic hydrocarbons were quantified by capillary
3 of 16 12/52001 10:23 AM

CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT OF FISH, RAN ... LOWER PAMLICO RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA http://nc-es.M.gov/ecotox/contamfishclam.htmi
column flame ionization gas chromatography and aromatic hydrocarbon quantification utilized capillary
flame ionization gas chromatography and fluorescence high pressure liquid chromatography.
Metals were extracted by strong acid digestion with a mixture of nitric and perchloric acids. This digestion
yields very low results (< 50% recovery) on standard reference materials for Al, Ba, Sr, and V; low results
(> 50% & < 80% recovery) for As, Cr, Fe, and Mg; and results close to the certified value (> 80%
recovery) for Se, Hg, Cd, Cu, Mn, Ni, Pb, and Zn. Standard reference material was not available for B, Be
or Mo, but based on spike recovery data they are probably in the low result range. Strong acid digestion
gives a measure of the maximum potential bioavailablity of the metal in the sample. An inductively
coupled plasma emission spectroscopy scan was used for metals. Mercury content was determined by cold
vapor reduction atomic aborption spectroscopy and arsenic by graphite furnace. Fluoride samples were
mixed with ion selective electrode buffer and mineral oil as a combustion aid, combused in a Parr Oxygen
Bomb and analyzed with an ion selective electrode. Lower levels of detection were variable for different
metal samples. Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples, including blanks, spiked samples,
reference material analyses, and duplicate analyses, were performed for all analytes. Review of QA/QC
samples indicated precision and accuracy were acceptable for all analytes.
3. RESULTS and DISCUSSION
Site salinities ranged from 0.8 ppt at Kennedy Creek to 5.8 ppt at Bath Creek. The sediment samples from
Broad Creek, Bath Creek, and Pamlico River near Texasgulf had a very low percent composition of clay
and total organic carbon (Table 1) which is where any contaminants are going to be. The sand and silt
fractions which were the major constituents of sediment sampled from Broad Creek, Bath Creek and
Pamlico River at Texasgulf are mostly inert quartz. In general elemental contaminants, organochlorines,
aliphatic hydrocarbon, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon sample concentrations of sediment, rangia
clams, gizzard shad, and longnose gar (Tables 2--7) were either beneath the detection limit or too low to be
associated with biological impacts (Long and Morgan 1990). However, sediment concentrations of
cadmium and fluoride were elevated for the Texasgulf site when compared to the other sites sampled, and
were observed at levels that could be associated with biological impacts (Long and Morgan 1990). Values
observed for cadmium and fluoride are discussed separately in the text following the tables.
Table 1. Site water salinity, temperature and sediment composition.
Sample Site
ISalinity (ppt)
Temp.(degrees C)
%Sand %Silt
°/.Clay
%TOC
Kennedy Creek
10.8
119.9 142 !4F4
15
16
Chocowinity Bay
12.8
22.5
36 45
25
15
Broad creek
4.1
19.0
95 �^
�^
0.4
Bath Creek
5.8
18.3 88 F6
I6
0.2
Pamlico River ( at Texasgulf?
3.8
18.0
59
34
0.1
Table 2. Trace element concentrations in sediment composites (ppm dry weight).
4 of 16 12/5/2001 10:23 AM

CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT OFFISH, RAN ... LOWER PAMLICO RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA http://nc-es.rws.gov/motoxiconWmfishcl=,html
Element
Kennedy Creek
Chowcow. Bay
Broad Creek
Bath Creek
Pamlico River (at Texasgull)
AI
27800
43600
4820
7290
13300
36
042
<p1
4.322
-.
�B
78
<0
<
,-
117
Ba
95.5
56.1
15.4
50.4
Be
1.4
�89
I'
o.l
0.2
0.71
Cd
<0.4
<3
<p.4
8.8
Cr
19
<30
-F
�<0.�3
36
9.3
14
2.9
1.9
8.9
�Cu
Ir
109
54.1
<8.8
11.6
475
Fe
17300
23600
1970
3760
111000
Hg
0.063
0.085
0.01
07018
10.027
Mg
3300
5070
333
609
16430
ivin
166
160
63.8
40
204
M
I'�o
<10
<1
<1
2
Ni
13
<2o
2�-�8.6
Pb
21
<40
IV
�
I'
14
Se
0.4
1.1
<0.2
<0.2
0.3
62.4
78
17
6.9
311
�Sr
F
4o.8
62
5.4
13
37.9
Zn
34.3
23
7.4
]0
98.5
Table 3. Trace element concentrations in rangla clam composites (ppm wet weight).
5 of 16 12/5/2001 10:23 AM

CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT OF FISH, RAN ... LOWER PAMLICO RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA http://nc-es.fws.gov/motox/contsmfishclam.html
Kennedy Creek
Chowcow. Bay Broad Creek
Bath Creek
Pamlico River (at Texasgulf)
�Element
I"`
62.3
27 41
47
152.7
0.91
0.69
1.2
0.78
0.55
�As
ID
<0.3
<0.2
0.3
0.8
0.6
Ba
4.73
9.93
1.4
0.57
0.74
Be
0.006
0.005
<0.007
0.0060
0.007
Cd
0.026
0.01
0.062
Fo -vlon
Far
0.1
0.09
0.62
<0.1
0.1
Cu
2.71
1 1
5.77
1.8
1.8
r<1.00
4.26
<t.33
1.93
13.6
Fe
82.4
70.3
92.9
61
68.7
Hg
0.036
0.014
9.036
0.0160
0.007
Mg
205
249
268
312
321
Mn
3.16
12.1
275
19.8
114.3
Mo
<o.l
<0.1
<0.2
<0.2
<0.1
Ni
0.86
1.1
0.56
0.68
2.1
Pb
<O.1
<70.1
<0.2
<0.2
<0.1
Se
<0.23
o.17
0.31
0.4
0.34
2.71
4.65
5.18
4.7
5.85
�Sr
v
0.09
0.07
0.1
0.16
0.17
Zn
16.2
8.82
13.5
12.7
111.4
Table 4. Trace element concentrations in fish composites (ppm wet weight).
Element
Kennedy
Chocow.
Broad
Bath
Texasgulf
AI (shad)-F
57
F 67F
5.4
3. 1188
32'.
(gar)
t4�liv"
/."
3.5
As (shad)
0.24
0.26
0.19F
0.19F
0.21
(gar) 1
F----o35FN5--
IN6--
D
0.82
B (shad)
-0.5
F -0.5
-0.5
F -0.6
-0.6
(gar)
-0.6Fu�F---ND
-0.
Ba(shad)
1 2F
0.8
0.54
1.5
0.38
(gar)
4.05���ND
0.85
Be (shad)
-0.01
F -0.01
0.01
9.02
F -0.009
(gar)
-0.01
���
-0.01
Cd (shad)
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02�
002F
0.03
(Bar)
F-0.02
N1
FNb
I""
-0.02
Cr (shad)
-0.2
-0.2-0.2
F 5
F2
F t.3t.3
(gar)
7 3.2
[ND
Cu (shad)
0.46
F 0.83
F 157
117
0.82'
6 of 16 1 L5/2001 10:23 AM

CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT OF FISH, RAN ... LOWER PAMLICO RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA http://nc-es.M.govieotoxcontemfishdom.litm]
(gar)
F 0.71
ND
FND
ND
1.2
F (shad)
2.87�-
2.39�
-1.59�
-2.9
3.56
(gar)
6.36[ND
FNV
IN
8.44
Fe (shad)
F-69sF
79.7
F 44.7F
306F
70.3
(gar)
F 50.5
FNDN�ND
53
Hg(shad)
0.021
F 0.015�
0.014
0.013
0.01
(Bar)
0.15
ND
I""
1�
0.82
Mg (shad)
F 270
F 291
F 286
F 398F
327'
(gar)
F 2960[ND
F�m
2840
Mn (shad)
F-49F
4.3
3.3
16.6
3.2
(Bar)
7.52
���
5.7
Mo (shad)
F -0.3�
-0.3�
-0.3�
-0.3
-0.3
(gar)
-0.3
I "�
0.4
Ni (shad)
0.1
F 0.2
0.36,7
2
0.61
(gar) _
1.6
�
1�
2.3'
Pb (shad)
-0.3
-0.3
0.5
0.88
-0.3
(gar)
-0.3��IN
-0.4
Se (shad)
0.28
F 0.29
F 0.33
F 0.1
0.32
(gar)
(gar)
0.2
FND
ND
Sr(shad)
F-176F
22.2
F 21AF
37.1
F 19.9
(gar)
56.9
�Fm�
78.6
V (shad)
F 0.2�
-uii�
-ull
3.5
0.1
(gar)
<0.1
ND
ND
� ND
<0.1
Zn(shad)
9.14�
9.39
F 10.2F
13AF
9.83
(gar)
23.2
I ` D
FN
�
20.7
ND = below method detection limit.
Table 5. Organochiorine concentrations in gizzard shad composites (ppm wet weight).
7of 16 IV52001 10:23 AM

CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT OF FISH, PAN ... LOWER PAMLICO RIVER NORTH CAROLINA http://nc-es.fws.gov/motox/cont=fiishclm.h"t
Analyte _
Kennedy
Chocow. 'Broad
Bath
Texasgulf
HOB
NDa
Fl�m-FND
IND
IND
a-BHC
r�ND
ND
r�ND
ND
�N
45-
Li-BHC
hVL
0.01
FRE-
0.01
Ffz-
14)-BHC
-
����
Oxyclordane
�ND
FND
N5-FND
F
�ND
li`'+�
+s+�
Hept. Epox.
FND-F�&-
0.01
FND
F 0.01..
r-Chlohlordane
Flz-
0.01
FND
FND
0.01
T-Nonachlor
F 0.01
F 0.02
0.01
F 0.01
F 0.01
Toxaphene _
F�
-�F�
PCB's(total)
lim
�0.45'�16
F�lZ--
D
l�N5'
o,p'-DDE
ND
h 5
0.01
FNi
�m
IND
p,p?-DDE
0.09
F 0.16
F 0.08�
0-.09
_ 0.18,
Dieldrin
0.02
0.02.
0.02
F�ND
0.02
o,p?-DDD _. _. _ _
0.01
0.02
0.01
I""F
0.01
Endrin
FD5-
Fm-FmFN5--FK5-
cis-nonach.
0.01
0.02
0.01
FN�
0.02
o,p?-DDT _ _ _
AID
0.01
F%5-1146-11ib-
p,p?-DDD
_ 0.05
0.08
0.04
0.03
0.09
p,p?-DDT
0.02
0.010.01
0.01
Minx _-_
F-0.01
""
0.011'."
�0.01
F
ND =below method detection limit.
Table 6. Aliphatic hydrocarbon concentrations in sediment and rangia clam composites (ppm wet
weight).
Analyte _
n-dod:cane
Kennedy Chocow. Broad
Bath
Texasgulf
sediment_ _ _
0.01 ���
clams
n-tridecane
0.01 [ND 0.01
�1�
I""
�0.01
IN
sediment
���
Z I'�i F46
Fbm
0.01
clam
n-tetradecane
� FND
sediment
ND F 0.01 F _0.32
FND
0.01
clam
octycyclohexane
0.01 � -
ND
0.0]
sediment_F-o-o1FND
0.01
clam
n-pentadecane
��0.0-2
0.02IND Fjq
�
0.01
8 of 16 12/5/2001 10:23 AM

® 6,06 TEMPORARY
GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/c%IT
DEFINITION
A granted am r pad located at pelnte wore
whales rotor and loam o conafNctim site.
PURPOSE
To povide a buffer sea whop vehicles can drop
their mod and sediment to amid transporting it
onto public rends to control erosion from surface
runoff, and to help control scat
CONDITIONS WERE
Mrevs ImMG will to loading a construction
PRACTICE APPLIES
ate and moving directly onto a pudic road or
oMw posed off -site area, ceneWetim plans
Mould knit traffic to Properly caatructed
a troneee
DESIGN CRITERIA
Aggregate Side - Mar 2-3 Inch "men atone.
Dimensions of Games No -
ThkMeaa: 6 inch minimum
wM: 12-R minimum r full width of of
points m Me vnnlwlur mtranw and
M arm, chevr Weather
Weath
Length: 50-t minimum
Location - lsycale construction enkanen and
"Mte to lknit ndMmt tram laming Me into and
to provide for maximum uNity by all conaWdion
vehicles (Figure 8.06a). Amid steep grades and
entrances at curet In public mods -
Washing - if wndl at the eta are such not
moat of the mad and sediment will not Panama by
mnndes traveling oar Has grovel, Me town
Mould be washed. Wong should be time an a
area atabd'am with conned stone that all
into asediment trap or othr suitable disposedare
A wash rock may and be mad to mum men-
Ingmre convenient and wheelie.
CONSTRUCTION
1. CLar the entrance and eat area of all what -
SPECIFICATIONS
elan, rate, and cthr objecUanabie matrid
Mod property grade It.
2. Place wont to no medto gratis and dMm-
abne Mown an the plane, and moon It
3. Proade drainage to carry wow to a sediment
trap or other suitable cutlet-
4. Use gootoxie fabrics bacaun May Mprm
stability of We truncation n locations
waste to mail or high watw table.
MAINTENANCE
mintan the grown pad In a wndMon to provide
mud or sediment &am leaving Me conatruction
aite. M6 may require pMcaic lWdroseing with
2-inch slang. Ater door rainfall, nmect m
sWcare ueed w to trmoment and door It
or necenry. Malawi ram or ail objection-
able materials wiled, waned, or tracked onto
public roadways.
6.10
DEFINITION
Planting rapid -growing annual Hoard. mall
Wens, to legumes to provide initial, temporary
war far rabn central an aaturted arms.
PURPOSE
To twnprarky ambli2e dem:ded arem Hurt evil
not be bought to find grade for aprlad of mare
not 30 working day.
Temporary seeding Cmtrus norniff and anximn
until permanentor imetion other roman cm -
a memo ra wnbe welimed. In cl it
pravlaea Porous far wd potation and aaedted
Preparationmwea problems ofcad mud a
edurin
proalai au ra
duci from g g
stwction.
e DIDMS WERE
On any contend. animosities. or waady wecettied
PRACTICE APPLIES
act surface where ve"teve moor is needed fa
lee than I war. Applkotlma of this peaks
hours divrelmw, dame, temporary ewdiment
baswn, tmpoery road broke, and toed shock -
pile
PUNNING
Prime plants whits dame and grow rapidly and
CONSIDERATImS
wN" fa only are maxan, are reitaae far
establishing Mites Is, temporary digetatia
eamem
eKKwithin sediment control structures such na
mkw. dheraii and the monks of dome wl
sediment beans. It can also raduw the mount of
maintenance associated with then deNcn. For
example the frequency of sediment man deanwM
on be reduced if watw W aeow autim Me
mum mwtiuclion zone, are stabiizad.
Proper seewM preparation, ddectim of appropri-
ate wwi". and use of wary nee are asimmr-
tant in this practice as in Practice 6,11, PERMA-
NENT SEEDING. Failure to fckw established
guidanax and ram tlatlms mortality may
m result In an ada eate a short-lived tans e
vegetation Out will not can" crown.
Temporary sending provides protection far no more
nab 1 war, during whits Me pemanmt sta llr
mein Mould be initiated.
SPECIFICATIONS
Complete Watling "fare preparing "mod% and
Install all nema"ry erosion camel Problems.
such as dikes, waterways and boom. Minimize
steep aom becou" May make emotional preparation
difficult and increase We aroaon formed. Ii
mile becone compacted durng grading. local ram
to a depth of 6-8 Inches using a r idaa, harrow.
or chisel plow.
eFFT+Bel PRMARATION
Good sembed popaeian N easentM to wcewx-
ful plant wtoWN mwt A good dusted is wal-
Purebred, lame, and uniform. Marc hydrosel
and methods are used, the surface may be let win
Irregular surface of large clods and
Stan".e
UMING - Apply line according to sol test rewm-
udatlans. If the pH (acidity) of Me call Is
opt Mown. an application of Ground agricultural
Ihnutwe a We Palm of i to 1 1/2 Lana/awe an
a textured wile and 2 3 tans/am on flne-
iatwed wars is uwanwraent Apply
nominates
nmmbn. fermlyand into Me la
4-6 Inchf d. Sala with a PH of 8 or
on a
higher me not be limed.
PFATUM -Base appliatiw rates on sad Marts.
Men men are
e not po ear apply' a 10-10-10
Tads fartillier at 700-1,000 Ib/acre Bon
fertilizer and Mar should to incorporated Into
the top 4-6 finance of now. If a hydraulic sadr
M used, w not mix am and felllzer mac ram
30 minutes before application.
SURFACE ROUGHENING - If recent dime operations
haw reviled In a lose surface. additional
roughening may not be required except to beak up
Wile dodo If Portal mum Me surface to
became ceded r wanted Iwew it AM par to
weeding by disking, raung, borrowing, or other
suitable methods. GaaM or arrow awe$ weeper
than 3:1 an the wmmr crime esedhg (Pmctke
6.03. SURFACE ROUGHENING).
ANT m r nm
Some an approximate meal" or Bpalw mixture
from Table 6.10s far seeding in late winter and
many spring, Table 6.10b far smmer. and Table
6.10c far fall.
EOM
Evenly wood us reply wood
g a cyclone Model (broes-
mw), drill. cultlpackw feeder, or hyatroeetlr.
Use eoedhg rates given In Tables 63W-6.10c.
Broadcast reeding and hydromming are appropriate
fop strop amn where equipment cannot be drawl.
Hand broadcasting Is not recommended bw$e of
the difficulty in achieving a uniforImmune dlwaw-
ran.
Small Tan$ should be planted no ewe Man 1 kwn
deep. and gmsew and lagomes no mare Man 1/2
With. Broadcast seed must be cowed by raisin or
Man draggng. and Man lightly Rural with a
rdler or cultipaakr. Hwrow M mixtures
should Include a wood fiber (cellulo e) mulch.
6.10 TEMPORARY,cii continued
Mill (3-11hp
fte use of appropriate mum of help
eetabehment under normal mndtims anprcIS
essential to aeedbg marem under harsh dte
donations (Practice 6.14. MULCNING). Harsh ate
conditions include:
sending is hall for wits car (wood flow
mulched we not wondered adequate far We
use),
whom sleeper Man 3:1,
excwaively hot w dry another.
whanks voila (shallow, rocky, or high In day
or ow l) and
arena reaching womtmtw tow.
If no sea to be mulched Is subject to concen-
trated Waterloo, as in Oannele anchor mach
with netting (Pmctke 6.14. MULCHING).
MAINTENANCE Rmaed and mulch arena More seeding msgswe to
pew. or some o t mop mossion
a anon as wa-
ble. Do n . Protect re from traffic as mum as
Possible.
TABLE 6.1015 TEMPORARY SEEDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SIMMER
SEEDING MIXTURE
Species Rate (III/arc)
Common millet 40
SING DATES
Apr. 15 - Aus 15
SOL AMENDMENTS
Fellow rerermmendaams of cal tests ar apply
2.000 b/acre Wound mriwlturd IMMme and
750 Ib/ore 10-10-10 !Alit r.
MULCH
Apply 4,000 Ib/are stow. MOW straw by lack-
ing with asphalt netting. w a mulch warming
tad. A disk with blades ad newly straight can
be used w a mulch anchoring tad.
MAINTENANCE
Refwtlin if gwwM is net fully adore.
Reseal, nfrtllze and mulch imm enly follow -
Mg rwlm or ana damage.
TABLE 6.10c TEMPORARY SEEDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FALL
SEEDING MIXTURE
Rw (� neww Rate16/aae)
20
SEEDING DATES
Au% 15 - Den 30
SOIL AMENDMENTS
Follow recammmdatbns of sad testa ar apply
2,000 b are Trend Nridlturd limestone d
1.000 ID am 10-10-10 fwtluw.
MtILC11
Apply 4,00o lb/am straw. Anchor straw by bab-
Ing with aphalL rating, W a mulch anabwng
tad. A Max with Wades set repay straight can
be used as a mach anchoring total.
MAINTENANCE
Repair and refatlize damaged arm an nwitatry.
Taperers with 50 Ib/acre of nkragen in March. If
It is nomeary to Mane Manparary cover beyond
June 15. omrseed with 50 Ib/aae Kabe In late
February or curly Marts.
6.10
DEFINITION
Planing rapid -growing annual owners, moll
greats, orInomes tProvide 'ntemp«ary
Power Nor cn,roa
PURPOSE
To temporarily stabilize deauded crew that will
not be brought to Hand grown fa a period of mare
not M wmmg can
Temporary mail cantata mnoff and maim
until paramount vsgetatim w othr monsoon con -
mil meP m arm be seta MW . In awdNm, It
parishes nadue for Hall potel and neabed
preparation and anduees Problems of mud and duet
ken bare ball surfaces during an-
production
Wction.
CONDITIONS WERE
On my dames mismatched. or marnely monarch
PRACneE APPLIES
wad ahrtaa where wgmener coww is needed fop
loan than 1 year. Applications of Win practice
Include divseime. :l temporary ndMwt
babe, tmpwwy road bwkx, and tapwil stock-
pies -
PLANNING
Annual plants. which spool and grow ra ldy and
CONSDERATONS
vrwm Mr Doty we seabed, are suitable fa
mentioning Initial a temporary segetative
oar. Immure sewing pr"sops Me integrity
of earthen sentiment contra structures war We
claw. iiverabns and Me banks of lame and
wenent bonne. It can died reduce Me amount of
maintenance associated onto then devices. Far
"ample We frequency of sediment hen demount
will be reduced if watrehea arms. outside the
active construction zone, ale ntablizM.
Proper"aftedpromotion. adecNm of apprwrF
a a f dead me an por-
tl
nudity
Riani a this practice as' Practice 6.11. PERMA-
NENT SEEDING. Facture to bllw smothered
guidelines and recommendation° carefully may
result in an inadaraee ar mart -lima wand of
v"wearn that will not central swim.
Temporary meng mail protection err no more
Won I year, during Anich time pemarent Wel-
mum maid bad ndwba.
SPECIFlCATONS
C=yleta grading befine preparing seecto de and
Rowell all necessary amain manurial Fractions.
won an dam wtenays and boaina. Minimize
steep Mon because they make seedbed preparebn
damaat ram Immune Me ream hazard If
wins became compacted during grading, loosen mm
to a depth of 6-8 mchw ang °ripper, harrow,
or chHa Flow.
1317IRM PRFPARA1104
Goad wreac! preparation N esaentid M wa or-
al plant aeadishment. A gam seedbed N m l-
puNenzed. lows". and uniform. More how ww-
ing mathwe are used. Me surface may be left with
e hegular surface of large alone and
wmK
UWNG - Apply Ilene acmrding to se test ream-
mdeirae If Me pH (wiwy) of the cal N
not known, an application of ground °Wicultuwl
IMwtwe at me rate of I to 1 1/2 tone/acro an
wane-t"ared man and 2-3 two/care on find -
textures soils in money HaMdent Apply
limestone uniformly and incwpo ate into the top
loom chw of ell. Sells win a pH of 6
higher need not be Med.
FERTILIZER - Bere applbelm elw m we tMs-
Min mesa ale not poane, °pply a 10-10-10
Grace frellzer at 700-1.000 Ib/awe. Bath
frthizer and Hire award be inwm=Ted Into
Me tap 4-6 inches of sod. If a hydraulic wonder
N u"d, do not mix send and Nadine- more than
M mature before application.
SURFACE ROUGHENING - If recent hinge operation
nave real in a loom wafam, adational
roughening may not be required except to break up
Inge cloth If rdnfdl mum$ Me surface to
became waled or watts lateral it just prier to
seeding by asking, eking, harrowing, w once
suitable meMode. Groom m furrow Map" Waepr
not J:1 on the contour boom seeding (Prentice
6.03. SURFACE RCUOIENING).
PANT m FCMCN
done an °mmalide species a obscure mixture
from Table 6.10o, far coding in late winter and
early wring. Tedo 6.1Ob for summer, antl Table
6.100 far fall.
SEEDING
Ewmy apply send mom a cyci seeder (brmd-
md), drill, dltipackr Wow, ar hydrossedr.
Use seeding win gim in Tables 6.10a-6.IDc
Brommust seeding and hydroxendng am examinable
for ate" Amex warm equipment cabne be dim.
Hand broadcasting to not rewmmmwtl bacteria of
Me difficulty in achieving o uniform timers -
Um.
Small grams should be planted no more Man 1 Inch
deep. and 9meaw and legumes no mom Man 1/2
i--h. BmmW t seed mow be coarwl ty rown m
n dragging, and Men lightly Mooed with a
ea r or culllpab"ewd w. Hydramixtures
Id Include odd Mar (wlWlaw) mulch.
Figure 6.06a !rowel mtance/sal Imill sediment Iran Haring the attenuation site (mwlrm tram vs- SWCC).
6.10 TEMPORARY SEEDING continued
MULCHING
The of appropriate mubn will help ensure
establishment under w normal ecndRime sin
essential to seeding vaosn radar harsh ate
conditions (Practice 5.14. MUUNk G). Hand site
conditions Include
aeedag W
al c forr ov
a (wood for
w ann m leht onsidred adeques r Mix
use),
whom newer Man 3:1,
"ceavivNY hot or dry real
water wile (shallow, reeky. or high In day
r sand). and
woos reviving concentrated! 1".
If the area to be mulches is ru[pct to wncen-
tratad rafrflaw, as in clennaaanchr mulch
with netting (Pratte 6.14, MULCHING).
MAINTENANCE Reseed and mulch areas More netting emergmw d
poor. or whees resin occurs. a:: wash w poor
ble. Do not maw. Protect from beat as much as
peaill
TABLE SAM TEMPORARY SEEDING RECOdMENOAIONS FOR SUMMER
SING MIXTURE
Species Rate (Ib/awe)
Garman milet 40
SEEDING DATES
Apr. 15 - Aug. 15
SOIL AMENDMENTS
Fellow recrnmendations of we tents or apply
ZOOO lb/sae grand agnwlara Itrnestme and
750 Ib/are tG-10-10 frfRzs.
MULCH
Apply 4.000 Ib/aae straw. Anchor stew Pv tab-
ng win asphalt rating, or a nwhe ardhaNg
too. A disk win Marla set recall sWiwt an
be used an a mulch anchoring tad..
MAINTENANCE
Rem illze H growtn is not h.ly darpcts.
Renew. refrtllze and axar Imm<aately follow-
ing rosin w other damage.
TABLE 5.10C TEMPORARY SEEDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FALL
SEEDING MIXTURE
Speclee Rate (III/ore)
Rw (am") 120
SEEDING DALES
Aug. 15 - Ow. 30
SOIL AMENDMENTS
Fellow recommendmilms of eel testa or apply
2,000 Ib/aae grand agriculture IMMme ant
1,000 Ib/are 10-10-10 fwtdka.
MULCH
Apply 4,000 Ib/(aae stew, AnMo- draw bad tabk-
ing with aephot, netting, or a mulch annumbring
toe. A slaw with blades eel now, straight can
be toed an a mach anchwing top.
MAINTENANCE
Rapdr and rwmtdize damaged aloe imm Relay.
Topdnsa with 50 bloom of nitnagon in Mach. If
It or necessary to extend tompon ry cover buyers
June 15, awarded win 50 Ib/ac'e Kobe in late
February or body Manor.
DESIGN CR1TEMA Ensure not Me drainage war is no greaten Man
1/4 awe par 100 t fens.
Make no fence verho ice the 10-yr Peak staml
runoff.
Where ell runoff Is to be domed tins We force.
were hurt Me maximum aces length behind it
awm nt Arm does not eon the maeiflwtions
Mom n Told* 6.62a.
Ensure that Me depth of Mandan led actal dam not
exceed I3 It at my paint along Me Maps.
If nonroda ruaeb am prONde; awe length
may be Inwweea beyond that mown in -able 6.62
out wnoff km Me red rat ild be cetermined
and broom iiii and soda combat along
Me fence must be checked. Re vNwt) of the
flaw of the cutlet a inking the fnce Mould be In
keeping win Table 8.05d. ApPwdx 8.05.
TABLE 6.62a
MAXIMUM ROPE LENGTH SLOPE SLOPE
AND SLOPE FOR All LENGTH IN)
SEDIMENT FENCE IS QR 100
APPUGABLE 75
52 to to DX 50
10 to 20L 25
>20s 15
Provide a riprop opium pop or zther outlet pra-
inkylon dance for my point Mm flow may
yop oar-
Me sediment fence, Hach a nears Womaf-
bns or sarm. Ensure not We maximum height
of the few at a protected. eanbrced dual
does not exceed 1 it and not rapport pot waling
does not exceed 4 f .
The mown fife of a ewthdic sediment force
should be 6 mmtbs Suaap a rnly acceptable far
pmwa up to 60 dow.
CONSIRUCTON
SPECIFICATIONS MATERIALS
1. Use a 3ynthmc Star doors x a p ^eaua
shrst of pdyprola ene. nylon, Polymer
pawMylone you whim s anified by Me
manufacturervpplis a farming to Me
regukmmb shown in Table 6.62a.
Spthdic filter fabric mould cont yn atreNset
y inhibition and mealtime to Pointe minimum
of 6 months of ewated usable wwtruc inn life
at a temperature range of 0 to'20 degree F
2. Brown that powx far cad nmt felon we
either 4-um morrem pine, 2-in Ui diamw.w ask.
or 1.33 Ib/Ilnear t eon with a minimum length
of 4 t. Mica Hare Out steel pawl haw prow-
tions to facilitate Mowing the Rorie
3. For renorcement of stand= strength Mtr
fftmc one wire fence win a min rum 14 Idgs and
a mwgwm man opadng of 8 learn.
TABLE L&O
SPECIFlGITONS FOR PHYSICAL PRO"i REQt IREIAENTS
SEDIMENT FENCE FABRIC Filtering Elflcimcy 85d (min)
Tensile Strength at '.inhaling Stroll
20% (ma.) Elongation :i0 Ib/IW In (min)
Slurry Floor Rate M3 go /" t/rah (min)
CONSTRUCTION
1. CoaWct the sediment carrir, of standard
wmnglh or extra strength fynn. no filter fob -
rice
2. Ensure not the height of Me ays'enent fence
do" not exceed 18 inMen above Me Txind am -
face. (Higher fmoss may Imoruni will of cedr
sufficient to cause failure of Me :Woolard.;
3. Construct the fitter N e horn a o wLwde
ell at to Me Imgm of Me bi a amid
)olnty Man )rota we nencensary. malady
fasten Me filter dam mly at a wplem, past
with aseriap to the next past.
4. Support stmmM wrwgn flfr imic by
ober mean loitered mairely to the upMape aide of
We awn using hodry, duty war awhe at least I
nth Img, m lie wires. Extend Me wen mesh
support to Me bolt= of the Rarer ch.
5. Mom a are mah support than is used. apace
Posts a maximum of B ft apart Suisart paws
shda be driven eecuray Into to wand to a
minimum of 18 Inches
B. Extra stength film fabric win 6-t part
spacing does not require wire "l afen pp: ce.
Staple win We fisher fwncdkw8r to
parts
y. Estimate a bench approxMably 4 Napa aide
tl 8 Inches deep doing Me nationalthe of Into
and
unwor from Me barrier, (Figue 6.62a1.
8. BackFlil no trench win comments not or
grown placed oar the flltr (abet.
9. Do not attach the after fabn: to existing
trees.
MAINTENANCE Inspect eedimmt forma at least am a reek and
after each rainfall. Make my aquked wake
Mmeeiately
Shedd Me feMlo of a so ment fence Collapse.
tear, decompose or become Inattentive, rwww It
promptly. Replace bunt" wary M days
6.62 SENM T �O M TT MENCE) cmlinuml
Rmaa sediment deO is as n cowry I prow
adedcte storage mlume far Me ant ram
reduce measure an tAn fence. Td era e care w � mod
undermining Me Peace wring dean opt
Rance all fmcng materials and unstable iedMmt
marine and bring Who area to grain and :tablize
it after Me committing drainage mwo hat new
property wabllfted.
6.83
DEFINITIm
Smalltemporary acme owns wrl rsucted across a
drains 9eway.
PURPOSE
To reduce n " drano Manna by rr-
whicting Me moneys of flow in ties channel.
CONDITIONS WEREth
PRACTILE APPLIES
_
Wcamo pumay, ?mitcrra by �a q flows inr
en
open client U t drainage to 2
oti nda n a
o lees' DO NOT USE CHEN areas
IN UYE
Sid"
Coed dame may be used M:
reduce flow a anal temporary, channels Mat
Permanent
a „per or
law unpractical due to mod
of usefulness;
Postcodad flons mail commils where
s cUonln
delays or w her conditions
r r t timely Installation of overcame
c NO SIDIERATIONS
Check dome are redlan< y to motion gugyMg
the bottom Gi caroms Mai will the mead or
stabgaed at a later on& It is ovally Walter
to Ulna the Wall or ~ the flow to wwa
tall
Ha.ew° mow cirnd w°inetaoncean °O
morethis is not
remEle, dab dame mayabvad nable.
Manna
kill �ffi
W liw°IIIIninp N miner (termay
min* Isno op mosst Miing rm~ernFg
road riprnor oral if is
planned apart of will mdinfenanc.
Consider the dimcllse of roleptng We channel
bottom win aiwias suProa amp et,
=' a mat, a Mr Ivewaclnmiiings Ned
Tam g
won wore
tlm s
DESIGN CRITERIA
The Mcld w used whop: drodol
nig adµmg dam:
armthe mw.a
' dam mdams
not expeeea°gt re.mam
Kasp Me um height at 2 t PH Mcenter
moxM
tape dam.
sheeeepp Me ceder of Me Mod armat kcat 9
mcne Iowa Man the aregain at aral
Trenduto
demotion.
Kew We war include of Me darn at 11 w
Ensure the no maximum spacing between dams
Wer dam.sanne
too pie
Newtim as Me of downstream
StwRrse o ow area dung Me channel to
mist eroam caused by Mob dams.
Use 2 to 15-inch done (II Department of
TrmmMorelon dam A dose B own
control stone).
Key Ufa dine Into iM elm banks and attend
18Inches
nsembersmwn°Wisd
too
owe around
amid sun
Man.
CONSTRUCTION
SPEGFlCATIONS
1. Plena same to Me How and dimensions Mown
In the plan on a Far fabric faundotion.
2. sheep the tar9 wane seem at Iced 9
level wnae Me dam
amts Me commalabodround
3. Extend same at least 1.5 t beyond the ditch
barn" toilakeepundemeting Me
oolry tler form
tea
4 Sal al Me topween ofMee err dam is Meg to mom We
nrtna
eeeWn
Ma We elevation of me upper dan.ds
a twill
damn.
Erah wnaoaananmda can wteerr well Mow
no wen 6.41. Gethe Simal
and around `Vractw
mom Structure).
B.aMake sure nota cromd we reach oMe
mt dean
y. Ensure that Manna apPurtwdnm4 wen
Iron trances bow Meet came, et sub -
Joel a damage r Mrkaga tab minutes!r°etmew
MAINTENANCE
ware and channels far dmme after
ea ffekians
Anticipate submergence d deposition above We
iffecox
°meciatellbe
of dam. CooreatO11allhigh nppeepage
gegni8cnnt
If ream occurs between dmra n-y'
dell a not nor rip1% liner in oat portion e
Me much `Practice C.31, Rlpmp-ned and Paved
cnannela).
Rmaa sediment muead bind Me award a
mow to prevent Saar to Mmnd Window.
allow We channel to train through On straw oral:
onam-
anonchooserm. Add dams
) etnsemto as seed
to maintain design bight and cam writer.
L-na distance such that pass
A Pad B are of equal devatlw
Gowli
_gig A B
L
p;
Section A -A
Compacted fill
Backfill min 8"
thick layer of gravel
M
140
V-trench /
Extension of fabric and wire
In+n +ko +riai
Filter fabric
Figure 6.62a Installation detail of a sediment
fence.
SHEET 2 OF 2
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E
ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE
ISSUE / REIASION
BY I CHK. I APO.
PC
Phospa�,� AURORA DIVISION
11
DRAWING TITLE
ENGINEERING DATE 22APR05
JOB NO.
ROL PLAN RMC#2004186 scALE NTS
SION DRAWING NO.
DWG#

6.62
SEDIMENT(SILT)
l,."a
I
6.06c TE PORARY GRAVEL
—
2MAYJ
INITIAL ISSUE
N0.
DATE I
ISSUE / REVISION
SEDIMENT(SILT)
L,6
6.62 S IMENT SILT FENCE
T)
6.62 SEDIMENT(SILT)
6.62 SEDIMENT(SILT)
EXISTING GRASS LINED SWALE
E 6.62 SEDIMENT,SILT) FENCE
Iv / /
/
v
v / /
t
wulDrousE s sraurct
wrap
Nip
io'
_
Ic RMC' RMC
BY I CHK, APP.
63 "ROCK CHECK_�AA
6.06
a TEMPORARY
flo
I
`J
'i \ n
DmTrm vaooMx
6.83 ROCK CHECK D'
® 00 li
IN
PC
Phosphat V AURORA DIVISION
�I
MAY oc N15
9900
r
SHEET 1 OF 2
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAWING TILE ENGINEERING DATE 22APR05
JOB NO.
RMC#2004186
DRAWING NO.
TEMPORARY OFFICES
4YDOWN YARD DWG#

CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT OF FISH, RAN ... LOWER PAMLICO RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA http://nc-m.fv.govtftowWconlnmfwhcim.hml
sediment _
0.041 0.011 0.031 0.02,j
0.02
clam _F
nonylcyclohexane
0.02 F 0.02 0.06. 0.161, 0.1
sediment
0.01 FK5-Fb5-0.01. _ 0.02
clam
n-hexadecane
0.01��-NF7 _ 0.02
sediment_
0,03E - 0.01!, 0.01' _ 0.01
Clam
n-heptadecane
F 0.02F 0.02,F�0.02,F 0.02,7 0.02
sediment
F- - _ 03F omF 0.16, 0.131 0.04
clam
pristane _I
F 0.04 F 0.07 F 0.13 0.191 - 0.09
sediment _
AID 0.01 F� 0.03
clam
n-octadecane
0.01 FWD-FK5-FND-FND
sediment
7 0.02 F 0.01 0.01� 0.01, __ 0.02
clam
hytane
0.01 0.01 0.011i`i-0.02
-- -- _
sediment
0.01� O.OI r�� 0-.01', 0.04
clam
n-nonadecane
0.01 FND I"" li"' 0.01
sediment
0.03 F 0.03 F 0.02 0.03,F 0.03
clam
n-eicosane
- _ - 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 F - - 0.03
sediment _
0.027 0.01 0.01 F 0.03[ _ 0.02
clam
0.02 Fbm K5 0.01
ND = below method detection limit.
Table 7. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in sediment and rangia clam composites
(ppm wet weight).
Analyte
apthaleae
Kennedy Chocow.
Broad Bath Texasgulf
sediment
-_-� -_ _
���-ND-�
clam
tluorene
0.02 Fi5
F ND r
sediment
ND FNff--
F�3---FND��
clam
hemmhrene
��-
����vD
sedim_ent
���-
.01 L
0I"
�N P"" 7ND
clam
0.06'FND---W[ND-
0.02
9 of 16 12J5/2001 10:23 AM

CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT OF FISH, RAN ... LOWER PAMLICO RIVER, NORTN CAROLINA hup://nce.fws.gov/=tox/wn=fisheim.html
anthracene
sediment
—
clam_._
flouranthene _
�FN—D--��F-��ND
L"'"" ��
_ L"'
sediment
Fis�--� 0.05'.
clam
pyrene
ND ""
sediment+�+�
� PID FND
FND ND
clam
1, 2-benzanthracene
FN IdD r
FN�D ND
sediment
clam
chrysene
sediment
"D���
--
clam
benzo (b) fluoranthene
i`L--
�FN�FD"—'FB---
sediment
�
o.ol,� FND
clam
benzo (k) fluoranthene
FND l.q" hxa!F�TD--FND
sediment
�rND F�
0.01
clam
benzo(e)pyrene
sediment
�N�
ND
clam _
1,2,5, 6-dibenzanthracene
�ND
I"'_W--FN—D—
FND—FDO—
sedunent _
_ _ _ ND
clam
benzo(g,h_,i erylene _
�ND
���
+�+' W--FND
"D ll�m ,
sediment
Fb3----.FNF-�ND _ND�Fn--�,
clam
FN5-----�—FN—D-ND
FND----'�
ND = below method detection limit.
Cadmium
The composite concentration of cadmium in sediment observed at the Texasgulf site was 8.8 ppm dry
weight. This value is above the concentration (5 ppm) at the low end of the range in which biological
effects have been observed and slightly less than concentration (9 ppm) approximately midway in the range
of reported values associated with biological effects (Long and Morgan 1990). All other site concentrations
were beneath detection levels (Table 2). The potential for biological effect of cadmium at Texasgulf may
be underestimated by the observed concentration because the sediment sampled at Texasgulf had a low
percent total organic carbon (0.1) and thereby a low pollutant binding affinity. The highest observed
1215n001 lo:zt AM

CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT OF FISH,RAN..,LOWER PAMLICO RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA hap://nca.fws.gov/a Wx/contamftshclan.html
cadmium concentrations for rangia clam tissue and gizzard shad tissue were also observed at the Texasgulf
site although the difference between site values for gizzard shad is very small. Fertilizer production is one
of several anthropogenic sources of cadmium which include smelter fumes and dust, incineration of
cadmium --bearing materials and fossil fuels, and municipal wastewater and sludge discharges (Eisler 1985)
Fluoride
Sediment fluoride concentration at the Texasgulf site appeared to be elevated when compared to other
Pamlico River sample locations (Table 2), although this observation could not be tested statistically
because the composite sample methodology utilized did not allow for an estimate of sample variance. Lee
and Marianna (1977) observed that measures of sediment chemical concentrations were not good indicators
of sediment toxicity as indicated by tests using shrimp (Palaemonetes 2WdM. DiToro (1989) believed that
the chemical concentration in pore water was a better indicator of toxicity, as it was more associated with
bioavailability. Texasgulf discharged about 1 million pounds of fluoride each year in 1989-1990
(Cunningham et al. 1992) but is moving towards a recycling program which is expected to reduce fluoride
discharges by 75 percent.
We sampled rangia clam, gizzard shad and longoose gar tissues to determine if fluoride present in the
sediments was also evident in biota, and to complement the area database for tissue concentrations of other
contaminants (Riggs et al. 1989, North Carolina Division of Environmental Management 1991, Benkert
1992, Gemperlirie et al. 1992, Weinstein et al. 1992). These samples constitute the first assessment of
fluorides in tissue for this area and subsequently should provide a reference for future comparisons. Rangia
clams collected from the Pamlico River at Texasgulf had a fluoride concentration approximately seven
times as high as that observed at Bath Creek which was the only other site at which fluoride occurred
above the lower limit of quantification. The rangia clam composite samples utilized from 17 to 50 clams
per sample so that the observed concentration represented an average for several organisms. Rangia clams
are non --selective filter feeders that transform plant detritus and phytoplankton into clam biomass. They
move very little compared to fish and crabs and are suitable indicators of site quality.
Rangia clams are eaten by fish, crustacea, and waterfowl (La Salle and de IS Cruz 1985). Fish that eat
raagia include important commercial species such as spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)6 Atlantic croaker
(Micropogon undulahm)6 and southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma). Ring-necked duck (Avthya
collaris), greater scaup (Avthya marilal lesser scaup (Avthya a finis), black duck (Anus rubrtpes), mallard
(Anas platyrhynchos), and ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) eat rangia. However, a review of the literature
11 of 16 Iv5n001 10:23 AM

CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT OF FISH,RAN...LOWER PAMLICO RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA hap://nce.fws.gov/=Wxtwn=fishclam.hhnl
does not indicate that the levels of fluoride found in tissues of rangia clam should present any threat to
waterfowl that consume them (Jim Fleming, National Biological Survey, Raleigh, NC, personal
communication). Cmstacea that consume rangia clams include blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) and white
shrimp (Peneaus setijeras). Blue crab consumption of rangia clams and other benthic food organisms with
body burdens of fluorides and other contaminantes may be associated with the frequency of shell lesions
(approximately 10% and regionally up to 90%, Weinstein et al. 1992) in blue crabs taken from the Pamlico
River.
Gemperline et al. (1992) analyzed trace and minor element concentrations in blue crab gills, muscle, and
hepatopanereas tissues using principle component analysis. They concluded that diseased and non -diseased
crabs had distinctly different concentrations of minor and trace elements. The authors speculated that since
many of the elements observed in the tissue samples are normally not soluble, fluoride or phosphate
concentrations in the Pamlico River may be causing enhanced solubility of these elements. Weinstein et al.
(1992) stated that toxic concentrations of metals or trace elements could potentially cause shell disease
through physical degradation of the hypodennis which secretes the shell or through interference of wound
repair. Another more subtle mechanism that could cause shell disease would involve disruption of copper
regulation which would result in stress from reduced oxygen transport to the tissues (Engel 1987, Engel
and Brouwer 1984, Depledge and Bjerregaard 1989). Noga et al. (1990) observed that Pamlico River blue
crabs had reduced hemocyanin levels. Hemocyan n is the respiratory pigment which contains 50-60 % of
the copper in blue crabs. Pamlico River blue crabs were described as unhealthy in terms of behavior,
survival, hemocyte levels, and wound repair capability (Weinstein 1991). Healthy blue crabs in tanks
develop lesions when exposed to Pamlico River water (Noga et al. 1990).
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) conducted surveys in the Pamlico
River at sites that have contaminated sediments. Samples of midge (Chironomas sp.) larvae which inhabit
the sediment and the midges were examined for the presence of tooth deformities. Larva midge tooth
deformity is being evaluated by DEM as a potential biological indicator of contaminant loading in North
Carolina (Lent 1993). Tooth deformities in midge larvae are associated with contaminated sediments
(Hamilton and Seedier 1971, Warwick 1985, 1988, 1990, Warwick and Tisdale 1988). Midge tooth
deformities were observed at levels above background in Kennedy Creek, but midges were not present in
the sandy sediment around Texasgulf which precluded this technique from being used there. These
findings are especially interesting because blue crabs and midge are both arthropods, both undergo growth
molts, and both midge teeth and blue crab shells are composed of chitin. It can be assumed that midge
larvae developed on the sites at which they were collected in contrast to blue crabs, which are leas
sedentary.
Gizzard shad are planktivorous and longnose gar are pisciverous. Both are considered freshwater fish
although they frequent brackish sites, such as those we sampled, along with some of the more typical
estuarine species. They were selected for sampling because they represented a diversity of trophic levels
and because they could be easily collected at all sites. Although both gizzard shad and longnose gar
sampled at Texasgulf had the highest fluoride concentrations of any of the sites sampled, the difference in
concentrations between Texasgulf and the other sites appeared too small to be meaningful. Fluoride
accumulates in calcium rich tissues, such as bone. Therefore differences in fluoride concentrations in
whole fish may have disguised the potentially major differences in fluoride exposure among sites that was
indicated by sediment and rangia clam samples.
MUMMY
12 of 16 12/5/2001 10:23 AM

CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT OF FISH, RAN ... LOWER PAMLICO RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA hap://nc-m.fws.gov/e tox/wnt fishclem.h"I
Samples of sediment, rangia clams, gizzard shad, and longnose gar were collected from five sites in the
lower Pamlico River and analyzed for elemental contaminants, organochlorines, aliphatic hydrocarbon, and
polymelear aromatic hydrocarbons. In general sample concentrations were either beneath the detection
limit or too low to be associated with biological impacts. However, sediment concentrations of cadmium
and fluoride were elevated for the Tmasgulf site when compared to the other sites sampled, and were
observed at levels that could be associated with biological impacts. Concentrations of fluoride in fish and
clam tissue in this report are the first available for this area and subsequently should provide a reference for
future comparisons.
LITERATURE CITED:
Benkert, K.A. 1992. Contaminant assessment of biota and sediments in the Albemarle -Pamlico region.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh, N.C.
Cunningham, P.A., R.E. Williams, R.L. Chessin, J.M. McCarthy, R.J. Curry, K.W. Gold, R.W. Pratt and
S.J. Stichter. 1992. Watershed planning in the Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine System: toxics analysis.
Report No. 92-04. AlbemarlePamlico Estuary Study. Raleigh, N.C.
s - _ I- _ .. .l-'CirL.7 .lTitS7t . u - t[.fT.RSS'i[4R�SFJfR[:��TT7
crustaceans.
43:207-223.
DiTom, D.M. 1989. A review of the data s=ortine the equilibrium partitioning approach to establishing
sediment quality criteria. Report to the National Research Council.
Eisler, R. 1985. Cadmium hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synontic review. U.S. Fish Wildl.
Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(1.2).
Engel, D.W. 1987. Metal regulation and molting in the blue crab. Calinectessapidus: Copper. zinc, and
metallothionein. Biological Bulletin 172:69--82.
Engel, D.W. and M. Brouwer. 1984. Cadmium -binding -proteins in the blue crab. Callinectes sa tp dus:
Laboratory field comparison. Marine Environment Research 14:139-451.
Gemperline, P.J., K.H. Miller, T.L. West, J.E. Weinstein, J.C. Hamilton and J.T. Bray. 1992. Principle
component
analysis. trace elements. and blue crab shell disease. Analytical Chemistry 64(9): 523--531.
13 of 16 12/5/2001 10:23 AM

CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT OF FISH, RAN ... LOWER PAMLICO RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA hnp://nc-es.fws.goy/emwdmnm rjshclw.hfl
Hamilton, A.L. and O.A. Saether. 1971. The occurrence of characteristic deformities in the chironomid
larvae of several Canadian lakes. Canadian Entomologist 103: 363-368.
La Salle, M.W. and A.A. de Is Cruz. 1985. Common rangia species profile: Life histories and
environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates. USFWS Biological Report 82 (11.31).
Lee, G.F. and G.M. Mariam. 1977. Evaluation of the significance of waterway sediment --associated
contaminants on water quality at the dredged material disposal sites. University of Texas at Dallas,
Environmental Sciences Program, Richardson, Texas.
Least, D.R. 1993. Using mention deformities of Chironomus larvae to evaluate the effects of toxicity and
organic loading in streams. Journal of North American Benthological Society 12:265--269.
Noga, E.J., M.V. Dykstra and J.F. Levine. 1989. Fish diseases of the Albemarle --Pamlico estuary. Water
Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina. Report no. 238. Raleigh, 81pp.
Naga, E.J., D.W. Engel, and T.W. Arroll. 1990. Shell disease in blue crabs. m Callinectes sagidus.frothe
Albemarle --Pamlico estuary. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
Albemarle --Pamlico Estuarine Study. Project No. 90-22. Raleigh, 48pp.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. 1991. Albemarle -Pamlico Estuary Stu Fish
Tissue Baseline Study
1M. Report No. 91-05. Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine Study. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Riggs, S.R., E.R. Powers, J.T. Bray, P.M. Stout, C. Hamilton, D.
M. Williamson. 1989. Heavy metal pollutants in organic -rich mu
Warwick, W.F. 1985.
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:
Warwick, W.F. 1988. Morphological deformities in the Chironomidae (Dipter larvae as biological
indicators of toxic stress. Pages 281-320 in M.S. Evans (editor). Toxic contaminants and ecosystem health;
a Great Lakes focus. Wiley and Sons, New York.
14 of 16 12/5/2001 10:23 AM

CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT OF FISH, RAN ... LOWER PAMLICO RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA http://ne.a.rws.gov/ecomx/=tsmfiehelem.hlml
Warwick, W.F. 1990. Morphological deformities in Chimnomidae (Dipter larvae from Lac St. Louis and
Laprairie basins of St. Lawrence River. Journal of Great Lakes Research 16:185--208.
Warwick, W.F. and N.A. Tisdale. 1988. Morphological defomd6es in Chironomus.
and Procladina larvae (pytera: Chironomidae) from two differently stressed sites i
Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:1123--1144.
Weinstein, I.E. 1991. Wound =air and metal content of blue crabs. CaUinectes sapidus. from the
Albemarle --Pamlico estuarine system. MS Thesis. East Carolina Univ., Greenville, N.C.
Weinstein, J.E., T.L, West and John T. Bray. 1992.
15 of 16 I V512001 10:23 AM

CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT OF FISH, RAN ... LOWER PAMLICO RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA hfp://ne-m.fivs.gov/mommlc i fishclem.hnul
lf'
Questions related to the otiice's environmental contaminant activities can he addressed to Tom Auasoumer. in at
(9191856-4520 x. 21) or [e-mail]
Keywords —(same keywords listed above -used for search tools}
16 of 16 12/5/2001 10:23 AM

Re: !Fwd: PCs PhospbWdDwenbm Mating]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: PCS Phosphate/December Meeting]
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:20:08 -0500
From: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Floyd Williams [e-mail]>
Floyd,
I missed you at the Ft. Fisher meeting ... I hope you are doing well (and are taking some time to rest).
I will plan to attend this meeting with you on 12/17. When you get information that will be covered at the
meeting, can you send/fax me a copy beforehand so I can be prepared?
Thanks. Talk to you soon! TD
Floyd Williams wrote:
Tracy,
See if you can come to this meeting. It would help me if you
could.
Thanks,
Floyd R.
Subject: PCS Phosphate/December Meeting
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 08:44:14 -0600
From: "McLendon, Scott C SAW" <[e-mail]>
To: "Alsentzer Mary (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Biddlecome, William J SAW"
<[e-mail] .army.mil>,
"David Moye (E-mail)"
<[e-mail]>,
"Deborah Sawyer (E-mail)"
<[e-mail]>,
"Floyd Williams (E-mail)"
<[e-mail]>,
"Jeff Furness (E-mail)"
<[e-mail]>,
John Domey <john.domey@ncmailmct>,
"Karricker Kent (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Kathy Matthews (E-mail)"
<[e-mail]>,
"Lekson, David M SAW"
<[e-mail]>,
"McNaught Dave (E-mail)"
<dmcnaught@envim mentaldefense.org>,
"Mike Wicker (E-mail)"
<[e-mail]>,
"Ron Sechler (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Ross M. Smith (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
1 of 11/30/2001 11:21 AM

Re: [Fwd: PCs Phosphate/Decwber Meeting]
"Sean McKenna (E-mail)" <[e-mail],
Terry Moore
<1'[e-mail]>,
"William A. Schimming"
<waschim [e-mail]>,
"William Wescott (E-mail)"
<[e-mail]>
Crossings:
Based on your response to my previous message regarding availability in December, it appears that December 17
is the best day for everyone. Therefore, please plan on meeting in Washington at the DENR Office at 1000am on
that day. I plan on coming to closure on the Purpose and Need Statement and Project Area. I would also like to
discuss possible alternatives to be carved forward in the draft EIS.
have been provided with a map showing the current proposal by PCS Phosphate along with the (old) Alt. B and
the "mining exclusion line" proposed by J. Domey. As soon as I recieve the Impacts associated with each of these
lines I will forward them to you.
Thanks,
Scott McLendon
910-251-4725
Tracy E. Davis, P.E. <Cracy.Davis ncmail.net>
State Mining Specialist
Division ofland Resources
NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
2of2 undnaol 11:21 AM

[Fwd: PCs Phosph naltmember Meeting]
Subject: [Fwd: PCS Phosphate/December Meeting]
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:44:45 -0500
From: Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>
To: "Tracy E. Davis, P.E." <[e-mail]>
Tracy,
See if you can come to this meeting. It would help me if you
could.
Thanks,
Floyd R.
Subject: PCS Phosphate/December Meeting
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 08:44:14 -0600
From: "McLendon, Scott C SAW" <[e-mail]>
To: "Alsenizer Mary (E-mail)" <info@ptrf org>,
"Biddlecome, William J SAW" <[e-mail]>,
"David Moye (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Deborah Sawyer (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Floyd Williams (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Jeff Furness (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
John Domey <john.dortey@ncmaiLnet>, "Karricker Kent (E-mail)' <[e-mail]>,
"Kathy Matthews (E-mail)'<[e-mail]>,
"Lekson, David M SAW" <[e-mail]>,
"McNaught Dave (E-mail)'<[e-mail]>,
"Mike Wicker (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Ron Sechler (E-mail)" <Ron.Sechler@noaagov>,
'Ross M. Smith (E-mail)' <[e-mail]>,
"Sean McKenna (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
Terry Moore Q'[e-mail]>,
"William A. Schimming" <[e-mail]>,
"William Wescott (E-mail)"<[e-mail]>
Greetings
Based on your response to my previous message regarding availability in December, it appears that December 17 Is
the best day for everyone. Therefore, please plan on meeting in Washington at the DENR Office at 1000am on that
day. I plan on coming to closure on the Purpose and Need Statement and Project Area. I would also like to discuss
possible alternatives to be carried forward in the draft EIS.
I have been provided with a map showing the current proposal by PCS Phosphate along with the (old) Alt. B and the
"mining exclusion line" proposed by J. Dorney. As soon as I recleve the Impacts associated with each of these lines I
will forward them to you.
Thanks,
Scott McLendon
910-251-4725
1 of I 1113a1001 10:12 AM

[Fwd: ]
Subject: [Fwd: ]
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:51:40 -0500
From: Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>
To: "Tracy E. Davis, P.E." [e-mail]
CC: "Charles Gardner, P.G. P.E." <[e-mail]>,
Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>, Jim Simons [e-mail]>
Thought you would be interested in thief
Thanks,
Floyd
Subject:
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:59:33 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Scott:
I am disappointed that the COE is about to define the project area to
include the Pamlico River and other navigable waters despite nSFWS and
other agency objections voiced at meetings, by letter and e-mail. I am
convinced that a project area that includes fragile estuarine areas but
excludes upland areas outside of the 30 foot contour seta a stage devoid of
equity whereby the alternatives that will be developed are all extremely
environmentally damaging and to a large degree unmitigatable.
If important actions can be taken by the COE between meetings that are at
odds with team member input what meaningful role does the permit team
serve? Please provide myself and the other team members the correspondence
the COE received in regards to project area and purpose and need and any
appeal options that may be available to contesting agencies prior to our
next meeting.
Please send me an agenda of the next meeting.
Thanks,
Mike Wicker
ION I 11/30Y/001 1023 AM

[Fwd r Fwd: Stan evalumon of depth end none of cover material]]
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: draft evaluation of depth and nature of cover material]l
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:48:42 -0400
From: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Tom Augspurger <[e-mail]> _Augspurge
CC: Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>, Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>
Tom,
I have received and reviewed the contents of your email regarding the
draft evaluation of depth and nature of cover material for the PCs
mine. I thought you did an excellent job laying out the main questions
and then providing useful, practical information for all parties to
consider in reaching consensus on how to address this issue. I have not
received any response from our folks in DLR that I forwarded it to for
comment on 10/5. Thus, I will give you my preliminary thoughts on what
you put together.
It appears the nature of the cover material can be negotiated (a
compromise reached) - such as the bucket wheel spoil with a topsoil
"cruet" - if it is feasible and economical for PCs. It also appears
that the depth of the cover depends on the types of trees that are
required by the agencies for final reclamation. At the present time,
the Mining Permit requires a diversity of hardwoods be planted. As PCs
has had great success on the Charles Tract and initial R areas with
these hardwood species, I would assume they would want to continue using
them in the future. Perhaps Jeff Furness or Don Millman of PCS could
prepare a list of the tree species they have and would prefer to use and
provide the list to the review group. The group could evaluate the
benefits of these trees and, hopefully, reach consensus that they will
continue to meet each of our objectives for reclamation/revegetation of
mined areas. once this step is completed, it should be fairly easy to
establish a safe minimum depth for cover to address the Cd issue
(through onsite research by Broome and through the literature you have
researched for various tree species).
Again, I appreciate your time and work in putting together this
discussion paper to keep everyone focused on the issues at hand and
practical ideas on how we can work together to address them. If you
need any further information from me, please let me know. If I receive
comments from others in DLR, I will promptly forward them to you for
your consideration.
Thanks. Tracy
Subject: [Fwd; draft evaluation of depth and nature of cover material]
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 15:27:01-0400
From: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]
Organization: NC DENR
To: Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>, Mail Nevils <[e-mail]>,
Jim Simons <[e-mail]>, Charles Gardner <[e-mail]
FYI... regarding PCs Phosphate's proposal to cap reclamation areas with
bucket wheel spoil instead of milled clays. This is a draft document
prepared by USFMS and pulls literature from various sources to propose a
minimum depth and type of material to be used for the capping. TD
1 of3 10/12/2001 5:50 PM

[Fwd: [Fwd: yiafl evaluation of depth and aware of cover mateddll
Subject: draft evaluation of depth and nature of cover material
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:38:54 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], wilfi [e-mail], [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]
Hello -
Attached is a draft review of cover depth / cover material issues as
requested of the Service at the last interagency permit team meeting. This
first draft is intended to let you all see who was contacted and what
literature has been reviewed along with our suggestions based on that
input. As the subset of folks most familiar with the capping issue, Mike
and I welcome your input; we will certainly be glad to produce a revised
draft for the whole permit evaluation team after hearing from you.
More work could be done (additional contacts, look into the references
cited in the primary literature, look at data available for other metals
like lead, etc.), but those actions will not likely add significantly to
current understanding. Some site -specific information that the mine staff
may have and a dialog on what has been learned so far probably will help
our shared understanding, so that's why you're getting this draft. Feel
free to comment on content and format with a view toward a document that
will facilitate resolving this issue for the entire team.
You can write, call, fax, or e-mail Mike or me on this issue; our contact
information is included below.
Have a good weekend,
Tom Augspurger
919/856-4520 x.21
tom_augspurger®fwa.gov
Mike Wicker
919/856-4520 x.22
Mike_wickerafws.gov
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
PO Box 33726
Raleigh NC 27636-3726
Fax: 919/B56-4556
(See attached file: cover3.wpd)-
Name: cover3.wpd
�cover3.wod Type: WordPerfect Document(application/wordperfect5. 1).
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
2 of3 10/1=0015:30 PId

DRAFT cover3.wpd October 3, 2001
Nature and depth of material for covering cadmium -rich mine reclamation blends
Introduction
The Service was asked to review the literature and expert opinion available on the issue of
covering cadmium contaminated soils. Initial discussions in May, following the cadmium risk
evaluation, focused on the depth of cover necessary to isolate contaminated soils from soil
invertebrates (to stop food chain transfer) and the nature of the cover material. At the last PCS
interagency permit evaluation team meeting in late August, the Service was asked to provide
information as to depth of cover required to keep plants from tanslocating cadmium back to the
surface. We framed questions about capping in the following manner prior to literature reviews
and contacts:
1) Is a one -foot depth of cover adequate to keep plants (grasses, shrubs and trees) from
tanslocating cadmium back to the surface and if not what depth should be considered?
a) What are typical root distributions / depths, and from what depth is nutrient uptake
important?
b) What depths of cover have been used at other contaminated sites (e.g., hard rock
mining spoils, dredge disposal areas, etc) to address this issue?
2) For ecological restoration benefits, what material should comprise the cover (topsoil or A
horizon, solum or A and B horizons, source material more extensive than A and B horizons,
including subsoil)?
a) What are type of borrow material would be the most beneficial for plant growth and
diversity at a reclamation site?
b) What practices are employed at other sites for reclamation of disturbed (not necessarily
cadmium -contaminated) sites, such as other phosphate strip mines, coal and hard rock
mine reclamation sites, etc?
It is hoped that answers to these questions would help the interagency team evaluate the current
proposals related to depth of cover (Service recommendation of 1 to 3-feet, NCWRC
recommendation of 3 to 4-feet, and PCS's initial evaluation of 2 to 3-feet) and the nature of the
cover (Service initial recommendation of topsoil, NCWRC recommendation of"uncontaminated
soil % and PCS's initial evaluations of taking the top 30-feet from the advancing mine). This
initial draft of our findings is meant to identify the contacts, relay what was learned, and provide
a foundation for discussing the cover depth and material issues. It is not intended to be a
decision document; that will require the input of PCS, appropriate regulatory agencies, and other
affected parties.
Methods

DRAFT cover3.wpd October 3, 2001
We reviewed literature identified with key word searches (cadmium, metals, contamination,
cover, cap, or reclamation along with either depth, root, or hanslocation) via Cambridge
Scientific Abstracts' Environmental Pollution and Management, Toxtine, Plant Science, and
Biological Sciences databases. We also contacted the individuals listed in Appendix A (and
spoke directly with each of them, except for Dr. Dick Lee with whom we have left a couple
messages). From this information, the range of responses to the questions delineated above was
captured along with our best professional judgement to develop a recommendation for the
eastern North Carolina application of that information.
Results and Discussion
1) Is a 1-foot depth of cover adequate to keep plants (grasses, shrubs and trees) from tanslocating
cadmium back to the surface?
The depth of soil required to prevent roots from translocating cadmium back to the soil
surface (where it would again be available to biota as forage or detritus) depends to a great
extent on factors such as the type of plant considered (Grant et al. 1998; McLaughlin et al.
2000), the depth of the water table (Van Noordwijk et aL 1995), soil type (Cleslinski et al.
1996), nutrient availability at depth, and soil chemistry (Cheng and Mulla 1999). Most
plants, both annuals and perennials, have the bulk of their roots in the top 25 to 30 cm (10 to 12
inches) (Brady and Weil 1996). Trees, because of their perennial growth and deep root systems,
are well adapted to gathering moisture and nutrients from deep in the soil (Brady and Weil
1996). Perennial plants and trees have some roots that go > 3 m (-10-feet) and can absorb a
considerable portion of their moisture from there, but it is likely that the majority of absorption is
from the upper soil layers (Brady and Weil 1996), provided these layers are well supplied with
water. A lower water table will have the roots both growing deeper and translocating more water
and nutrients from deeper soil layers.
While the topsoil (or A horizon) will generally have 80% of the roots, this does not
necessarily correlate with nutrient uptake do to the other factors involved at individual
sites (i.e., root function does not necessarily correlate with root biomass distribution at
depth). This is particularly the case in areas with low water tables and all areas in times of
drought. Aspects of soil chemistry, such as the pH (with alkaline soils generally limiting
cadmium availability and accumulation) and the zinc to cadmium ratio (a ratio of about 100 or
greater tends to protect against cadmium accumulation) also influence availability. Plant
experiments performed to determine the thickness of a cap over metal contaminated sediment
required to avoid hazardous levels of cadmium in crops indicated that over 1.6 m (-5-feet, or 60
inches) of soils was required (Van Driel et al. 1995). Crops grown included cereals, potatoes,
sugar beet, maize and various vegetables. Protective layers for individual crops ranged from zero
(no cover layer required) for red cabbage, leek, onion, potato) to 1.2 m-1.6 m for celery tuber
and leaf (Van Thiel at al. 1995). The concentrations of several potentially toxic elements were
determined in early successional grasses and shrubs growing on various depths of soil covering
retorted shale (Schwab at al. 1983). Plant levels of cadmium were low in plants growing on 30
cm of soil over shale, but shale available cadmium concentrations were not that significant.

DRAFT cover3.wpd October 3, 2001
Levels of two other elements (fluoride and molybdenum) were elevated in some of the plants
growing on 30 cm of soil cover, and increasing the depth of soil cover only temporarily reduced
molybdenum levels (Schwab et al. 1983).
Because of the diversity of plants considered in a large reclamation site, the circumneutral pH at
the site (6.0 to 7.3 at the clay ponds, Rl and R2), and the low zinc to cadmium ratio in
reclamation lands at the site (between 5 and 8 at the clay ponds, RI and R2 as compared to 120
for undisturbed soils in the vicinity), it is difficult to support a 1-foot depth as completely
protective of keeping cadmium isolated below a cover. While 1-foot may isolate terrestrial
animals from direct exposure, it is likely not sufficient to remove cadmium from the
biological system without some manipulation of either the soil environment (Le., alter pM or
the Zn:Cd ratio), the vegetative community (to include plant types with a law amity for
cadmium accumulation and exclude those known to be significant accumulators), or the water
table.
Other laws help establish some framework for considering this issue, although no State or
Federal laws address it directly. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (P.L. 95-87)
generally requires removing, segregating, and (if necessary) storing topsoil in mine advances and
redistributing topsoil in mined land reclamation. Federal rules implementing SMCCA require a
4-feet cover of coal mining wastes unless site specific chemical and physical analyses determine
a thinner layer is adequate. It is important to acknowledge that SMRCA addresses coal mining
only, and that concerns of acid mine drainage and ignitability (in addition to toxicity) help drive
the cover depth for that material. In the closure of solid waste landfills, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (40 CFR parts 258 and 261-264) indicates that a minimum 18
inches of clean fill be placed above the waste material. However, this rule addresses municipal
solid waste (which will generally not have the toxicity of concentrated mining wastes) and does
not include provisions for any ecological restoration (rules indicate that the landfill cover has to
be routinely mowed to discourage growth of trees so that the integrity of the cap can be
maintained).
2) For ecological restoration benefits, what material should comprise the cover?
The choice of cover material to isolate cadmium contaminated soils from wildlife and plants is
not important unless the desired post -reclamation land use and vegetative cover are considered
(i.e., any material, at the proper depth for that particular material, will serve as a barrier to plant
and wildlife exposure to contaminated soils). The Service has encouraged a topsoil cover, to
take advantage of the soil structure, organic matter, nutrients, and seed sources available in that
material which is available as mining operations advance. From an ecological perspective, there
is certainly support for this approach in the literature (Farmer and Blue 1978; Schuman and
Power 1981) and in the reclamation of phosphate mined lands elsewhere (Ron Concabee, WC-
Agrico Company, pers. comm.; Christine Keenan, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Mine Reclamation Section, pers. comm.; John Kiefer, CF Industries, pers. comm.).
For example both IMC-Agrico and CF Industries in central Florida reclaim phosphate mined
lands with the use of native topsoil (top approximately 10 inches) as a cover for mined land

DRAFT cover3.wpd October 3, 2001
reclamation in 10 to 25% of their overall reclamation programs. This is done to get the benefits
of native vegetation seed banks for xeric/oak upland communities, a key habitat type for
restoration in the perspective of the local regulatory authorities and the environmental groups.
The percentage of wetland reclamation which employs topsoil is far higher. While not the norm
for upland restoration (because 75-90% of upland restoration uses no topsoil), top soil addition is
the desired method when restoration of the native plant community is the target post -reclamation
land use. The size of individual upland restoration parcels employing top soil in Florida ranges
from 50 to 100 acres and cumulatively exceeds 1,000 acres with more planned.
While topsoil has known ecological restoration benefits, those benefits primarily relate to
supporting a defined goal of restoring a productive and diverse community that would contribute
in a meaningful way to area ecology. in Beaufort County, North Carolina, topsoil depths am-3
to 18 inches (Kirby 1995) in the dominant soil series (Portsmouth, Cape I =, Roanoke, and
Wahee). Consequently, use of only topsoil material to provide a cover for cadmium
contaminated lands may not be practical because it would require more acres for gathering
topsoil than could be reclaimed. If that approach was used alone, reclamation could not
keep pace with mining or redress previously mined areas in the long term. Without the
cadmium concern, a soil covering of 6 to 12 inches of topsoil would enhance restoration of
native plants; with the cadmium concern, a thicker cap is desirable and there is likely not
sufficient topsoil to advocate a use of topsoil alone for all reclamation needs.
Clearly then, what is needed is a balance between the concerns of cadmium attenuation (a
toxicological and engineering issue) with landscape level restoration (an ecological issue). Both
concerns can be made considerably more manageable with more definition of the desired post -
reclamation vegetative community and a reclamation land use plan. Defining the vegetation type
narrows the cover depth question to only those species being considered for reclamation (versus
all grasses, shrubs and trees that could potentially be planted or that could colonize a site) and
focuses the cover material issue to the soil conditions necessary to support the desired species.
We chose the longleaf pine (Pines palusrris) and its associates such as turkey oak (Quercus
laevis) for areas to be capped without topsoil (and therefore with lower fertility) and bald cypress
(Taxodiwn danchum) in wetter areas and with a topsoil cap. These species are impoverished in
North Carolina compared to historic records, provide significant wildlife habitat benefits, and
cover a wide range of preferences with regard to site fertility and moisture. Longleaf pine
occupied extensive areas of the Coastal Plain when European settlers arrived (Wablenberg 1946).
It was a very important tree for production of lumber and naval stores. Today, longleaf pine
occupies only 1%of its original range in the Southeast (Ware et al. 1993). Longleaf pine
normally occurs on dry, sandy soils, and does not thrive where there is excessive moisture, as in
swamps or pocosins (Wahlenberg 1946). While tap roots can extend deep for plant stability,
longleaf pines develop extensive lateral root systems; most roots are within 0.3 in (1-foot) and
nearly all are within 0.6 in (2-feet) (Boyer 1990). Like longleaf pine, the bald cypress resource is
only a fraction of that in earlier years even though demand is still strong. Cypress occurs on soils
ranging widely in texture, reaction, base saturation and fertility (Coultas and Duever 1984). It is
not demanding nutritionally. It is a shallow rooted species with a tap root. While it may not
seem suited to reclamation on phosphate mined lands in eastern north Carolina, it was one of two

DRAFT cover3.wpd October 3, 2001
species that appeared to do well on reclamation soils in experimental work performed in this area
(Steve Broome, North Carolina State university, pers. comm.).
Longleaf pine could very likely be grown on areas where PCS's initially conceived
approach of using overburden from the advancing mine as the cover material is employed.
Longleaf pine occurs naturally on low fertility sites such as the Carolina sandhills, and the
species' historic range includes Beaufort County. In this case, the depth of uncontaminated
cover material should be at least 3-feet to ensure cadmium is not translocated back to the
soil surface with time. This approach represents a compromise... it requires more cover depth
but allows use of material other than topsoil. While PCS was evaluating mixing the top 30-feet
of overburden, it would be more desirable, from a restoration perspective, to use only the top 10-
feet; this is the minimum depth that can be removed with the existing bucket wheel excavator
protocol; a 70-feet lens as source material is a compromise to allow use of existing equipment
but to focus attention on the solum (the upper part of the soil profile, above the C horizon, in
which the processes of soil formation are active; contains the living roots). In a subset of areas
where the diversity of native vegetation is desired (e.g., the wetland community types such
as bottom land hardwood and scrub pocosins), use of 6 to 12 inches of topsoil on top of a 2
to 2.5-feet cover with uncontaminated overburden (to achieve the desired 3-feet cover) is
suggested. The benefits of a seed stock for native plant diversity would be significant.
Cypress could also be planted in these areas; their need for more organic material than
would be in the overburden mix would be addressed by the topsoil addition. This also
represents a compromise... it is a recognition that topsoil resources in the vicinity of the
advancing mine are limited and that they probably cannot serve as the basis for an reclamation
but should be used selectively as seed banks and in establishment of a better substrate for cypress
(or other wetland species) restoration so that native vegetation other than the plantings can
colonize the area.
Summary
Most of the scientists we contacted cautioned that the number of variables involved (species of
vegetation, the depth of the water table, soil type, nutrient availability at depth, and soil
chemistry) precluded the ability to formulate precise cover depth recommendations without
defining desired post -reclamation landuse and without site -specific research. If an answer was
being crafted merely for cover depth (the toxicological question) for all potential plant types, a
cover of 5-feet or greater could be justified based on the known rooting depth of certain plants
and results of cadmium accumulation by herbaceous vegetation grown over capped contaminated
sediments. If the answer was also crafted to address cover material type for restoration of native
communities, use of another 6 to 12 inches of topsoil is well justified.
The literature and expert opinion help define variables to be considered and a range of
possible cover depths, but they do not lead to an absolute answer. We started with several
depth of cover recommendations (Service recommendation of 1 to 3-feet, NCWRC
recommendation of 3 to 4-feet, and PCS's initial evaluation of 2 t03-feet). After the review we
conducted, we crafted the following suggested approach. The approach is intended to help focus
the discussion of cover depth and content. The ultimate decision will require the input of PCS,

DRAFT cover3.wpd October 3, 2001
appropriate regulatory agencies, and other affected parties:
1) Define the desired post reclamation vegetative community to help focus the cover depth
and cover material issue. A post -reclamation land use plan could be developed as a guide.
2) We selected two example post -reclamation vegetative communities which could be used
in combination:
a) Use an upland cover of longleaf pine and 3-feet of clean cover material (such as the
overburden from the advancing mine). While PCS was evaluating mixing the top 30-feet of
overburden, it would be more desirable, from a restoration perspective, to use only the top
10-feet this is the minimum depth that can be removed with the existing bucket wheel
excavator protocol; a 10-feet lens as source material is a compromise to allow use of
existing equipment but to avoid unnecessary dilution of topsoil.
b) In areas where re-establishment of wetland or important native vegetation types is
desired, small scale use of 6 to 12 inches of topsoil overlying 2 to 2.5-feet (to get to a total
depth of 3-feet of clean cover) would be desirable. Because the wetland and rare
community restoration will only be a small component of overall restoration needs, use of
good quality topsoil is encouraged, especially in areas of reclamation by natural succession
or when the diversity of the natural plant community is desirable. In Florida, 10 to 25
percent of reclaimed uplands use a topsoil cap (and almost all reclaimed wetlands use this
process). Although the percentage of upland reclamation using topsoil is arbitrary, we
think —20% is reasonable and suggest it for consideration. The remainder of the land
could be covered with the top 10-feet of uncontaminated overburden from mine advances
(without any segregation of topsoil) and planted in longleaf pine and its associates such as
turkey and blackjack oak. While use of topsoil is not directly related to the attenuation of
cadmium mobility in the environment or a requirement of land reclamation, is has been used
elsewhere to have reclamation more closely resemble restoration of native communities.
3) The 3-feet of clean cover suggestion is based on best professional judgement following
input from the scientists we contacted and the cited literature.
a) A 3-feet cover represents a deeper cover than a landfill requires (1.5-feet) and less cover
than required for coal mine wastes (which require 4-feet). It is deeper than the layer of
most root biomass (which is 1 to 2-feet) but shallower than known rooting depths of some
plants, including their effective rooting depths (>10-feet for certain trees and grasses);
targeting shallow -rooted vegetation for the reclaimed lands may ameliorate this concern.
b) Realizing the myriad variable involved, a site -specific research component should be
implemented to assess the adequacy of the cover protocol ultimately employed, ideally
though one of the state's universities. Upon implementation, this would allow all involved
parties to assess the efficacy of cover practices and determine if there are efficiencies to be
gained in future reclamation at the site. A land management plan defining desired vegetative

100z I 0 93A
d —L 1IWNGd ONINA
coot
laOd3a N011b V703a wnNNd
b'31 VM
7,001, NI 031O3a-JV 30 01 ONV7
O37713NOV8 ION ONV 100Z NI O310333V ONV7
SS380O8d NI 80 03137dWOO SI N011VWV7O3'J
7VN13 ONV 3137dW0O S1 ONI7713NOV8 H0114M ONV7
710dS 3M8 HIM 03771-MOV8 ONV7
3NV7 370,1O3b
031713NOV8 ION ONV 0310333V ONV7
SV3&V 3OV801S ON378
SV321V 30VNOIS W(1Sd.10
S3X1O/7713 S0NI71Vl ONVS
NO '7713 3003b'O 'SO(17d NIO&A
' QN30-3
U
z
i
O�
T'.'.'.
1
9 311d Wnsd,lo -'\ ll! T
/ v3av rv1v��3a
T T
j T T T T
T T T T \ T T T
T T T T T
T T T T T T T
/F 3lld WnShc.: S 311d WnShc.O T T T T T
T T T T T T
T T T T T T\
T T T T T
- ` T T T T T T T T T T T T T
T T T T T T T T T T T T
M
8961
�]:]A�l 03�ffvd

DRAFT cover3.wpd October 3, 2001
cover types and post -reclamation landuse will be an important component of focusing research
questions to those of management applicability and enhancing communication between all
parties involved.
References:
Boyer, W.D. Pinus palustris Mill. longleaf pine. Pages 405-412 In: R.M. Bums and B.H.
Honkala (Tech. Coords.). Silvics of North America. Volume 1, Conifers. Agriculture handbook
654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC.
Brady, N.C. and R.R. Weil. 1996. The Nature and Properties of Soils, Eleventh Edition. Prentice -
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Chang, H.H. and D.J. Mulls. 1999. The soil environment. Pages 1-14In: D.C. Adriano, J.-M.
Bollag, W.T. Frankenberger, Jr. and R.C. Sims (ads.). Bioremediation of Contaminated Soils.
Number 37 in the series Agronomy. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Crop Science Society
of America, Inc., Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Madison, WI.
Cieslinski, G., KC.J. Van Rees, P.M Huang, L.M. Kozak, H.P.W. Rostad and D.R. Knott. 1996.
Cadmium uptake and bioaccumulation in selected cultivars of durum wheat and flax as affected
by soil type. Plant and Soil 182: 115-124.
Coultas, C. F. and M. J. Duever. 1984. Soils of cypress swamps. Pages 51-59. In: K.C. Ewel
and H.T. Odum (eds.). Cypress Swamps. University Presses of Florida, Gainsville, FL.
Farmer, E.E. and W.G. Blue. 1978. Reclamation of lands rained for phosphate. Pages 585-608
In: F.W. Schaller and P. Sutton (eds.). Reclamation of Drastically Disturbed Lands. American
Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America,
Madison, WI.
Grant, C.A., W.T. Buckley, L.D. Bailey and F. Selles. 1998. Cadmium accumulation in crops
Canadian Journal of Plant Science 78: 1-17.
Kirby, R.M. 1995. Soil survey of Beaufort County, North Carolina U.S. Department fin
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Raleigh, NC.
McLaughlin, M.J., M.J. Bell, G.C. Wright and G.D. Cozens. 2000. Uptake and partitioning of
cadmium by cultivars of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Plant and Soil 222: 51-58.
Schuman, G.E. and J.F. Power. 1981. Topsoil management of mined soils. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation 36: 77-78.
Schwab, A.P., W.L. Lindsay and P.J. Smith. 1983. Elemental contents of plants growing on
soil -covered retorted shale. Journal of Environmental Quality 12: 301-304.

DRAFT cover3.wpd October 3, 2001
Van Driel, W. B. Van Luit, KW. Smilde and W. Schummans. 1995. Heavy-metal uptake by
crops from polluted river sediments covered by non -polluted topsoil. 1. Effects of topsoil depth
on metal contents. Plant and Soil 175: 93-104.
Van Noordwijk, M. W. Van Driel, G. Brouwer and W. Schuumtans. 1995. Heavy-metal uptake
by crops from polluted river sediments covered by non -polluted topsoil. II. Cd-uptake by maize
in relation to root development. Plant and Soil 175: 105-113.
Wahlenberg, W. G. 1946. Longleaf pine: its use, ecology, regeneration, protection, growth, and
management. Charles Lathrop Pack Forestry Foundation. Washington, DC.
Wenzel, W.W., D.C. Adriano, D. Salt and R. Smith. 1999. Phytoremediation: A plant -microbe -
based remediation system. Pages 457-508 In: D.C. Adriano, J.-M. Bollag, W.T. Frankenberger,
Jr. and R.C. Sims (eds.). Bioremediation of Contaminated Soils. Number 37 in the series
Agronomy, American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Crop Science Society of America, Inc., Soil
Science Society of America, Inc. Madison, WI.

1 Wwra
Appendix A.
wver3.wpd October 3, 2001
Dr. Nelson Beyer, Research Biologist, U.S. Department of the Interior, Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center, 301/497-5703
Dr. Steve Broome - Professor, Department of Soil Science, North Carolina State University,
919/513-2555
Dr. Rufus Chaney, Research Chemist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research
Service, 301/504-8324
Mr. Ron Concabee, IMC-Agriw Company, 813/634-3922 x.3627
Ms. Christine Keenan, Environmental Specialist III, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Mine Reclamation Section 850/487-3894
Mr. John Kiefer, Chief Engineer - Environmental, CF Industries, 863/375-4321
Dr. Richard Lee, Soil Scientist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,
601/634-3585
Dr. Dan Richter - Professor of Soils and Forest Ecology, Duke University, Nicholas School of
the Environment, 919/613-8031

Comments on Overburden Capping of R4 at PCS
Subject: Comments on Overburden Capping of R4 at PCS
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:20:43 -0400
From: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Tom_ [e-mail]
CC: Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>
Tom,
Several weeks ago, we discussed the referenced pending mining permit
modification. You indicated that you had written an internal email
outlining your comments/recommendations and that you would forward it to
me for our consideration. To date, 2 have not received it. Can you
send it to me?
Thanks again for your assistance with this project.
Tracy
Tracy E. Davis, P.E. <TrM Dayis(f0.ncmttil.net>
State Mining Specialist
Division of Land Resources
NC Dept. of Envimmnent and Natural Reaomoes
1 'f 1 9/21120011018 AM

[Fwd: ]Mother email Prime Mike Wicker Regarding PCs
Subject: [Fwd: [Another e-mail From Mike Wicker Regarding PCS
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:22:18 -0400
From: Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>
To: "Charles Gardner, P.G. P.E." <[e-mail]>,
Moll Nevils <[e-mail]>, Jim Simons <[e-mail]>,
"Tracy E. Davis, P.E." < [e-mail]>
Thought you would be interested in this second e-mail from Mike Wicker
Thanks,
Floyd
Subject:
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 06:32:32 -0400
From: Mike [e-mail]
To: [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], floyd.willi [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], info@ptrforg
CC: [e-mail]
PCS Permit Evaluation Team:
I had the opportunity to talk to Sill (the PCs corporate office
representative) after breaking for lunch at the Aug 28th meeting. I am
concerned that the relationship between plant representatives and the
corporate headquaters office is unclear. There appeared to be a large
disconnect between the corporate headquarters office and the Aurora Plant.
My impression was that although the local plant had become sympathetic to
environmental issues that had been raised in previous meetings this
sympathy was not shared nor even understood in the corporate headquarters
office. This is a real problem because we have been dealing with plant
representatives but apparently decisions relating to the new mining
operation will be made at the corporate headquarters office. I was also
concerned that Bill had very little retention of information that Tom
Augspurger had presented earlier or seemed at all aware of minutes from
previous permit team meetings. It was very unclear to we whether Bill
sufferred from a poor memory, that he thought environmental concerns
relating to mining were trivial by definition or that he was exercising
selective memory. In any event I told him that I was very uncomfortable
with PCS seemingly going backwards on progress made in previous meetings.
I believe that we should meet with representatives from PCS that are
empowered within the company's decision making process. The role between
plant representatives and corporate headquaters office needs to be defined
so that we can understand it. I can only think such unclarity is
uncomfortable to plant environmental staff as well as to me. It is
insulting and I think a big source of past poor relations that
environmental discussions may not engage decision makers in PCs. I suggest
we suspend further discusion on any permit applications until it is clear
that we are meeting with empowered representatives of PCS and that decision
makers at PCS have at least been made aware of environmental concerns
raised by the agencies.
Mike Wicker
I of 2 9//12001 9:50 AM

( [Fwd: ]E-Mail fmm Mike Wicker with USMS Regrading PCS Phosphate
Subject: [Fwd: ]E-Mail from Mike Wicker with USFWS Regarding PCS Phosphate
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:34:05 -0400
From: Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>
To: "Charles Gardner, P.G. P.E." <[e-mail]>,
Mell Nevis <[e-mail]>, Ton Simons <Tun.Simons r�i ncmail.nev,
"Tracy E. Davis, P.E." <[e-mail]>
Thought you would be interested in reading this e-mail .
Thanks,
Floyd
Subject:
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:23:05 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], floyd.wi][e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]
PCS Permit Evaluation Team:
I think we should exploit information readily available on the Internet and
in annual reports to get an accurate picture of the interest in phosphate
production that PCs has. Potash Corporation of Sakatchewan (PCS) is a
publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange and as such has
significant disclosure responsibilities that make accurate reporting of
financial information necessary to protect shareholders in the US or
elsewhere using an US exchange. After reading a minimum of this
information a much greater clarity of the economics involving the Aurora
operation can be acquired. I am afraid that since PCS has options to mine
oversees with low labor costs and little environmental oversight that the
company feels that in order to be competitive the NC operations should be
accomplished without undue regard (expense) for environmental issues, I
hope that PCS can continue to operate its plant in NC profitably but
unfotunately since the meeting on Aug 28 in my opinion the level of trust
that had been established between the environmental review agencies and PCS
was significantly eroded. In particular the desire by PCs to focus legal
avenues to mine public trust waters of NC despite agency interpretations
that this would be environmentally irresponsible and the apparent reversal
on their corporate headquarters opinion of the environmental risk posed by
cadmium are disturbing. I am now inclined to approach the new mining
requests with extreme caution until we can reach a comfort level on legal
and technical matters that have now been raised by PCs. In my opinion we
should seek legal and policy council before proceeding further least we
fall unwittingly victim to an applicant that is using a full array of legal
and political assets to reach an endpoint that leaves the long term
interests of the environment and the people of NC and the US with large
environmental liabilities and where punitive action will be difficult if
not impossible to extract from a Canadian Conglomerate. I hope that PCS
will continue its operations in NC but I think it would be preferable that
they abandon their operations in NC as they have in Florida than to mine
1 of4 9/292 1 3:25 PM

i� (F\W: jEAtil Som Mika wckar wiW USFWS Rcgardutg PCS Phoaphsw
within the boundaries of NC and the US without adequate environmental
ethic. If PCs prefers to do that type of business they already know and
are pursuing oppportunities outside of this country.
Mike Wicker
A sampling of readily available information on PCS below:
Business Summary
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.
(PCS), along with its direct
and indirect subsidiaries, is an integrated
fertilizer and related industrial
and feed products companies. The Company's
primary customers for
fertilizer products are retailers, dealers,
cooperatives, distributors and
other fertilizer producers. PCS'a primary
customers for industrial
products are chemical product manufacturers.
The majority of the
Company's purified phosphoric acid is sold
directly to consumers of the
product, with the balance sold through an
authorized non-exclusive
distribution network.
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. Ceases All
DAP Production in Florida;
Permanently Closes Iowa Feed Plant
January 19, 2001
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. announced that
it is suspending all DAP production at its White
Springs, FL operations effective immediately. The
shutdown, which is expected to be for an extended period, is
in response to continued weakness in the DAP market.
The Company also reported that it had permanently
closed its Davenport, Iowa phosphate feed plant on
January 15. The shutdown at White Springs brings the
site'a idled capacity of P(2)O(5) to nearly 50%. When
combined with continuing DAP cutbacks in Aurora, NC, the
Company's total DAP curtailment represents 40% of
capacity. The suspension at White Springs affects 387
employees. Davenport's closure affects 27 employees.
Production from Davenport will be transferred to plants
in Marseilles, Illinois, and Weeping Water, Nebraska.
These will result in a fourth-quarter 2000 charge of $24.3
million, which includes a one-time asset write -down of
$10.7 million.
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. Ceases All
DAP Production in Florida;
Permanently Closes Iowa Feed Plant
2 ef/ 8/29/2001 3:25 PM

I Fd: ]E­MsH Am Mike Wwka with USFWS ReSuding PCS Phosphate
January 19, 2001
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. announced that
it is suspending all DAP production at its white
Springs, FL operations effective immediately. The
shutdown, which is expected to be for an extended period, is
in response to continued weakness in the DAP market.
The Company also reported that it had permanently
closed its Davenport, Iowa phosphate feed plant on
January 15. The shutdown at white Springs brings the
site's idled capacity of P(2)0(5) to nearly 50%. when
combined with continuing DAP cutbacks in Aurora, NC, the
Company's total DAP curtailment represents 40% of
capacity. The suspension at White Springs affects 387
employees. Davenport's closure affects 27 employees.
Production from Davenport will be transferred to plants
in Marseilles, Illinois, and Weeping Water, Nebraska.
These will result in a fourth-quarter 2000 charge of $24.3
million, which includes a one-time asset write -down of
$10.7 million.
April 20, 2000
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. announced that
Canpotex Limited confirmed that it has reached
agreement with JSC Uralkali, a Russian potash producer,
to form a joint marketing arrangement in certain
offshore markets. The agreement is subject to approval
of the respective Hoards of Directors of Canpotex and
Uralkali.
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. to Acquire
Remaining 50% of Albright & Wilson
Company
March 14, 2000
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. announced that
it has reached an agreement (subject to the
completion of certain additional documentation) with
Rhotlia Inc. to acquire the remaining 50% ownership
interest in the merchant grade phosphoric acid joint
venture company called Albright 6 Wilson Company. PCS
and Albright E Wilson have been operating the business
as a 50/50 partnership. With the completion of the
transaction, PCS will own 100% of the purified acid
plant and blending plant in Aurora, North Carolina and
100% of the blending plant in Cincinnati, Ohio. Rhotlia
will retain a polyphosphoric acid production unit in
Charleston, South Carolina. Terms were not disclosed.
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. announced
that its subsidiary, PCs Nitrogen
Trinidad Limited, indefinitely shut down its 01 and
02 ammonia plants in Trinidad at 7:00
a.m., following...
December 31, 1999
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. announced that
3 of4 8/29/2001 3:25 PM

[Fwd: (&Mai) from Mike Wicker with USFWS Regarding PCS Phospham
its subsidiary, PCS Nitrogen Trinidad Limited,
indefinitely shut down its 01 and 02 ammonia plants in
Trinidad at 7:00 a.m., following expiration of the natural
gas supply contract between the National Gas Company
(NGC) of Trinidad and Tobago Limited and PCS
Nitrogen Trinidad Limited. PCS Nitrogen Trinidad has
been in negotiations with NGC for two years in an attempt
to secure a new agreement, but the parties have been
unable to bring the negotiation to an acceptable
conclusion. No decisions have been made at this time
about the status of the approximately 100 employees
affected. In the short term, employees will be actively
involved in completing shutdown and mothballing of the
facilities.
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. announced
additional reduction in both P205
and DAP production at its facility in white Springs,
Florida, as the result of deteriorating
phosphate market.
In response to market conditions, Potash Corporation of
Saskatchewan Inc. declared plant closures and
shutdowns in its phosphate and nitrogen operations,
expected to provide operating savings of about C$20
million annually. In nitrogen, the Clinton, Iowa plant
and the La Platte, Nebraska plant will be immediately shut
down for an indefinite period. The Company is
considering their permanent closure. In phosphate, the Saltville,
Virginia plant and the Jacksonville, Florida terminal
will be closed permanently. The Suwannee River
Remihydrate plant at white Springs, Florida will be
closed indefinitely. These closures are effective imans diately.
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (PCS',
confirmed it will participate in a
proposed restructuring of Miners Yolanda SCM
(Minera), a Chilean sodium nitrate and
potassium nitrate producer and...
May 180 1999
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (PCS) confirmed
it will participate in a proposed restructuring of
Miners Yolanda SCM (Miners), a Chilean sodium nitrate
and potassium nitrate producer and subsidiary of RAP
Resources Ltd. Subject to certain conditions, PCS has
agreed to recapitalize and acquire all the shares of
Miners for approximately VS $36 million (subject to
adjustment) which includes certain payments to be made to
the secured creditors of Miners. It is expected that
the transaction will be completed by mid 1999.
J "i.l 8/292001325 PM

h
a* Nbrth Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
Fax
�/ �[✓/� �L /pia/
i i
Pagel; 15;� including cover sheet
FROM:
Land Quality Section
Telephone: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone] or [phone]
NCDENR
Division of Land Resources
.Land Quality Section (919) 7334574 Fax [phone] Geological Survey Section [phone] Fax [phone]
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Division of Land Resources [phone] Fw [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY r AFFIRMATIVE AMON EMPLOYER - 50"G RECYCLED+ to/, POST CONSUMER PAPER

TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT
TIME : 08/28/2001 08:40
NAME : GARDNER
FAX : [phone]
TEL : [phone]
DATEoTIME
08/28 08:46
FAX NO./NAME
82529753716
DURATION
00:01:50
PAGE(S)
05
RESULT
OK
MODE
STANDARD

ND N
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
Chades H. Gardner, P,G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
August 24, 2001
Mr. Terry Baker, P.E.
Manager, Environmental Affairs
PCS Phosphate
P.O. Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
RE: Proposed Modification to the Aurora Phosphate Mine
Permit No. 07-01
Beaufort County
Tar -Pamlico River Basin
Dear Mr. Baker:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
We have reviewed your company's request to modify the above referenced mining permit
to allow the placement of bucket wheel spoil over the surface of the gypsum and clay blend
reclamation area R-4. However, the following information is needed to continue processing your
request:
Please review the contents of the enclosed memorandum from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission dated August 16, 2001 and provide this office with a detailed
response of how your company intends to address each issue raised in the memorandum.
In order to complete the processing of your modification request, please forward two (2)
copies of the requested information to my attention at the following address:
Land Quality Section
Division of Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1612
Land Quality Section 919-733-45741 FAX: [phone] - Geological Survey Section 919-733-24231 FAX: [phone]
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 -
Division of Land Resources 919-733-38331 FAX: [phone] Internet: vvww.dlr.enr. state.nc.usldlchtm
An Equal Opporu nity1 AMrma lva Atllon Employer -50% RecydeC 10%Post Consumer Paper

Page 2
As required by 15A NCAC 5B.0013, you have 180 days from the date of your receipt of this
letter to submit all of the requested information. If you are unable to meet this deadline and wish
to request additional time, you must submit information, in writing, to the Director clearly indicating
why the deadline can not be met and request that an extension of time be granted. If an
extension of time is not granted, a decision will be made to grant or deny the mining permit
modification based upon the information currently in the Department's files at the end of the 180
day period.
Though the preceding statement cites the maximum time limit for your response, we
encourage you to provide the additional information requested by this letter as soon as possible.
Your prompt response will help us to complete processing your request sooner.
Thank you for your cooperation. Please contact me at [phone] if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
6
Tracy E, L P.E.
State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
Ad
Enclosure: August 16, 2001 NC Wildlife Resources Commission Memorandum
cc: Mr. Floyd Williams, P.G., w/ enclosure
Mr.
Franklin McBride-WRC, w/ enclosure
Mr.
William Wescott-WRC, w/ enclosure
Mr.
Scott McLendon-COE, w/ enclosure
Mr.
Tom Augsberger-USFWS, w/ enclosure
me =Trrr
Mr.
Jeff Furness-PCS, w/ enclosure
N
m
s
Po+w s
O
CrAAeOFN
N
IiWm PSYq Fn
IWwssrer,t,MCul,tll Hen
9
O
Peetrlcie•]Deihrery Fge
O
(EIYJmp.,nm Nwuiley
QThMIunpa6
Fp ,a'
S
m
NsmIFIJtm Mm D'WMRob wnwb�a e.,�.u.n

G

Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Charles H. Gardner, P.E.
Director and State Geologist
Division of Land Resources
And
Scott McLendon
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Franklin T. McBride, Supervisor
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 16, 2001
W �i0)
SUBJECT: Mining Permit Modification Request for PCS Phosphate, Aurora Phosphate Mine —
Petmit Number 07-01, Beaufort County, North Carolina.
Staff biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
completed a review of the project with regard to associated impacts on wildlife and fishery resources in
the area. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Star. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661.667d), Section 401(b) of the Clean Water
Act of 1977 (as amended), and the North Carolina Mining Act of 1971 (as amended, 1982; G.S. 74-76
et seq., 15 NCAC 5).
Introduction
During the May 30, 2001 meeting with State and Federal agencies, PCS Phosphate verbally
committed to using uncontaminated overburden to cap reclamation areas, beginning with reclamation
area four (R-4). PCS Phosphate has followed through on their commitment by requesting their permit
be modified to aflow capping of R-4 with overburden from the active thine.
Their decision to cap reclamation areas beginning with R-4 stems from data and reports
showing heavy metal contamination in soils, flora and fauna resulting from the phosphate mining
operation. Of the heavy metals documented as being elevated above background levels, cadmium
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries a 1721 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]

PCS Phosphate 2 August 16, 2001
poses the greatest threat to the environment and wildlife resources on the company's property and the
Aurora area Reclamation area soils have cadmium concentrations 200 to 400 times those of
background (USFWS, draft report). Cadmium has no known biological function (Cooke and Johnson,
1996) and has been associated with subtle to severe biological effects. Excess cadmium levels in soil
are known to cause human health problems, animal fatalities and disruption of natural ecosystems
(Brown et al., 1994). According to a report by ecologists from Cornell University, the Institute of
Ecosystem Studies and the U.S. Geological Survey in the July 13, 2000 issue of the journal Nature
(Vol. 408, No. 6792, pp. 181-183), cadmium is adversely affecting the white-tailed ptarmigan
(Lagopus leucurus) in mining areas and may threaten some populations with extinction. Cadmium
damages kidneys and produces thin, brittle bones that may shorten the grouse's life span as well as
fragile eggshells that reduce reproductive success. Toxic levels of cadmium were documented in 44
percent of adult birds, whereas birds living outside the ore belt region of Colorado had near -normal
cadmium levels in their bodies. The report also concluded that cadmium from abandoned mines may
also affect other wildlife species in the area, including deer, elk, moose, rabbits, beaver and other birds.
Cadmium is on the Hazardous Substance List because it is regulated by OSHA and cited by
numerous agencies including EPA. Cadmium is on the Special Health Hazard Substance List because
it is a carcinogen and a teratogen. According to OSHA, NIOSH and ACGIH, there may be no safe
level of exposure to a carcinogen, so all contact should be reduced to the lowest possible level.
Brief Summary of Previous EIS and USFWS Findin
Following an approximate nine-year EIS process, PCS Phosphate was issued permits in 1997
for mine continuation. During the review period prior to permit issuance, NCWRC provided
comments to the State Clearinghouse and to Division of Land Resources indicating amstrong concern
regarding high concentration of heavy metals, specifically cadmium, and the potential risks to the
environment. In those 1996 comments we specifically requested capping reclamation areas to
drastically reduce exposure to high concentration of cadmium. We are unaware of any official action
taken by Division of Land Resources to investigate heavy metal concerns even after data was
presented. Only after we solicited the assistance of the US Fish and Wildlife Service did a cadmium
study become a condition of the federal permit but not the permit issued by Division of Land
Resources. The required cadmium study provided additional site specific data to show level and extent
of cadmium pollution associated with the operations of the PCS Phosphate mine in Aurora, NC. The
site -specific data was then used by USFWS to perform risk assessments for the terrestrial
environmental. Their findings are as follows:
1. Cadmium is significantly elevated in mining byproducts and in the reclamation soils made
from these byproducts. Reclamation area soils have cadmium concentrations exceeding
300 times those of background and they exceed published soil screening values for
environmental protection.
2. Cadmium is accumulating in site fauna at levels exceeding dietary toxicity reference values
indicating potential adverse effects in birds and mammals.
3. Cadmium is a priority pollutant with no known biological function and a host of known
adverse effects, including mutagenicity, teratogenicity and suspected carcinogenicity.
4. Because R-2 employs the mine byproducts blending process to be used in the future,
elevated cadmium in R-2 soils and worms grown in R-2 soils is a concern for future actions
at PCS. The reclamation process should be altered to cap high cadmium content blended
soils to isolate them from wildlife.
5. A topsoil cover of the blended areas would have significant ecological restoration benefits
in addition to the toxicological benefits of isolating soils with elevated cadmium.

G-F
F
E
J
L
1 2
6.06 TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
TS 6.10 TEMPORARY SEEDING
PS 6.11 PERMANENT SEEDING
B*IIGL MEHO 6.30 GRASS LINED CHANNEL
B*IIRR ESE* 6.31 RIP RAP LINED CHANNEL
ago 6.41 OUTLET STABILIZATION
III 6.51 DROP INLET PROTECTION
6.62 SEDIMENT FENCE
00 6.83 ROCK CHECK DAM
3
35'
EL 12.0_ 36- DIAMETER RISER\\
1�
EL en EL 9.71
\—
2' DIAMETER ORIFICE EL 8.1
I1- STONE COLLAR
SEDIMENT POND SECTION
NTS
16 JAN 0 INITIAL ISSUE
NO. I DATE I ISSUE / REVISION
DRAWN
PC
CHECKED
MIKE
APPROVED
PC MR RMCJR - R.M. CHILES
BY CHK. APP. APp, APPROVED
9
5
REFERENCE DRAWINGS
7
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
Q
L
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I ERUIPMENT STAGING MATERIAL S RAGE A
150'-0' x 150'-0' 200'-0' x 0'-0"
I I
I I
I I
II I
i I
1 �I
I
I 1
40'x40'
I I
STAFF/VISITOR
WAREHOUSE
1 11
PARKING
I 1
I
1
I I
I 1
_
---
I \
/
LUNCH ROOM
c
20'x4C'
i
I
N
L. 120
XEL. 12A
I
I
Q
I
I 6•
REACTS
6• REACTS
LY
J
m9
CH
L 11 EL.. 9P1
St$
SS
1- V
x
IE 95
b�
J �
I
XEL. 11.15
C]
O
I
IB'0 [xP
ti
j
0'-U' Lfi
I
XEL. 13.75
FILL EXISTIW
DITCH
I 6•
REACTS
6' REACTS
�,
^ I-
1 Jr'EL. 120
1
XEL 120
I I
I 1
xr�
I
TrREACTS
EL. 115
I
u•-m Tx )
I I
I
1
_
I
fRL PoRa ON
El [T XCt 130
1
I
RE C EXIST, HEAWA
�MEADVALL P
6 U.L. PIPE CXISTIM5 FIRE X1M.Wt GG
— _
B'1 RCP
Si x WATER
fR CR
PLU i E TO O 4
0.0
O
I IL. 939
O 4
I 1
I 1
I 1
I
I
PCS�1;
Phosphat AURORA DIVISION
K
a
ES.
I.E.
/I
Ih EL. 120
I I
6' REAL"S
xan.l s''
E . 11.75
REACTS
yI IE.
I8XEL,12.0 — N
1 E.
XEL.
��louoln�
SEAL
0755%
DRAWING TITLE "
SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL
PLAN
for
PAP THIRD TRAIN EXPANSION
I
F
E
I I I I I I I I I
SHEET 1 of 1
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS g
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA
ENGINEERING DATE
JOB N0. 11JAN01 r —
SCALE
2002006
DRAWING N0. JAN
Lr,Mo n1 v'-��.,

PCS Phosphate
August 16, 2001
The USFWS also provided in Appendix A of their draft report a comparison of PCS soil data to
published environmental protection screening values.
[Cadmium]
(ma(ke
PCS—Maximum concentration in clay ponds
dry weiaht or mom)
28.0
PCS—Maximum concentration in reclamation area R2
26.9
PCS—Average concentration in reclamation area R2
22.7
PCS—Maximum concentration in reclamation area RI
21.7
Dutch Soil Clean-up Act — Immediate clean-up level
20
PCS — Average concentration in clay ponds
18.7
PCS—Average concentration in reclamation area R1
18.2
Lowest observed adverse effect level for Eisenia (earthworm)
10
Dutch Soil Clean-up Act — Moderate contamination
5
New Jersey interim soil action level
3
Canadian interim remediation criteria for agricultural soil
3
USA - maximum allowed in sewage sludge treated soils
2
Eastern Europe — critical level for protection of all landuses
2
Germany - maximum allowed in sewage sludge treated soil
1.5
Ireland — critical level for protection of all landuses
1
Average level in non -contaminated USA agricultural lands
0.1 to 1.0
Switzerland — critical level for protection of all landuses
0.8
Netherlands — critical level for protection of all landuses
0.8
Canadian interim assessment criteria for background
0.5
Denmark maximum allowed in sewage sludge treated soil
0.5
Czech Republic — critical level for protection of all landuses
0.4
Denmark —critical level for protection of all landuses
0.3
Finland —critical level for protection of all landuses
0.3
PCS — Bucketwheel spoil (topsoil and first 12 feet of overburden)
0.1
PCS — Site -specific background (Bath, NC)
0.06
Conclusion and Recommendation
Based on additional site -specific cadmium data and the findings of the USFWS, the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission concludes the operations of the PCS Phosphate mine,
specifically the reclamation process, which continues to have unduly and unacceptable adverse impacts
to wildlife resources. Once data from the cadmium study has been thoroughly analyzed for effects to
aquatic biota our conclusion may be expanded to include aquatic resources.
As proposed, the Charles Tract clay settling ponds and reclamation areas 1, 2 and 3 will not
be capped with uncontaminated soil. These areas comprise over 3,400 acres and would be left as a
source of continued contamination into agvatic and terrestrial flora and fauna. The decision of the
company not to cap Charles Tract and reclamation areas 1, 2 and 3 means PCS Phosphate will
knowingly continue their unduly and unacceptable adverse impacts to wildlife resources. It is
inappropriate to knowingly expose the environment and residents to high levels of contaminants
especially when the company has the financial and technological means to drastically reduce exposure.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission finds the proposed reclamation
modification promising but inadequate; therefore, we request the modification be denied. Upon
reviewing North Carolina Administrative Code, Tide 15 A, Chapter 5; North Carolina General
Statutes, Chapter 74, Article 7; Toxic Substance Control Act; 20+ years of data and reports indicating
high cadmium concentrations at PCS Phosphate; USFWS findings based on PCS Phosphate's
cadmium study; and our comments, which began in May 1995 outlining high cadmium concentrations
at PCS Phosphate, we strongly recommend that the existing permit be suspended until an acceptable
reclamation plan is agreed upon and the capping process is initiated. We reiterate and support our
comments made on February 16, 1996, which stated, "According to NCDA, Friberg (1979), and Geiger

PCS Phosphate
August 16, 2001
(1993), the best way to reduce or eliminate contamination problems is to bury or remove the
contaminated soil. We recommend that all past, present and future reclamation sites be covered with 3
to 4 feet of uncontaminated soil."
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any concerns regarding
our comments, please contact William Wescott at [phone].

PCS Phosphate
August 16, 2001
References
Brown, S.L., R.L. Chaney, J.S. Angle and A.J.M. Baker. 1994. Phytoremediation Potential of
Thlaspi caerulescens and Bladder Campion for Zinc- and Cadmium -contaminated Soil.
Journal of Environmental Quality 23: 1151-1157.
Cooke, J.A. and M.S. Johnson. 1996. Cadmium in small mammals. Pp. 377-388. In: W.N. Beyer,
G.H. Heinz and A.W. Redmon-Norwood (eds.). Environmental Contaminants in Wildlife:
Interpreting Tissue Concentrations. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Friberg, L., et al. 1979. Handbook on the Toxicology of Metals. Pp. 355-359.
Geiger, G, P. Federer and H. Sticher. 1993. Reclamation of Heavy Metal -Contaminated Soils: Field
Studies and Germination Experiments. Journal of Environmental Quality 22: 201-207.
USFWS. 2001. draft report --Significance of Cadmium in the Terrestrial Environment on and
Adjacent to PCS Phosphate Mine Reclamation Lends.

t- �•...+/.?.. +-:a } v-n CHECK NUMBER
PC$:
' PhwpbateV AURORA 01-16-02 CONTROL 623626
NUMBER
.� PA BB%18,AVIfORA NC 2lWe
PAY TOT@OROFA OF ':# AMOUNT
NC 'DEPT 3'DFENR
'.1612:RAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGNV;NC
27699=1612
a�
�Y+,Obr.OE IIIA 4�Y.

Re: PCs Phosphate Modification Request (Purified APlant Expansion)
Subject: Re: PCS Phosphate Modification Request (Purified Acid Plant Expansion)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:48:35 -0500
From: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Floyd Williams <Floyd. William s@ncmai 1, net>
Thanks, Floyd, for your prompt review comments. I plan to draft the
approval letter first thing tomorrow morning for Charles, review and
approval. Thankst TD
Floyd Williams wrote:
> Tracy,
> On January 29, 2002 T met with Jeffrey C. Furness and a number of
> other people at
> the site where the Subject expansion is proposed at the Purified Acid
> Plant. I have .looked
> at the erosion and sedimentation control plan and have visited the site.
> If the plan is implemented
> I see no problems with this proposal.
> If I can be of assistance please let me know.
> Thanks,
> Floyd R.
Tracy E. Davis, P.E. <Tracy.QAvis@ncmaiLnet>
State Mining Specialist
Division of land Resources
NC Dept. of Envirerunent and Natural Resources
of 1 1/23/2002 6:50 PM

PCs Phosphate Modification Request (Purified Acid P1 nt Expansion)
i
Subject: PCS Phosphate Modification Request (Purified Acid Plant Expansion)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:30:13 -0500
From: Floyd Williams <[e-mail]%
To: "Tracy E. Davis, P.E." <[e-mail]>
Tracy,
On January 19, 2002 I met with Jeffrey C. Furness and a number of
other people at
the site where the Subject expansion is proposed at the Purified Acid
Plant. I have looked
at the erosion and sedimentation control plan and have visited the site.
if the plan is implemented
I see no problems with this proposal.
If I can be of assistance please let me know.
Thanks,
Floyd R.
I of 1 1/2312002 6.47 PM

PC.s,permiMNod
Subject: PCS Permit Mod
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 08:57:30 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Dear Tracy:
Once again, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. We
recently received an air permit to expand our Purified Acid Plant. I found
out last Friday that they want to start construction next Monday. Of
course, since the whole plantsite is within Mine Permit 7-1, we need a
specific erosion and sediment control plan to cover this work, which would
be incorporated into a mine permit modification (similar to our recent DFP
plant construction).
We have scrambled, and Bob Chiles' firm has developed the EESC plan. I am
sending it to you today by Federal Express, along with a $500.00 check.
Floyd Williams will be here this morning at 9:30 to look at the site and go
over the plan. Attached to this e-mail is my cover letter to you.
I am asking you if it is possible to get approval of this modification by
or on Monday, if you talk to Floyd and everything looks OE. Approval could
be by phone call, e-mail or fax from you.
sincerely,
Jeff Furness
j£urnese®pcaphosphate.com(See attached file: 2002 Jan - PAP Permit.doc)
Name: 2002 Jan - PAP Permit.doc
F12002 Jan - PAP Permit.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
i or i 1rz2n(02 9:54 AM

VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL
Fedeml Express
January 15, 2002
Mr. Tracy Davis
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Dehpt. of ENR
Archdale Bldg., 5' Floor
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Dear Mr. Davis:
PCS has received an operating permit from the N. C. Division of Air Quality to increase the size
of our Purified Acid plant within the Aurora plant site. The currently grass and reject -covered
area is within the boundaries of Mine Permit 7.1, and is 6.93 acres in size. Plantsite construction
is ready to begin at any time.
PCS Phosphate would like to modify Mine Permit 7-1 by incorporating the enclosed Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan for PAP P Train Expansion into the permit. The plan includes a
bound narrative and an accompanying dmwing. Also included is a check for $500.00 for the
permit modification fee.
If you have any questions on this request, please call me immediately at [phone].
Sincerely, .
Jeffrey C. Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
Enclosures
PC: Floyd Williams - DLR, WaRO
w/enclosures
T.L. Baker/l2-04-001-58
w/enclosures
D.A. Jacoby
w/enclosures
D.J. Franklin
w/enclosures
R. M. Chiles
w/o enclosures
e-mail: W.A. Schimming
w/o enclosures
W.T. Cooper
w/o enclosures
D.E. Grieve
w/o enclosures
R.M. Thomas
w/o enclosures

P
PhosphaCSte AURORA
POS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NO U.S.A. 2708
VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL
Federal Express
January 15, 2002
Mr. Tracy Davis
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
Archdale Bldg., 5" Floor
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Dear Mr. Davis:
JAN 17 2002
PCS has received an operating permit from the N. C. Division of Air Quality to increase the size
of our Purified Acid plant within the Aurora plant site. The currently grass and reject -covered
area is within the boundaries of Mine Permit 7-1, and is 6.93 acres in size. Plantsite construction
is ready to begin at any time.
PCS Phosphate would like to modify Mine Permit 7-1 by incorporating the enclosed Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan for PAP 3r° Train Expansion into the permit. The plan includes a
hound narrative and an accompanying drawing. Also included is a check for $500.00 for the
permit modification fee.
If you have any questions on this request, please call me immediately at [phone].
Sincerely,
JJ s'��`m�,P C A,N,usf
y,. Fu ess
Senior Environmental Scientist
Enclosures
PC: Floyd Williams -DLR, WaRO w/enclosures
T.L. Baker/l 2-04-001 -58 w/enclosures
D.A. Jacoby .. w/enclosures
D.J. Franklin w/enclosures
R. M. Chiles w/o enclosures
e-mail: W.A. Schimming w/o enclosures
W.T. Cooper w/o enclosures
D.E. Grieve w/o enclosures
R.M. Thomas w/o enclosures

I
I
■ EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN
FOR
PAP 3'0 TRAIN EXPANSION
AT
1 PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
AURORA, NORTH CAROLINA
,1
1
'
PREPARED BY:
'
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
ENGINEERS, CONSULTANTS
8
1
MARINE SURVEYORS
12 JAN 02
1
RMC# 2002006

1
�.. ,�,;
��
,.�:.
,,, ,
-qq _ nn �'77
r.
f
i iI 7 !1
C�
N21_
�___
1�.1
?5i!:66
'
��
_J
1

puma
Narrative
Project Description
3
Site Description
3
Scope of work
4
Planned Erosion and Sedimentation Control Practices
5
Construction Specifications
5
Design Criteria
5
Maintenance Requirements
6-7
Responsible Party
8
Vicinity Map
9
ATTACHMENTS
Rainfall and Run -Off Calculations
Pond Pack For Windows Storm Water Calculations
NCDENR Sedimentation and Erosion Control Standards
6.06 Temporary Gravel Construction Entrance
6.10 Temporary Seeding
6.11 Permanent Seeding
6.15 Rip Rap
6.30 Grass lined Channels
6.41 Outlet Stabilization Structure
6.57 Fabric Drop Inlet Protection
6.62 Sediment Fence
6.83 Rock Check Dam
Drawing prepared for the project by
RORERT M. CHILES, P.E.
TITLED Sedimentation and Control Plan for PAP Third Train Expansion SHEET lot I

1
NARRATIVE
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
' The purpose of the project is to provide sedimentation and erosion control measures at the site
of the proposed PAP Third Train Expansion area within the PCS Phosphate Company, Inc., Aurora
Mine. The site is located in Richland Township, Beaufort County, North Carolina, and east of the
' PCS Barge loading area, south of the Pamlico River, and west of NC Highway 306.
A system of ditches comprise the existing drainage and sedimentation control measures. These
' ditches are connected by culverts and discharge to a pumped sump that recycles the run-off
to the existing Mill Pond, west of the site,
The proposed improvements include excavation of the site to proposed subgrade, backfilling
' the site with shell rejects from the mining process, and installation of three catch basins to the
south of the project, excavation and installation of a piped drain with open ditch inlets
approximately midway across the site, and excavation of a sediment basin southeast of the
' plant connected to existing drainage by an I F' diameter pipe.
Existing ditches along the west and south sides of the site will remain undisturbed except for the
' main pond discharge culverts installation.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed PAP Third Train Expansion site is currently o grassed field with a gravel road
' bounding its perimeter with a drainage swale inside the perimeter road. The storage area north
of the perimeter road and equipment areas are currently grassed field. The site is bounded on
the south by the existing PAP plant, the west by the PCS barge loading slip, the north by an
' existing dredge spoil area, and the east by the PAP and Sulphur rail storage/loading track work.
I
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. 3 2002006SEC

SCOPE OF THE_ WORK
'
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.
Install sediment fence along western boundary of project and around area to serve as
'
material storage.
3.
Install reject base in material storage area, equipment storage area. Install temporary
'
gravel construction entrances as shown on plan.
4.
Clean out the existing ditches located north and east of the project.
'
5.
Excavate proposed new ditches and sediment basin. Install new pipe work, outlet from
sediment basin, rock check dams, sediment fence as shown along ditch banks, and
seed to stabilize ditch banks.
'
6.
Install drop inlets and piping along southern limit of project. Install drop Inlet protection
around drop inlets.
'
7.
Back fill and re -grade ditch along southern limit of project to sheet flow towards catch
basins.
' 8. Excavate site to elevation of proposed subgrade. Backfill site with clean shell rejects to
proposed grade excepting building pads.
' 9. Install crusher run of rock under proposed plant building pads. Back fill areas surrounding
building pads with clean shell rejects.
10. Regrade, as needed, the areas surrounding the new drainage conveyances and
cleaned ditches so that runoff can sheet flow into them.
' 11. Back fill sediment pond and remove pipe work connecting sediment basin,
12. Stabilize ditch side slopes with permanent vegetative cover.
1
References:
' l . Drawing prepared for the project by
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
TITLED Sedimentation and Control Plan for PAP Third Train Expansion SHEET 1 of 1
I
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. 4 2002006SEC

1
PLANNED EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL. PRACTICES
' 1. Excavated side slopes shall be 3H:1 V or flatter.
'
2.
Rip rap outlet protection shall be installed at outlets of culverts.
3.
Side slopes shall be stabilized using permanent vegetative cover.
1
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
'
1.
Sediment Basin risers and culverts shall be corrugated galvanized steel or corrugated
aluminum with welded seams and re -rolled ends. Join sections using standard band
connectors.
'
2.
Ponds, ditches, risers and culverts shall be dimensioned as indicated in the plans and
details.
1
3.
Install new culverts at elevations and grades indicated on the plan per electronic copy
of drawing by Jacobs Engineering (included on plan).
4.
Install DOT Class II 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 6.1 1.
' DESIGN CRITERIA
The drainage conveyances, sediment basin, outlet structure, and pipes were sized to handle the
' rainfall from the 2 year, 10 year, and 25 year SCS type III storms over the 6.93 acre site. The 36'
diameter riser with 18" diameter outlet pipe were sized to prevent sediment basin overtopping
during these storms. The two inch orifice allows full draw down of the basin in less than 32 hours
' after the beginning of the rainfall event.
Please see the Attached hydrographic data for further information.
i
1
11
1
1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. 5 2002006SEC
11

MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
The Owner shall maintain a file copy of the approved plans and specifications 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/sediment 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 Wafter 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.
1 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE.
' Mowing.
The side -slopes, embankment, buffer area, and the areas within the project fence shall
be mowed as required to maintain a maximum height of six inches during the main
growing season and at least 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 drainage swales every significant runoff -producing rainfall
' event and at least;
Month for (but not limited to) the following: sediment accumulation: trash
accumulation, embankment or side slopes stability, erosion, subsidence,
cracking, bare areas.
'Quarterly in addition to the monthly requirements: for the condition of all catch
basins, piping, and rip-rop.
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 the contributing watershed that
' will increase the amount of runoff directed to the drainage system.
Additional inspections shall be conducted during wet weather, or times of
' extreme weather to determine if the drainage system is functioning properly.
Conclusion
Inspection and project erosion and sedimentation control shall be considered
complete at the completion of construction and after the stabilization of the
disturbed areas and channels.
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. 6 2002006SEC

1
' Sediment Removal.
The sediment removal/clean out cycle for the rock check dams 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.
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.
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.
' Wetlands Plants and Nuisance Control.
The Owner shall remove cattails and other indigenous wetland plants when they cover
50% of the grass fined channels. The Owner shall maintain the drainage system 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.
NON -ROUTINE MAINTENANCE:
' Emergency _Drain inq/Maintenance.
The Owner shall have a pump available that is capable of draining the basin for
maintenance activities or emergency situations. If 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.
1
1 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. 7 _� _ _ —_ 2002006SEC

RESPONSIBLE PARTY:
I acknowledge and agree by my signature below that PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. is
responsible for all maintenance procedures listed above, and all incurred costs of construction and
annual maintenance.
Name of Owner/Responsible Party: PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Address: P.O. Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Phone Number. (252( 322-4111
Name & Title: �rl��x�A,r,T, CRCPEK' y JR
C�E.IEaA�mA+ABEIZtp��v4P11iiE fRa�pmv�
Signature:
Date:
Notary Public: I, r.44::� , a Notary Public for the State
of County of do hereby Certify that 4411Ls,wJ
%l personally appeared before me this.(a
day of 4AZL, 2002, and acknowledged the due execution of the
foregoing sedimentation and erosion control plan maintenance
requirements. Witness my hand
//and officialseal.
(AQGK.L lA/HL� SEAL`
—�vIV
Notary Public-
Mycommissionexpires: a,RV-4 f� .
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. 6 2002006SEC

VICINITY MAP
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. 9 2002006SEC

1
Li
1
Job Fite: C:\HAESTAD\PPKW\2002006 PAPEXPANSION-SEC.PPW
Rain Dir: C:\HAESTAD\PPKW\RAINFALL\
JOB TITLE
PAP EXPANSION
SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
FOR
PCS PHOSPHATE
S/N: 621701506A$C
PondPack Ver. 7.5 (767)
Compute Time: 14:47:52 Date: 01/11/2002

Type.... Master Network Summary Page 2.01
Name.... Watershed
File.... C:XHAESTADIPPKW12002006 PAPEXPANSION-SEC.PPW
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MASTER DESIGN STORM SUMMARY
Default Network Design Storm File, ID AURORA 2.RNQ Storms 10
Total
Depth
Rainfall
Return Event
in
Type
25YR
8.0000
Synthetic Curve
10 YR
7.0000
Synthetic Curve
2 YR
5,0000
Synthetic Curve
RNF File RNF ID
SCSTYPES TypeIII 24hr
SCSTYPES TypeIII 24hr
SCSTYPES TypeIII 24hr
MASTER NETWORK SUMMARY
SCS Unit Hydrograph Method
(*Node=Outfall• +Node=Diversion;)
(True= HYG Truncation: Blank=None: L=Left; R=Rt; LR=Left&Rt)
Max
Return
HYG Vol
Qpeak
Qpeak
Max WSEL
Pond Storage
Node
ID
Type
Event-
Trun
ac-ft
---
*OUT
10
------
JCT
-25
---ac_ft--
3.721
---hrs-
12.1000
--cfs---
40.97
- -ft
--
-------
*OUT
10
JCT
-10
3.180
12.1000
35.36
*OUT
10
JCT
--2
2.108
12.1000
24.06
P
10
IN
POND
-25
3.748
12.1000
41.80
P
10
IN
POND
-10
3.207
12.1000
36.11
P
10
IN
POND
--2
2.135
12.1000
24.63
P
10
OUT
POND
-25
3.721
12.1000
40.97
11.97
.065
P
10
OUT
POND
-10
3.180
12.1000
35.36
11.43
.055
P
10
OUT
POND
--2
2.108
12,1000
24.06
10.67
.042
PAP
EXPAN
AREA
AREA
-25
3.748
12.1000
41.80
PAP
EXPAN
AREA
AREA
-10
3.207
12.1000
36.11
PAP
EXPAN
AREA
AREA
--2
2.135
12.1000
24.63
S/N: 621701506A8C
PondPack Ver. 7.5 (767) Compute Time: 14:47:27 Date: 01/11/2002

Type.... Design Storms
Name.... Storms 10
Page 4.01
File..., C:tMAESTAD\PPKW\RAINFALL\AURORA
2.RNQ
Title... PAP EXPANSION
'
SEDIMENTATION
AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
FOR
PCS PHOSPHATE
DESIGN
STORMS SUMMARY
'
Design Storm File.ID =
AURORA 2.RNQ Storms 10
Storm TagName
25YR
- - --------
Data Type, File, ID =
--------------------------------------------
Synthetic Storm
SCSTYPES.RNF TypeIII 24hr
'
Storm Frequency =
Total Rainfall Depth=
-25 yr
8.0000 in
Duration Multiplier =
1
Resulting Duration =
24.0000 hrs
Resulting Start Time=
.0000 hrs Step=
.1000 hrs End= 24.0000 hrs
Storm Tag Name =
Data Type, File, ID =
10 YR
Synthetic Storm
SCSTYPES.RNF TypeIIl 24hr
Storm Frequency =
-10 yr
'
Total Rainfall Depth=
Duration Multiplier =
7.0000 in
1
Resulting Duration =
24.0000 hrs
Resulting Start Time=
.0000 hrs Step=
.1000 hrs End= 24.0000 hrs
'
Storm Tag Name =
2 YR
---------------------
Data Type, File, ID
-------------------------------------------------
Synthetic Storm
SCSTYPES.RNF TypeIIl 24hr
Storm Frequency
--2 yr
Total Rainfall Depth=
5.0000 in
'
Duration Multiplier =
Resulting Duration =
1
24.0000 hrs
Resulting Start Time=
.0000 hrs Step=
.1000 hrs End= 24.0000 hrs
1
1
' S/N: 621701506A8C
PondPack Ver. 7.5 (767) Compute Time: 14:48:31 Date: 01/11/2002

Type.... Tc Calcs
Name.._. PAP EXPAN AREA
Page 6.01
File.... C:IHAESTADIPPKWI2002006 PAPEXPANSION-IIC.PPW
TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATOR
'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment ment #1: Tc: TR-55 Sheet
Mannings n .0110
Hydraulic Length 700.00 ft
2yr, 24hr P 4.3000 in
Slope .010000 ft/ft
Avg.Velocity 1.78 ft/sec
Segment #1 Time:
-Total -Tc:
---`-.1090-hrs-
1
1
1
1
1
1
'
S/N: 621701506A8C
PondPack Ver. 7.5 (767) Compute Time: 14:48:57 Date:
01/11/2002

' Type.... Tc Calcs Page 6.02
Name.... PAP EXPAN AREA
File.... C:INAESTADIPPKWI2002006 PAPEXPANSION-SEC.PPW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tc Equations used...
------------------------------------------------ ----------------------
__—= SCS TR-55 Sheet Flow
' Tc = (.007 * ((n * Lf)**O.8)) / ((P**.5) * (Sf**.4))
Where: Tc = Time of concentration, hrs
n = Mannings n
Lf = Flow length. ft
P = 2yr, 24hr Rain depth, inches
Sf = Slope, %
1-1
U
r�
1
U
S/N: 621701506A8C
PondPack Ver. 7.5 (767) Compute Time: 14:48:57 Date: 01/11/2002

Type.... Outlet Input Data Page 12.01
Name.... PR 10
File.... C:INAESTADIPPKW12002006 PAPEXPANSION-SEC.PPW
REQUESTED POND WS ELEVATIONS:
Min. Elev.= 8.00 ft
Increment = .10 ft
Max. Elev.= 12.00 ft
***s*s*ws*www***********r*******s*x***«sswwwww
OUTLET CONNECTIVITY
---> Forward Flow Only (UpStream to DnStream)
<--- Reverse Flow Only (DnStream to UpStream)
<---> Forward and Reverse Both Allowed
Structure No. Outfall El, ft E2, ft
-
Stand Pipe ---> TW -- 9.750 12.000
TW SETUP, DS Channel
S/N: 621701506ABC
PondPack Ver. 7.5 (767)
Compute Time: 15:01:28 Date: 01/11/2002

1
1
1
1
Type .... Outlet Input Data Page 12.02
Name.... PR 10
File.... C:IHAESTADIPPKW120O2006 PAPEXPANSION-SEC.PPW
OUTLET STRUCTURE INPUT DATA
Structure ID
Structure Type = Stand Pipe
# of Openings
= 1
Invert Elev,
= 9.75
ft
Diameter
= 3.0000
ft
Orifice Area
= 7.0686
sq.ft
Orifice Coeff.
_ .600
Weir Length
= 9.42
ft
Weir Coeff.
= 3.330
K. Submerged
— .000
K, Reverse
= 1.000
Kb,Barrel
= .000000
(per ft of full flow)
Barrel Length
= .00
ft
Mannings n
= .0000
Structure ID = TW
Structure Type = TW SETUP, DS Channel
^-
FREE OUTFALL CONDITIONS SPECIFIED
CONVERGENCE TOLERANCES...
Maximum Iterations= 30
Min. TW tolerance = .01 ft
Max. TW tolerance = .01 ft
Min. HW tolerance = .01 ft
Max. HW tolerance = .01 ft
Min. Q tolerance = .10 cfs
Max. Q tolerance = .10 cfs
S/N: 621701506A8C
PondPack Ver. 7.5 (767) Compute Time: 15:01:28 Date: 01/11/2002

Hydrograph
OUT 10 2 YR
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (hrs)
1
1
1
1
Currently Plotted Curves
OUT 10 2 YR
PR 10 2 YR

Hydrograph
OUT 10 10 YR
30
20
10
0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (hrs)
Currently Plotted Curves
OUT 10 10 YR
PR 10 10 YR

1
1
1
1
U
3
0
LL
Hydrograph
OUT 10 25YR
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (hrs)
Currently Plotted Curves
OUT 10 25YR
PR 10 25YR

Practice Standards and Specifications
6.06
Definition A graveled area or pad lowlcd at points where vehicles enter and leave a con-
struction Site.
Purpose To provide a buffer area where vehicles can drop their mud and sediment to
avoid transporting it onto public roads, to control erosion from surface mnoff,
and to help control dust.
Conditions Where Wherever traffic will be leaving a construction site and moving directly onto a
Practice Applies public mad or other paved off -site area. Construction plans should limit traffic
to properly constructed entrances.
Design Criteria AggregateSize—Uss2-3inchwashedstone.
Dimensions of gravel pad.
Thickness: 6 inches minimum
Width: 12-ft minimum or full width wall poins of the vehicular
entrance and exit area, whichever is greater
Length: 50-ft minimum
Location —Locate construction entrances and exists to limit sediment from
leaving the site and to provide for maximum utility by all construction vehicles
(Figure 6.06a). Avoid Sleep grades and entrances at curves in politic roads.
2-3 "
coarse aggregate
Flgure Use Gravel enV&ce/exit keeps sediment from leaving the constmeren site (modified from Va SWCC).
6.06.1

0
Washing —If conditions 9 the site are such that most of the mud and sediment
are not removed by vehicles traveling over the gravel, the tires should be
washed. Washing should be done on an area stabilized with crushed stone that
'
drains into asediment hap or other suitable disposal area A wash rack may also
be used to make washing more convenient and effective.
Construction
I. Clear the enhance and exit area of all vegetation, roots, and other objec-
Specifications
tiombie material and properly grade it.
,
2. Place the gravel to the specific grade and dimensions shown on the plans, and
smooth it.
3. Provide drainage to carry water to a sediment hap or other suitable oudet.
4. Use geotextile fabrics because they improve stability of the foundation in
■■
locations subject to seepage or high water table.
Maintenance
Maintain the gravel pad in a condition to prevent mud or sediment from leav-
ing the construction sim. Tbis may require periodic mpdressing with 2-inch
stone. After each rainfall, inspect my structure used to trap sediment and clean
it out as necessary. immediately remove all objectionable materials spilled,
washed, or hacked onto public roadways.
References
RtamJjConveyance Measures
6.30, Grass -lined Channels
Sediment Traps and Barriers
6.60, Temporary Sediment Trap
e
t
t
,
6.063

Practice Standards and Specifications
6.10 -.-.- tr
7s
Definition Planting rapid -growing annual grasses, small grains, or Legumes to provide in-
itial, temporary cover for erosion control on disturbed areas.
' Purpose To temporarily stabilize denuded areas that will not be brought to final grade
for a period of more than 30 working days.
Temporary seeding controls runoff and erosion until permanent vegetation or
other erosion control measures can be established. In addition, it provides
residue for soil protection and seedbed preparation and reduces problems of mud
and dust production from bare soil surfaces during construction.
Conditions Where
On any cleared, unvegetated, or sparsely vegetated soil surface where vegeta-
Practice Applies
ttve cover is needed for less than 1 year. Applications of this practice include
diversions, dams, temporary sediment basins, temporary road banks, and top-
soil stockpiles.
'
Planning
Annual plants. which rout and w rapidly and survive for only one season,
F sprout grow p Y
Considerations
ace suitable for establishing initial or temporary vegetative cover. Temporary
seeding preserves the integrity of earthen sediment control structures such as
dikes, diversions, and the banks of dams and sediment basins. It can also reduce
the amount of maintenance associated with these devices. For example, the fre-
quency of sediment basin cleanouts will be reduced if watershed areas, outside
the active construction zone, are stabilized.
Proper seedbed preparation, selection of appropriate species, and use of quality
'
seed are as important in this practice as in Practice 6.11, Permanent Seeding.
Failure to follow established guidelines and recommendations carefully may
result in an inadequate or short-lived stand of vegetation that will not control
erosion.
Temporary seeding provides protection for no more than 1 year, during which
'
time permanent stabilization should be initiated,
Specifications Complete grading before preparing seedbeds and install ail necessary erosion
control practices, such as dikes, waterways and basins. Minimize steep slopes
because they make seedbed preparation difficult and increase the erosion
hazard. If soils become compacted during grading, loosen them to a depth of 6-
'
8 inches using a ripper, harrow, or chisel plow.
SEEDBED PREPARATION
Good seedbed preparation is essential to successful plant establishment. A good
'
seedbed is well -pulverized, loose, and uniform. Where hydroseeding methods
are used, the surface may be left with a more irregular surface of large clods and
stones.
Liming —Apply lime according to soil test recommendations. If the pH (acidity)
of the soil is not known, an application of ground agricultural limestone at the
1
1 6.10.)!

p
J
rate of 1 to 1 1/d tonalecre on coarse -textured soils and 2-3 tons/acre on fine -
textured soils is usually sufficient. Apply limestone uniformly and incorporate
into the top 4-6 inches of soil. Soils with apH of or higher need not be limed.
Fertilizer —Base application tales on soil tests. When these are not possible,
apply a 10-10-10 grade fertilizer at 700-1,000 Warm. Boos fertilizer and lime
should be incorporated into the top 4.6 inches of soil. If a hydraulic seeder is
used, do act mix seed and fertilizer more than 30 minutes before application.
Surface roughening —If mant tillage operations have resulted in a loose sur-
face, additional roughening may not be required except to break up large clods.
If rainfall causes the surface to become sealed or crusted, loosen it just prior to
seeding by disking, taking. harrowing, orother suitable methods. Groove orfur-
row slopes steeper than 3:1 on the conmar before seeding (Practice 6.03, Sur-
facefloughentng).
PLANT SELECTION
Select an appropriate species or species mixture from Table 6.10a, for seeding
in lam winter and early spring,Table 6.10b for summer, andTahle6.10c forfall.
In the Mountains, December and January seedings have poor chances of suc-
cess. When it is necessary to plantat these times, use recommendations for fail
and a securely tacked mulch.
SEEDING
Evenly apply seed using a cyclone seeder (broadcast), drill, cultipacker seeder,
or hydroseeder. Use seeding rates given in Tables 6.10"� 10c. Broadcast seed.
ing and hydroseeding are appropriate for steep slopes where equipment cannot
be driven. Hand broadcasting is not recommended because of the difficulty in
achieving a uniform distribution.
Small grains should be planted no more than 1 inch deep, and grosses and
legumes no more than 12 inch. Broadcast seed most be covered by raking or
chain dragging, and then lightly fumed witharollerorcultipacker. Hydroseeded
mixtures should include a wood filer (cellulose) mulch.
MULCHING
The use of an appropriate mulch will help ensure establishment under normal
conditions and is essential to seeding success under harsh site conditions (Prac-
tice 6.14, Mulching). Harsh site conditions include:
• seeding in fail for winter cover (wood fiber mulches are act considered
adequate for this use),
slopes steeper than 3:1,
excessively hot or dry weather,
adverse soils (shallow, rocky, or high in clay or sand), and
areas receiving concentrated. Flow.
If the srea to be mulched is subject to concentrated watertlow, as in channels,
anchor mulch with netting (Practice 6.14, Mulching).
6.102

Practice Standards andSpecifications
Maintenance Reseed and mulch areas where seedling emergence is poor, or where erosion
occurs, as soon as possible. Do not mow, Protect from traffic as much as pos-
sible.
References Site preparation
6.03, Surface Roughening
6.04, Topsoiling
Surface Stabilization
6.11, Permanent Seeding
6.14, Mulching
Appendix
8.02, Vegetation Tables
6.10.3

13
Table 6.10a
Temporary Seeding
Recommendations for Late
Winter and Early Spring
6.10.4
Seeding mixture
Species Rate (lb/acre)
Rye (grain) 120
Annual lespedeza (Kobe in
Piedmont and Coastal Plain,
Korean in Mountains) 50
Omit annual lespedeza when duration of temporary cover is not to extend
beyond June.
Seeding dates
Mountains —Above 2500 ft: Feb. 15 - May 15
Below 2500 ft: Feb. 1 - May 1
Piedmont —Jan. 1 - May 1
Coastal Plain —Dec. 1 - Apr. 15
Soil amendments
Follow recommendations of soil tests or apply 2,000 Ib/acre ground agricul-
tural limestone and 750 lb/acre 10-10-10 fertilizer.
Mulcts
Apply 4.000 lb/acre straw. Anchor straw by tacking with asphalt, netting,
or a mulch anchoring tool. A disk with blades set nearly straight can be
used as a mulch anchoring tool.
Maintenance
Refertilize if growth is not fully adequate. Reseed, refertilize and mulch im-
mediately following erosion or other damage.
I
A
0
In

Practice Standards and Specifications
Table 6.10b
Temporary Seeding
Recommendations for
Summer
I
[-I
Seeding mixture
Species Rate (lb/acre)
German millet 40
In the Piedmont and Mountains, a small -stemmed Sudangrass may be
substituted at a rate of 50 lb/acre.
Seeding dates
Mountains --May 15 - Aug. 15
Piedmont —May 1 - Aug. 15
Coastal Plain —Apr. 15 - Aug. 15
Soil amendments
Follow recommendations of soil tests or apply 2,000 lb/acre ground agricul-
tural limestone and 750 Iblacre 10-10-10 fertilizer,
Mulch
Apply 4,000 lb/acre straw. Anchor straw by tacking with asphalt, netting,
or a mulch anchoring tool. A disk with blades set nearly straight can be
used as a mulch anchoring tool.
Maintenance
Refertilize it growth is not fully adequate. Reseed, refertilize and mulch im-
mediately following erosion or othor damage,
J
b.105

Table 6.1 pc
Temporary Seeding
Recommendations for Fall
Seeding mixture
Species Rate (lb/acre)
Rye (grain) 120
Seeding dates
Mountains —Aug. 15 - Dec. 15
Coastal Plain and Piedmont —Aug. 15 - Dec. 30
Soil amendments
Follow soil tests or apply 2,000 lblacre ground agricultural limestone and
1,000lb/acre 10-10-10fertilizer.
Mulch
Apply 4,000 lb/acre straw. Anchor straw by tacking with asphalt, netting,
or a mulch anchoring tool. A disk with blades set nearly straight can be
used as a mulch anchoring tool.
Maintenance
Repair and refertilize damaged areas immediately. Topdress with 50
Iblacre of nitrogen in March. If it is necessary to extend temporary cover
beyond June 15, overseed with 50 lb/acre Kobe (Piedmont and Coastal
Plain) or Korean (Mountains) lespedeza in late February or early March.
6.10.6

Practice Standards and Specifications
6.11 y
PS
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, long-lived vegetative cover 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 b protecting bare soil surfaces from raindrop im-
g YP g P
Considerations
pact and by reducing the velocity and volume of overland flow.
The most common and economical means of stabilizing disturbed soils is by
seeding grasses and legumes. The advantages of seeding over other means of
establishing plants include the smaller initial cost, 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 6.11 a), selection of
suitable plant materials for the site, good seedbed preparation, adequate liming
and fertilization, and timely planting and maintenance.
SELECTING 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 --Mountains. Piedmont, and Coastal Plain
(Figure 6.11a).
To simplify plant selection, a Key to Permanent Seeding Mixtures is presented
in Table 6.1 lb. To find seeding specifications for a specific site, follow this key
through the different 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 Ic

Practice Standards and Specifications
6.11 r ,
PS Definition Controlling runoff and emsion on disturbed areas by establishing perennial
vegetative cover with seed.
Purpose To reduceerosionanddecreasesediment yield from disturbedareas,and mper-
manendy stabilize suchareas in a manner that is economical, adapts to site am.
ditions, and allows selection of the most appropriate plant materials.
Conditions Where Fine -graded areas on which permanent, long-lived vegetative cover is the most
P ractice Appl ies pmcncal or most effective method of stabilizing the soil. Permanent seeding
may also be used on rough -graded area; that will not be brought in 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 fatal grade is reached, unless
temporary stabilization is applied.
Planning Vegetation controls erosion by protecting bare soil surfaces from mindrop im-
Considerations pact and by reducing she velocity and volume of overland flow.
The most common and economical means of stabilizing disturbed soils is by
seeding grasses and legumes. The advantages of seeding over other means of
estabgshingplants include the smaller initial cost, lower laborinput. oil 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 6.11a), selection of
suitable plant materials for the site, good seedbed preparation, adequate liming
and fertilization, and timely planting and maintenance.
SELECTING 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 Noah
Carolina, with the most significant contrasts occurring among the due¢ major
physiogrophic regions of the state —Mountains, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain
(Figure 6.l la).
To simplify plant selection, a Key to Permanent Seeding Mixtures is presented
in Table 6.1lb. To find seeding specifications fora specific site, follow this key
through the different steps —region, slope, soil, and maintenance level —to the
appropriate seeding number. Seeding mixtures recommended here we designed
for general use and are well proven in practical field situations (Tables 6.11c
6.11.1

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 recmdonaI,
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
I�
�J
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.
After 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 fill slopes, for example, the last 4-6 inches might
be left uncompacted. A loose, rough seedbed is essendal. Large clods and stones
6.113

I
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 layers 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. Clods 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 beneficial 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 soil, 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, or peat 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.
C
1
i
1
I
11
I
I
0
I

1 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 PREPARATION
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 test-
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 grading. 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 top4-6 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 Iarge clods and raking into a
smooth, uniform surface (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.
1

0
SEEDING ,
Seedingdatesgivenin the seeding mixtuxespecifications(Tables6.l lc through
6.11v) are designated as "best" or "possible". Seedings properly carried out
within the "best" dates have a high probability of swam. 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 unda "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
publishcdNorth Carolina Standards and should bear an official "Certified Seed"
label (Figure 6.1lb).
Figure 6.11b Label displayed on all Noah
Carolinacerefiedseed. _
a.e
0,911,000
ro GROWN IN NORTH CAROLINA
Nel we wa.......
Vun xla....IMi..
loan manor... (MI..
nmareme... Mo..
Wanee '.,(Ml .
Commotion- IMI ..
HIM Saq.... IMI ..
Tan oau..,.......
.. Wta. Warne ... ..
wl ao...
Can. set.
KIM...
varory .
veMa.
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 Smm standards for content of noxious weeds. Do not accept seed contain-
ing "prohibited" noxious weed seed.
Inoculate legume seed with the Rlu'zobium bacteria appropriate to the species
of legume (Chapier3. Vegetative Conrideradoar).
Apply seed uniformly with a cyclone seeder, drop -type spreader, drill, cul-
tipacker seeder, or hydroaeeder on a firm, friable seedbed
6.11.6

I
Practice Standards and Specifications
II
1
' Figure 6.11c Suggested pattern for
broadcasting seed and fertilizer
(ssurre: NGAeS Bulletin AG-691,
1
When using a drill or cultipacker seeder, plant small grains no more am 1 inch
deep, grasses and legumes no mote than 1/2 inch. Equipment should be cali-
brated in the field for the desired seeding rate.
When using broadcast -seeding methods, subdivide the area into workable sec.
tions and determine theamountof seed needed for each section. Apply one-half
the seed while moving back and forth across the area, making a uniform pat-
tem: then apply the second half in the some way, but moving a[ right angles to
the first pass (Figure 6.11c).
Seeding Pattern
'/2
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-
enedslopewdl pmvidesome mmral coverage for lime, fertilizer, and seed. The
surface should not be compacted or smooth. Fine seedbed preparation is not
necessary for hydroseeding operations; large clods, stones, and irregularities
provide cavities in, which seeds can lodge.
Rate of wood fiber (cellulose) application should be at least 1,000 lb/acre.
`
Apply legume mmulants a fora times the recommended rate when adding In.
oculant to a hydroseeder slurry.
If a machinery breakdown of 112 to 2 hours occurs, add 50% more seed to the
tank, 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.
6.11.7

o i
SPRIGGING
Hybrid Bermudagross cannot be grown from seed and must be planted vegeta.
lively. Vegetative methods of establishing common and hybrid Bermudagrass, '
centipedegmss, and Bahiagrass include sodding, plugging and sprigging (Chap.
ter 3, Vegetative Considerations). Sprigs are fragments of horizontal stems
which include at least one node Qoint). They are normally sold by the bushel
and can either be broadcast or planted in farrows using a tractor -drawn mbac.
co or vegetable transplanter.
Furrows should be 4-6 inches deep and 2 ft apart. Place sprigs about 2 ft apart '
in the row with one end at or above ground level (Fgure 6.11d).
Figure 6.11d Proper placement of grass
spies. Each sprig should have at least one Soil Surface
node(modlaed hem NCAES Bulletin AGae), v
Correct Incorrect
Broadcast sprigs at the specified rate (Tables 6.11r and 6.1Is). Press into the ,
top 12-2 inches of sod with a cultipacker or with a disk set nearly straight so
that the sprigs are not brought back to die 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
establishmentand 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 most be carefully controlled to prevent runoff. [ade-
quate or excessive amounts of water can be mare 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 fug 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 time and fertilizer. Re.estabfish the stand after seedbed
preparation orover-seed the stand. Consider seeding temporary, annual species
if the timeof year is not appropriate for permanent seeding (Practice6.l0, Tem-
porary Seeding).
6.11.8

Practice Standards and Specifications
If vegetation fails to grow, soil be must tested to determine if acidity or nutrient
imbalance is responsible.
Fertitization —On the typical disturbed site, full establishment usually requires
referdlization 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 mlxtum (fables 6.11c through 6.11v).
References Site Preparation
6.03. Surface Roughening
6.04, Topsoiling
Surface Stabilization
6.10, Temporary Seeding
6.12, Sodding
6.14, Mulching
Appendix
S.M. Vegetation Tables
Chapter 3, Vegetative Considerations
USDA Soil Conservation Service
National Soils handbook
6.119

13
1
Table 6.11b
Key to Permanent Seeding Mixtures Based on Site Characteristics
Region and Site Characteristicsi
Mountains
A. Steep slopes (steeper than 3:1); low maintenance
Seeding Table
Number (6.11)
1. Average soils .... ... ...................1
M
2. Cold sites or rocky, rough, dry soils ..................
2M or
........ I ................
7M (trees)
B. Gentle slopes (3:1 or less)
1. Low maintenance
a. Average soil ........... .................
3M
b. Rough, rocky, dry soil .......................
2M or
... ...................... I .........
7M (trees)
2. High maintenance
a. Full sun, soils with good moisture retention ............
4M
b. Full sun, drought -prone soils ....................
5M
c. Sun or semi -shade, minimum -care lawns ...... ..... ..
6M
C. Grass -lined channels ...........................
8M
Piedmont
A. Low maintenance
1. Steep slopes or stony, shallow or dry soils ..............
1 P
2. Gentle slopes with average or better soils ..............
2P
B. High maintenance (slopes less than 3:1)
1. Coal sites; sails with avera 7a or better moisture retention ......
3P
2. Warm sites; dry, poor soils .................. ....
4P or 3CP
C. Grass -lined channels
1. Soils with average or better moisture retention . ............
5P or 8M
2. Full sun, drought -prone soils ............... ......
7CP
Coastal Plain
A. Well- to poorty-drained soils with good water -holding capacities
1. Low maintenance ... ...... .. . .. ....... . . ... .
1 CP
2. High maintenance .......... .................
2CP
B. Weil -drained sandy loams to excessively well -drained sands
1. High maintenance, fine turf ......................
3CP
2. Low- to medium -care lawns ......................
4CP
3. Low maintenance . ......... ... ........ . ... . .
6CP
C. Intertidal zones of estuarine shorelines, dredged
material, and graded areas in salt water .................
6CP
D. Grass -lined channels . ... . .. ....... . ... ... ..... .
7CP
E. Coastal sands exposed to salt spray
and/or wind erosion ... ... . .... ...... .... .... ...
see Table 6.16a
'Refer to Table 6.1la for soil suitability limitations.
c
d
i
e
d
i
f
9
h
f
k
I
m
n, r
o,j
v
p
4
r
s
t
u
v
7
1
1
D
11
I
0
n
I
6.11.10 1

Practice Standards and Specifications
Table 6.11q
Seeding No. 2CP for: Well- to
Poorly Drained Solls with
Good Moisture Retention;
High Maintenance
i]
L�
1
Seeding mixture
Specleal Rate (lb/acre)
Tall fescue (blend of two or
three improved varieties) 200
Rye (grain) 25
Seeding dates
Best: Sept. 15 - Oct. 1s
Possible: Sept. 1 - Oct. 31 or Feb. 15 - Apr. 30
Soil amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests, cr apply 3,000-5,000 lb/acre
ground agricultural limestone (use the lower rate on sandy soils) and 1,000
lb/acre 10-10-10 fertilizer.
Mulch
Apply 4,000 lb/acre small straw or equivalent cover of another suitable
mulch. Anchor straw by tacking with asphalt, netting, or roving or by crimp-
ing with a mulch anchoring tool. A disk with blades set nearly straight can
be used as a mulch anchoring tool.
Maintenance
Fertilize according to soil tests or apply 40 lb/acre nitrogen in Jan. or Feb.,
40 lb in Sept., and 40 lb in Nov., from a 12-4-8, 16-4-8, or similar turf fer-
tilizer. Avoid fertilizer applications during warm weather, as this increases
stand losses to disease. Reseed, fertilize, and mulch damaged areas im-
mediateiy. Mow to a height of 2.5-3.5 inches as needed.
Refer to Appendix 8.02for botanical names.
6.11.25

0
Table 6.11 r
Seeding No. 3CP for: Dry
Sands to Sandy Loari High
Maintenance, Fine Turf
Seeding mixture
Speclas' Rate (bun ,000 itz)
Tilway or Tdway ll Minimum:3
hybrid Bermudagrass Rapid cover: 10
Seeding notes
1. Sprig or sad (Practice 6.12, Sodding). Moisture is essential during ini-
tial establishment. Sod must be kept well watered for 2-3 weeks, but can
be planted earlier or later than sprigs.
2. Common Bermuda can be seeded or sprigged but does not produce a
high -quality turf. h is also less cold tolerant than the hybrids, more weed
prone. and a pest in flower beds and specimen plantings.
Planting dates
Apr. - July
Soil amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests, or apply 3,000 lb/acre
ground agricultural limestone and 500 b/acre 10-10-10 fertilizer, or 50
IS/acre nitrogen from WO -type slow -release fertilizer. Add 25-50 Ib/acra
nitrogen at 2. to 3-week intervals through midsummer.
Sprigging
Plant sprigs in furrows with a tractor -drawn transplanter, or broadcast by
hand.
Furrows should be 4-6 inches deep and 2 it apart. Place sprigs about 2 it
apart in the raw with one and at or above ground level (Figure 6.11 d).
Broadcast at was shown above, and press sprigs into the top 1/2-21n-
ches of soil with a disk set straight so that sprigs are not brought back
toward the surface.
Mulch
Do not mulch.
Maintenance
Water as needed and mow to 3/4- to 1-inch height. Tcpdress with 40
Ib/acre nitrogen in Apr., 50 lb in May. 50 lb in June, 3011b in July, and 25.
50 lb in Aug.
'Refer to Appendix 8.02fcr botanical names.
6.11.26

Practice Standards and Specifications
Table 6.1 is
Seeding No. 4CP for:
Well -Drained Sandy Loams to
Dry Sands, Coastal Plain and
Eastern Edge of Piedmont;
Low. to Medium -Care Lawns
Seeding mixture
Species' Rate
Cad pedegram 10-201b/acre(mod) or
33 bu/acre (sprigs)
Seeding dates
Mar. -June
(Sprigging can be done through July where water is available for irriga.
tion.)
Soil amendments
Apply lime and fertilb er according to soil tests, or apply 3001b/acre 1040-
10,
Sprigging.
Plant sprigs in furrows with a tractor -drawn transplanter, or broadcast by
hand.
Furrows should be 4.6 inches deep and 2 It alien. Place sprigs about 2 it
apart In the row with one and at or above ground Well (Figure 6.11d).
Broadcast at rates shown above, and press sprigs into the top tr2.2 in-
ches of soil with a disk set straight so that sprigs are not brought back
toward the surface.
Mulch
Do not mulch.
Maintenance
Fertilize very sparingly-20 Ib/acre nitrogen in spring with no phos-
phorus. Cantipedegrass cannot tolerate high pH or excess fertilizer.
'Refer to Appendix 9.02for botanical names.
6.1127

0
Table 6.11t
Seeding No. 5CP for:
Well•Drained Sandy Loams to
Dry Sands; Low Maintenance
Seeding mixture
Species, Rate (lb/acre)
Pensacola Bahiagrass 50
Sericea lespedeza 30
Common Bermudagrass 10
German millet 10
Seeding notes
1. Where a neat appearance is desired, omit sericea.
2. Use common Bermudagrass only on isolated sites where it cannot be-
come a pest. Bermudagrass may be replaced with S lb/acre cen-
tipedegrass.
Seeding dates
Apr. 1 -July 15
Soil amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests, or apply 3,000 lb/acre
ground agriculturai limestone and 500 lb/acre 10-10-10 fertilizer.
Mulch
Apply 4,000 lb/acre grain straw or equivalent cover of another suitable
mulch. Anchor by tacking with asphalt, roving, or netting or by crimping
with a mulch anchoring tool. A disk with blades sat nearly straight can be
used as a mulch anchoring tool.
Maintenance
Refertilize the following Apr. with 50 lb/acre nitrogen. Repeat as growth re-
quires. May be mowed only once a year. Where a neat appearance is
desired, omit sericea and mow as often as needed.
,Refer to Appendix 8.02for botanical names.
1
El
[I
1
n
I
I
I

Practice Standards and Specifications
Table 6.11 u
Seeding No. 6CP for:
Intertidat Zones of Estuarine
Shorelines, Dredged Material,
and Graded Areas In Salt
Water
I�
Seeding mixture
Species'
Planting Zone (Figure 6.11 e)
Smooth cordgrass
mean sea level to mean high water
Saltmeadow cordgrass
mean high water to average high
water of storm tides
Giant cordgrass
irregularly flooded areas where
salinity does not exceed 10 (ppt)
Spacing
2x2 ft
Planting dates
Apr. - June
Site suitability
Periodic flooding and draining is necessary for good growth_ In North
Carolina, estuaries south of Cape Lookout and areas near inlets where
diurnal lunar tides range 2 to 5 ft provide a relatively wide intertidal zone
for growth of smooth cordgrass. Larger estuaries north of Cape Lookout,
where water level is determined primarily by wind and freshwater runoff,
provide only a narrow intertidal zone in which plantings must be placed
precisely according to elevation.
Sources of plants
Greenhouse -grown seedlings may be obtained from commercial sources,
but usually only by contract orders. Plants may be dug from existing stands.
Select plants from recently established marshes with open stands or marsh
edges where plants are vigorous and the root mat is not dense. Digging
and separating is easier in sand. Disposal areas for sandy, dredged
materials often provide a good source cf plants. Care should be taken to
minimize damage to existing marshes.
Once plants are dug, prevent them from dying by packing the roots in moist
sand in buckets or tubs.
Planting methods
Hand planting may be done by opening holes 4-6 inches deep with a dib-
ble or shovel, inserting a single stem, and packing the soil around it. Large,
firm areas may be planted with a tractor -drawn transplanter (tobacco or
vegetable transplanter),
(Table 6.11 u continued)
1 6.11.29

13
Table 6.11 u
(continued)
Fertilization
Lime and fertilizer should be applied at rates recommended by a soil test
(askfor recommendations for fescue). Without asoil test, apply 2tons/acre
lime, 100 lb/acre nitrogen (preferably an ail- ammonium source), and 200
lb/acre P20s. Potassium is not required. Fertilizer may be broadcast and
incorporated before planting if the site can be graded and planted before
flooding occurs. Incorporate all amendments into the upper 4-6 inches of
soil.
If the area to be planted is flooded regularly, apply fertilizer below the sur-
face at planting. Slow -release fertilizers are more affective since they sup-
ply nitrogen over a longer period of time and can be placed in the planting
hole with little risk of damaging the roots. If soluble (quick -release) mate-
rials are used, cover with 2 inches of soil before inserting plant. Osmocote
(14-14-14 or 18-6-12) is an effective slow -release material that can be
placed in the planting hale at the rate of 0.5 to 1.0 oz (2-4 teaspoons) per
plant.
Maintenance
Where plantings are exposed to wave action, replace plants that are
washed out. In the second and third growing seasons, broadcast nitrogen
and P2Os at 150 Ib/acre split into three equal applications in Apr., June,
and Aug. Always apply fertilizer at low tide.
1
1
I
I
6
I
6.11.30 1

Table 6.11v
Seeding No. 7CP for:
Grass -lined Channels;
Coastal Plain, Lower
Piedmont, and Dry Soils In
the Central Piedmont
1
1
n
Practice Standards and Specifications
Seeding Mixture
Species1 Rate (lb/acre)
Common Bermudagrass 40-80 (1-2 lb11,000 ft2)
Seeding dates
Coastal Plain: Apr. -July
Piedmont: Apr. 15 - June 30
Soil amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests, or apply 3,000 Iblacre
ground agricultural limestone and 500 lb/acre 10-10-10 fertilizer.
Mulch
Use jute, excelsior matting, or other effective channel lining material to
cover the bottom of channels and ditches. The lining shoutd extend above
the highest calculated depth of flow. On channel side slopes above this
height, and in drainages not requiring temporary linings, apply 4,000
lb/acre grain straw and anchor straw by stapling netting over the tap.
Mulch and anchoring materials must not be allowed to wash down slopes
where they can clog drainage devices.
Maintenance
A minimum of 3 weeks is required for establishment. Inspect and repair
mulch frequently. Refertilize the following Apr. with 50 lb/acre nitrogen.
1Ref ar to Appendix 8.02for botanical names.

6.11-32

L
Practice Standards and Specifications
6.15 ` "
mm
RR
Definition A layer of stone designed to protect and stabilize areas subject to erosion.
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,
• 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-
Co n s ideration s
uvely in many locations and in a variety of ways to control erosion on construc-
tion sites.
GRADED VERSUS UNIFORM 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
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 give a more pleasing ap-
pearance.
' Riprap sizes are designated by either the mean diameter or the weight of the
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 stones by
weight, spherical diameter, and the corresponding rectangular dimensions.
Tese stone sizes are based upon an assumed specific weight of 165 lb/ft3.
rA 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 "day" specifies a mixture of stones in which 85Fo of the
stone by weight would be smaller than the diameter specified. Most designs are
based on "dgo", or median size stones.
' Riprap and gravel are often designated by N.C. Department of Transportation
specifications (Table 6.15b).

0
Table 6.15a
Size of Riprap Stones
Mean Spherical
Length
Rectangular Shape
Weight (lb)
Diameter (ft)
(tt)
Width/Height (ft)
50
0.8
1.4
0.5
100
1.1
1.8
0.6
150
1.3
2.0
0.7
300
1.6
2.6
0.9
500
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-Riprapshould beawell-graded mixture with5007abyweightlarger
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.
Thicknem--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 shone.
The stone should be hard, angular, of such quality that it will not break down
1
P
1
I
1
I
I
11,
L
6.15.2 1

'
Table 6.15b
Sizes for Rlprap and Erosion
'
Control Stone Specified by
the N.C. Department of
Transportation
1
1
Practice Standards and Specifications
Rlprap Erosion Control
Class Class Class Class
1 2 A B
510200 In 25 to 250b 2'to 6• 5' to 15-
30%shall
60%shall
weigh a
weigh a mind-
minimum of 60
imum of 100 Ih
Ibs each
each
No more then
No more than
10%tolerance
100%shall
5%shall weigh
top and bot.
weighieas
less than 50b
tom sizes
than 151b
each.
each
Equally dis- Equally dis-
tributed, no tribmed, no
gradationgradation
spaded specified
source: North Carolina Aggregates Association,
on exposure to wamr orweadiering, and suitable in all otherrespimm farthe pur-
pose intended. The specific gravity of the individual stones should be a least
2.5.
Sin of stone —The sizes of stones used for ripmp protection are determined by
purpose and speck site conditions.
• Slope stabilization—Riprap stone for slope stabilization not subject in
flowing wmerorwaveaction 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 Angle of repose of r prap
stones may be estimated from Figure 6.15a
Ripmp 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
ripmp is used for surface stabilization. Slopes approaching 1.5:1 may re-
quite spacial stability analysis.
• Outlet protection —Design criteria for sizing stone and determining the
dimensions of ripmp pads at channel or conduit outlets are presented in
Practice 6.41. Outlet Stabilization Structure.
• Channel stabilization and srreambank protection —Design criteria for
sizing stone for stability of channels are contained in Appendix8.05.
Filter blanket —A -filter blanket is a layer of material placed between the ripmp
and the underlying soil to prevent soil movement into or through the ripmp.
6.153

0
MEAN STONE SIZE, Dec, it
I
MEAN STONE SIZE, 05O, mm
Figure 6.15s 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 bate material in accordance with the criteria below. The
designed gravel filter blanket mayconsist 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:
dts filter 5 5
des base
6 5 di filter 540
dls base
dso filter 5 40
d60basB
In these relationships, filter refers to the overlying material and base refers to
the underlying material. These relationships most hold between the filter ma-
terial and the base material (soil foundation) and between the riprap and the fit-
ter. More than one layer of filter material may be needed. Each layer of filter
material should be to least 6 inches thick.
6.15.4

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)).
a. da5 base (rf m)
EOS' filter fabric (mm)'i
1
b. total open area of filter should not exceed 36%
' Filter fabric covering other soils:
a. EOS is no Iarger 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 yams 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,
Fitter 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 on 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 and gravel filter 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
1 6.155

0
of filmrmaterial with aminimun overlap of 12 inchessround thedamagedarea.
If extensive damage is suspected, remove and replace the entire sheet.
Where large stones are used or machine placement is difficult, a4-inch layerof
fine gravel or sand may be needed in protect the filter cloth.
Stone placement—Placamentofripmp 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 de*W distribution of stones throughout the mast
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 in dislodge the underlying base or filter when
placing the smncs.
The me of the ripmp slope should be keyed to a stable foundation at its base as
shown in Figure 6.15b. The me should be excavated to a depth about 1.5 times
the design thickness of the riprap andshould extend horizonmlly from the slope.
The finished slope should be free of pockets of small stone or clusters of huge
stones. Hand placing may be necessary to achieve the proper distribution of
stone sizes to produce arelatively smooth, uniform surface. The finished grade
of the ripmp should blend with the surrounding area. No overfall or prounsion
of riprap should be appmenl.
Figure 6.10 Riprap stage protection
(modified rrom VOHaT).
6"
fill
tww5ir.,;..—IIIII=� m I n
'III ''+: I� �III�II I t
Maintenance In germ], owe aripmp installation has been properly designed and installed it
requires very little maintenance. Riprap should be inspected periodically for
scow or dislodged stones. control of weed and brush growth may be needed in
some [=now.
.1
,YI
fj References Rwmconveyance Measures
631, Riprap-lined and Paved channels
Owlet Protection
6.41, Outlet Stabil ntion Structure
6.16.6

Practice Standards and Specifications
6.30
a
GL 14
Definition
Achannel with vegetative lining constructed mdesign cross section and grade
for conveyance of mnaff.
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
• concentrated runoff will cause damage from erosion or flooding;
• a vegetative lining can provide sufficient stability for die 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, charmels 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 creasing watershed boundaries or
ridges.
Plan the course of the channel in avoid sharp changes in direction or Smile. Site
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/= 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 mulch protection such as fiberglass roving or straw
and netting provide stabibry until the vegetation is fully established. These
prolective liners must be used whenever design velocities exceed 2 ft/sec for
bare soil conditions. It may also be necessary to diver water from the channel
until vegetation is established a to line the channel with sod. Sediment traps
'
may be needed at channel inlets and outlets.
630.1

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-
'
dons.
Trapezoidal grass channels are used where runoff volumes are large and slope I
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 roust 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-
tice 6.41, Outlet Stabilization Structure).
AREA
Where urban drainage area exceeds 10 acres, it is recommended that grass -lined
channels be designed by an engineer experienced in channel design.
1
Design Criteria Capacity —As a minimum, grass -lined channels should carry peak 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, 8.05).
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 to be vegetated by seeding exceeds 2 ft/sec, a�
temporary channel liner is required. The design of the liner may be based on
peak flow from a 2-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 liner is needed. Whether a temporary lining is requiied 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.
Crosssection—Thechannel shape may be parabolic, trapezoidal, or V-shaped,
depending on need and site conditions (Figure 6.30a).
1
6.30.3 '

' Practice Standards and Specifications
r
,Iaure6.aan ratioress o, an,ion traezoi of
' Triangular, parabolic, and o-apazaidal Triangular " 1/"
channels.
r T
' e
t
e
' x-section area (A) = Zd2
top width (T) = 2dz Z - d
Parabolic
T
e
L_
'
x-section area (A) = 21a Td
to 1'5A
p width m =d
'
Trapezoidal
T
Of
'
b a
x-section area (A) = bd + Zc? Z S
'
_
top width (T) = b + 2dz d
'
Hydraulic grade line —Examine the design water surface if the channel sys-
tem becomes complex.
Side slopes nsisied channel side slopes generally are constructed 3:1 or flat.
'
ter to aid in the establishment of vegewdon and for maintenance. Side slopes of
V-shaped channels are usually constructed 6:1 or flamer 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 of0.2 it larger around the periphery
to allow for soil buDdng during seedbed and sod buildup.
preparations
Grade —Either a uniform a gradually increasing grade is preferred to avoid
sedimentation. Wbem 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 Stabftizadon Structure).
1
6303

Drainage —Install subsurface drains in locations with high water tables r
g g o
seepage problems that would inhibit establishment of vegetation in the channel.
Stone channel bottom lining may be heeded where prolonged low flow is an-
'
ticipated.
Outlets —Evaluate the outlets of all channels forcarrying capacity and stability
and protect them from erosion by limiting the exit velocity (Practice 6.41, Out-
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.
2. 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 check 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 tithes, since it is the primary erosion protection for the
channel (Practice 6.11, Permanent Seeding).
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
6.30.4

Practice Standards and Specifications
Appendices
8.02, Vegetation Tables
8.03, Estimating Runoff
8.05, Design of Stable Channels and Diversions
6305

630.6

' Practice Standards and Specifications
6.31
no RR MO
' Definition Channels with erosion -resistant linings of ripmp, paving, or other structural
p material designed for the conveyanand safe disposal of excess water.
' Purpose To convey concentrated surface runoff without erosion.
' Conditions Where This pracdce applies where design flow velocity exceeds 2fr/secsothat achan-
Practiee Applies nel lining is required, but conditions are unsuitable for grass -fined channels.
Specific conditions include:
• Channels where slopes over 5% predominate; continuous or prolonged
flows occur; potential for damage from traffic (people or vehicles) exists;
or soils are erodible and soil properties are not suitable for vegetative
1 protection.
Design velocity exceeds that allowable for a grass -lined channel.
Property value justifies the cost to contain the design runoff in a limited
' space.
Channel setting warrants the use of special paving materials.
Planning Riprap or paving materials are generally employed as channel liners when
Considerations design flow veloci des exceed the tolerance ofgrass awhere ipmfining isin-
appropriate (Practice 6.30. Crass -lined Channels).
Flexible liners are preferred to rigid liners, and ripmp is the flexible liner of
'
choice. Ripmp is preferred primarily on the basis of cost, but it has several ad-
ditional advantages such as:
• Ripmp liners can be designed in withstand most flow velocitiesbychoos-
ing stable stone size.
Ripmp foundation
• adjusts to unstable conditions without failure.
• Failure of a ripmp liner is not as expensive to repair as a rigid finer would
t
be.
• The roughness of ripmp reduces outlet velocity. and tends to reduce flow
volume by allowing infiltration.
'
Rigid finem such as concrete or flagstone can carry large volumes of water
withouteroding. However, they are momexpensive to design and construct, are
less forgiving of foundation conditions, and introduce high energies that must
be controlled and dissipated to avoid damage in channel outlets and receiving
streams.
'
Channels combining grassed side slopes and ripmp or paved bottoms may be
usedwhere velocities are within allowable limits forgrass lining along thechan-
nel sides, but longdumfion flows, seepage, or a high velocity flow would
'
damage vegetation in the channel bottom.

u
Paving blocks and gabions have some of the same characteristics as ripmp and
are often used instead of ripmp to fit certain site conditions.
Channels with smooth liners, such as concrete a flagstone, usually are not
limited by velocity, take up less land area, and can be constructed to fit limited
site conditions. In addition, they provide a more formal appearance and usual-
ly require less mainternance.Exercise care to see that foundation soils am stable
and proper foundation drainage is installed. Appropriate measures are needed
to reduce the exit velocity of the paved channel to protect the receiving chan-
nel or outlet
Where urban drainage arcs exceeds 10 acres it is recommonded that ripmp and
paved channels be designed by an engineer experienced in channel design.
Design Criteria Capacity —Design channels to contain the peak runoff from the 10-yr storm as
a minimum. Where flood damage potential is high, expand the capacity to the
extent of the value or hazard involved.
Table 6.31 a
Guide for Selecting Manning
n Values
Velocity--Computevelocity using Manning's equation with an appropriate n
value for the selected fining. Values for Manning's n am shown in Table 631s.
Uning Material
n
Concrete:
Trowel finish
0.012-0.014
Float finish
0.013-0.017
Gunde
0.016.0.022
Flagstone
0.020-0.025
Paving blocks
0.025
Riprap
Determine Imm Table 8.05f
Gabion
0.025-0.030
Channel gradient— When the Fronde Number is between 0.7 and 1.3. Chun-
nel Rows may become unstable and the designer should consider modifying the
channel slope. Reaches designed for supercritical Flow should be straight unless
special design procedures are used.
FR
g As
Where:
FR = Fronde Number, dimensionless
O = Discharge, tlahec
8 Water surface width, ft
g = 32.2 fdsec2
A Cross -sectional area, ftz
Cross section —The cross section may be triangular, parabolic, a trapezoidal.
Reinforced concrete or gabions may be recrangular (Figure 6.3la).
6.3U

Practice Standards and Specifications
1
1
1
1
1
Vegetated V-shaped Waterway with Stone Center Drain
Trapezoidal Riprap Channel
Figure 6.31 a Consncdon deal al npmp Man no] Gass sections.
Side slope —Base side slopes on the materials and placement methods in Table
631b.
Hydraulic grade line —Ensure am the design water surface in the channel
meets the design flow elevations of tributary channels and diversions. Ensure
that it is below safe flood elevations for homes, roads, or other improvements.
6313

0
I
Table 6.31b
Guide for Selecting Channel
Side Slopes
Maximum
Nonreinfomed Concrete
Slope
Formed Concrete
Height of Iiningl.5 it or leas
vertical
Screeded concrete or flagstone mortared in place
Height of lining Iota than 2 it
1:1
Height of lining more than 2 it
2:1
Slip form concrete
Height of lining leas than 3 It
1.1
Riprap and Paving Blocks
2:1
Depth and width —Proportion the channel depth and width to meet the needs
of drainage, carrying capacity, foundation limitations, and specific site condi-
tions.
Lining thickness —Minimum lining thickness should be as shown in Table
631c.
Filter layer —A sand/gravel fherlayer should be used under the channel lining
to prevent piping and reduce uplift pressure (Appendix 8.05).
Riprap—For the design of ripmp channels see Appendix 8.05.
Concrete —Concrete far linings should be a dense, durable product sufficient.
ly plastic for thorough consolidation but stiff enough to stay in place on side
slopes. As a minimum, use a mix certified as 3,0001b(nch2.
Cutoff --Cutoff walls are needed at the beginning and end o f paved or ripmpped
channel sections to protect against undercutting. Expansionjoints and addition-
al cutoff walls may also be needed
Outlets —Evaluate the capacity and stability of all channel outlets and protect
them from erosion by limiting exit velocity (Practices 6.40, Level Spreader and
6.41, Omler Stabilization Structure).
Table 6.31c
Channel Lining Thickness
Material
Minimum Thickness
Concrete
4 inches
Rack nprep
1.5 x maximum stone
diameter
Flagstone
4 inches including mortar
Construction 1. Clear the foundation area of trees, stumps, roots, loose rock, and other ob-
Specifications lauonablematerial.
2. Excavate the cross section to the lines and grades of the foundation of the
Una as shown on the plans. Bring over -excavated areas to grade by increasing
the thickness of the liner or by backfilling with moist soil compacted to the den-
sity of the Surrounding material.
631.4

Practice Standards and Specifications
1
1
3. Concrete linings:
• Place concrete linings to the thickness shown on the plans and finish them
in a workmanlike manner.
• Take adequate precautions to protect freshly placed concrete from ex-
treme temperatures to ensure proper curing_
• Ensure that subgrade is moist when concrete is poured.
• Install foundation drains or weep holes where needed to protect against
uplift and. piping.
• Provide transverse (contraction)jointstocontrol cracking atapproximate-
ly 20-ft intervals. These joints may be formed by using a 1/2-inch thick
removable template or by sawing to a depth of at least 1 inch.
• Install expansion joints at intervals not to exceed 100 ft.
4. Rock riprap linings: Practice 6.15, Riprap.
S. Place filters, beddings, and foundation drains to line and grade in the man-
ner specified. Place filter and bedding materials immediately after slope
preparation. Spread granular materials in a uniform layer. When more than one
gradation is required, spread the layers so there is minimal mixing. Filter
material should consist of at least 3 inches of material on all sides of the drain
pipe. The drain pipe conduit should be a minimum of 4 inches in diameter. Ac-
ceptable materials include perforated, continuous, closed -joint conduits of clay,
concrete, metal, plastic, or other suitable material (Practice 6.8I. Sub -Surface
Drain).
6. Perform all channel construction to keep erosion and water pollution to a
minimum. Immediately upon completion of the channel, vegetate all disturbed
areas or otherwise protect them against soil erosion. Where channel construc-
tion will take longer than 30 days, stabilize channels by reaches.
Maintenance Inspect chanels at regular intervals as well as after major rains, and make
repairs promptly. Give special attention to the outlet and inlet sections and other
points where concentrated flow enters. Carefully check stability at read cross-
ings and look for indications of piping, scour holes, or bank failures. Make
repairs immediately. Maintain all vegetation adjacent to the channel in a heal-
thy. vigorous condirion to protect the area from erosion and scour during out -
of -bank flow.
References Surface Stabilization
6.11, Permanent Seeding
6.15, Riprap
Runoff Conveyance Measures
6.30, Grass -lined Channels
Outlet Protection
6.41, Outlet Stabilization Structure
631.5

1
Other Related Practices
6.81, Subsurface Drain
Appendices
8.03, Estimating Runoff
8.05, Design of Stable Channels and Diversions
6.31,6
I I
1
I
A
A
1

'
Praeflce Standards and Speeif cations
'
6.41
'
Definition
A structure designed m 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.
t
Conditions Where
Practice Applies
This practice applies where the discharge velocity of a pipe, box culvert, diver.
sim, 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
potential, because they frequently carry flows a 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 nonemsive levels. A ripmp-hned apron is the most com-
monly used practice for this purpose because of its relatively low cost and ease
of installation. The ripmp apron should be extended downstream until stable
conditions arc reached even though this may exceed the length calculated for
design velocity control.
'
Ripmp-stilling basins or plan go 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 asconaeue impact basins or paved outlet structures where site con•
ditions warrant, (Figure 6.41a).
Design Criteria
Design procedures for riprap oudet saucaves are presented in Appendix 8.06.
The criteria for design of ripmp 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 miiwater immediately below the
pipe outlet based on the design discharge plus other contributing flaws. If the
milwater 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 milwater depth is gto= than half the
pipe diameter, it is classed as a maximum tailwater condition. Pipes that out-
letonto broad flat areas with no defined channel may be assumed an have a min.
,
imum tailwater condition unless Sim conditions indicate otherwise (Figure
6.41b).
1 Apron sae —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 m an elevation of 0.5 it above the maximum tailwater depth or
to the top of the bank, whichever is less (Figure 6.41c).
6.41.1

93
Virginia Department of Highways and
. USBR Type IV Basin
Contra Costa County, Calif..
USSR Type VI Baffle Wall Basin
Colorado State University
I St. Anthony Falls Stilling Basin
Figure 6.61a Alternative structures for anergy dssipation at an outlet
(modified from Goldman. Jacason, and Butsatynsky).
Straight Drop Spillway Stilling Basin
T-fitting on CMP Outlet
d
At
T.
w"' \
y�l A
.• F
.t,..
Wr h-
L
6.411

Practice Standards and Specifications
Determine the maximum allowable velocity for the receiving stream, and design
the ripmp apron a reduce flow to this velocity before flow leaves the apron.
Calculate the apron length forvelocity control oruse the length required to meet
stable conditions downstream, whichever is greater.
Grade —Ensure that the apron has zero grade. Them should be no overfall at
the end of the apron: that is, the elevation of the top of the ripmp 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—lbe 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 sec don of riprap.
Materials —Ensure that di mp consists of a well -graded mixture of sane.
forger sane should predominate, with sufficient smaller sizes in fill the voids
between the stones. The diameter of the hugest sane size should be no greater
than 1.5 times the d50 size.
A Minimum
Taitwater < 0.5 do
v Tailwater > 0.5 do
A
do r
v w J r
Figure 6.41 b Stage showing maximum and minimum taihvater condition.
6.41.3

.s.
Pipe Outlet to Flat Area —
No Well-defined Channel
Plan
man
Pipe Outlet to Well-defined
Channel
Y C• � N.. � • i ��•�.
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 cr 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.
C41.4

IPractice Standards and Specifications
'
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 specified 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 ft. If'the damage is
extensive, replace the enure filter cloth.
4. Riprap may be placed by equipment, but take care to avoid damaging the fil-
ter.
' S. 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.
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.
S. Ensure that the apron is properly aligned with the receiving stream and
'
preferably straight throughout its length. If a curve is needed to fit site condi-
tions, 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 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.

References Surface Stabilization
6.10, Temporary Seeding '
6.11, Permanent Seeding
6.15, Riprap
Appendix '
8.06, Design of Riprap Outlet Protection
I
N
I
I
6.41.6
I

'
Practice Standards and Specifications
,-..
}6.5511t }I
Definition
A temporary fabric barrier placed around a drop inlet.
Purpose
Tohelpprevent sediment from emeringsmrmdrains during construcdonopera-
lions. This practice allows early use of the storm drain system.
'
Conditions Where
Wherestomh drain inlets arctobemadeopmattonalbefore permanentstabiliza-
tion of the disturbed drainage area. This method of inlet protection is effective
PraeticeApplies
where the inlet drains a small, nearly level area with slopes generally less than
5% and where shallow sheet flows are expected. The immediate land area
'
around the inlet should be relatively flat (less dmn 1%) and located so that ac-
cumulated sediment can be easily removed.
This practice must not be used near the edge of rill material and must not
divert water over cut or rill slopes.
Design Criteria
Ensure that drainage areas do not exceed l acre per inlet.
Keep the maximum height of fabric above the aat of the drop inlet at 1.5 it.
'
'Ibis height allows a shallow temporary desilting pool to form behind the fabric
but limits the pressure against the fabric if overtopping occurs. The selected
heightof the tap of the barrier should allow overflow into the drop inlet and na
'
let overflow bypass the inlet to unprotected Iowa areas.
For fabric barriers, use stakes with a minimum length of 3 tL and space them a
'
maximum of 3 ft apart, and securely drive them into the ground.
Drive the stakes close to the drop inlet so thatoverllow will fall directly into the
stnuture and not on unprotated soil.
'
To attach the fabric, make a frame around the stakes a maximum of 1.5 ftabove
the top of the drop inlet. This will serve as a stable crest for overflow during
'
rainfall.
Ensure that both fabric and supporting stakes are sufficiently strong to hold a
'
1.5 0 head of water without failure (Figure 6.51a).
Improved performance and sediment storage volume can be obtained by ex-
cavating this seen (Practice 6.50, Excavated Drop Inlet Protection).
'
Construction
1. As synthetic fabric, use a pervious sheet of nylon, polyester, or ethylene
Specifications
ynontra strength(50 lb/l inch minimum)—thatcontains ultraviolet myin-
1
hibitorsand stabilizers. Fabric should be sufficiently porous to provide adequate
drainage of the temporary sediment pool. Burlap may be used for short-term ap•
pGratlons. It must be replaced every 60 days.
2. Cut fabric from a continuous roll to eliminate joints.
'
651.1

2 x 4"wood frame
Drop inlet
with grate
T
3'
min
I
Frame
Figure 5.51a Installation of fabric and supporting frame for Inlet protection.
3. For stakes, use 2 x 4-inch wood (preferred) or equivalent metal with a min-
imum length of 3 ft.
4. Spacesmkesevenly around the perimeterof the inleta maximum of 3 ftapart.
and securely drive them into the ground, approximately 18 inches deep.
S. To provide needed stability to the insmlladon, frame with 2 x 4-itch wood
strips around the crest of the overflow area at a maximum of 1.5 ft above the
drop inlet crest.
6. Place the bottom 12 inches of the fabric in a trench and backfill the trench
with at least 4 inches of crashed stone or 12 inches of compacted soil.
7. Fasten fabric secmely to the stakes and frame. Joints must be overlapped to
the next stake.
8. The top of the frame and fabric must be well below the ground elevation
dawnslope from the drop inlet to keep nmofT from bypassing the inlet It may
be necessary to buitd a temporary dike on fie do" slope side of the structure
6512

Practice Standards and Specifications
'
to prevent bypass flow. Material from within the sediment pool may be used for
diking.
Maintenance Inspect the fabric barrier after each rain and make repairs as needed.
1
Remove sediment from the pool area as necessary to provide adequate storage
volume for the next rain. Take care not to damage or undercut the fabric during
sediment removal.
When the contributing drainage area has been adequately stabilized, remove all
materials and any unstable sediment and dispose of them properly. Bring the
disturbed area to the grade of the drop inlet and smooth and compact it. Ap-
propriately stabilize all bare areas around the inlet_
References Inlet Protection
'
6.50, Excavated Drop Inlet Protection (Temporary)
6.52, Block and Gravel Inlet Protection (Temporary)
1
1
1
'
6.513

0
1
I

Practice Standards and Specifications
7
. SEDIMENT FENCE (SILT FENCE)
Definition A temporary sediment barrier consisting of filter fabric buried at the bottom,
stretched, and supported by posts.
Purpose To retain sediment from small disturbed areas by reducing the velocity of sheet
flows to allow sediment deposition.
Conditions Where Below small disturbed areas Iess than 114 acre per 100 ft of fence.
Practice Applies
Where runoff can be stored behind the sediment fence without damaging the
fence or the submerged area behind the fence.
Do not install sediment fences across streams, ditches, or waterways.
Planning A sediment fence is a permeable barrier that should be planned as a system to
Considerations retain sediment on the construction site. The fence retains sediment primarily
by retarding flow and promoting deposition. In operation, generally the fence
becomes clogged with fine particles, which reduce flow rate. This causes a pond
to develop more quickly behind the fence. The designer should anticipate pond-
ing and provide sufficient storage areas and overflow outlets to prevent flows
from overtopping the fence. S ince sediment fences are not designed to withstand
high heads, locate them so that only shallow pools can form. Tie the ends of a
sediment fence into the landscape to prevent flow around the end of the fence
before the pool reaches design level. Provide stabilized outlets to protect the
fence system and release stormflows that exceed the design storm.
Deposition occurs as the storage pool forms behind the fence. The designer can
direct flows to specified deposition areas through appropriate positioning of the
fence or by providing an excavated area behind the fence. Plan deposition areas
at accessible points to promote routine cleartout and maintenance. Show deposi-
tion areas in the erosion and sedimentation control plan. A sediment fence acts
as a diversion if placed slightly off the contour. This may be used by the design-
er to control shallow, uniform flows from small disturbed areas and to deliver
sediment -laden water to deposition areas.
Sediment fences serve no function along ridges or near drainage divides where
there is little movement of water. Confining or diverting runoff unnecessarily
with a sediment fence may create erosion and sedimentation problems that
would not otherwise occur.
Design Criteria Ensure that the drainage area is no greater than 1/4 acre per 100 ft of fence.
Mane the fence stable for the 10-yr peak storm runoff.
Where all runoff is to be stored behind the fence, ensure that the maximum slope
length behind a sediment fence does not exceed the specifications shown in
Table 6.62a.
6.62.1

I
Ensure that the depth of impounded water does not exceed 1.5 ft a any point
along the fence.
If nonerosive outlets are provided, slope length may be increased beyond than
shown in Table 6.62a, but runoff from the area should be determined and by-
pass capacity and erosion potential along the fence must be checked. The
velocity of the flow at the outlet or along the fence should be in keeping with
Table 8.05d, Appendu8.05.
Table 6.620
Maximum Slope Length and
Slops
Slope Length (}t)
Slope for which Sediment
<2%
100
Fence is Applicable
2to 5%
75
5 to 10%
50
10 to 20%
25
>20 %
is
Provide ariprsp splash pad crochet outletprotection device forany pointwhere
flow mayovermp the sediment fence, such as natural depressions or swales. En-
sure that the maximum height of the fence at a protected, reinforced nutlet does
not exceed I ft and that support past spacing does not exceed 4 fl _
The design life of a synthetic sediment fence should be 6 months. Burlap is only
acceptable for periods up to 60 days.
Construction MATERIALS
Specifications 1. Use a synthetic filter fabric or a pervious sheet of polypropylene, nylon,
polyester, or polyethylene yam, which is certified by the manufacturer or sup-
plier as conforming to the requirements shown in Table 6.62b.
Table 6.62b
Specifications For
Sediment Fence Fabric
Synthetic filter fabric should contain ultraviolet my inhibitors and stabilizers to
provide a minimum of 6 months of expected usable construction life at a
temperature range of 0 to l20° F.
2. Emmethatposmfo wdimentfencesareeither4-inchdiamemrpine,2-inch
diamewroak, or 1.331bflinem ft steel with a minimum lengthof 4 fL Make sure
that steel posts have projections to facilitate fastening the fabric.
3. For reinforcement of standard strength fiber fabric, use wire fence with a
minimum 14 gauge and a maximum mesh spacing of 6 inches.
Physical Property
Requirements
Filtering Efficiency
65%(min)
Tensile Strength at
Standard Strength-
20%(max.) Elongation
301Min in (min)
Extra Strength -
SO Win in (min)
Slurry Flow Rate
0.3 gaUsq Itlmin (min)
6.62.2

' Practice Standards and Specifications
CONSTRUCTION
1. Construct the sediment barrier of standard strength or extra strength synthetic
filter fabrics.
' 2. Ensure that the height of the sediment fence does not exceed 18 inches above
the ground surface. (Higher fences may impound volumes of water sufficient to
' cause failure of the structure.)
3. Construct the filter fabric from a continuous roll cut to the length of the bar-
rier to avoid joints. When joints are necessary, securely fasten the filter cloth
only at a support post with overlap to the next post.
4. Support standard strength filter fabric by wire mesh fastened securely to the
upslope side of the posts using heavy duty wire staples at least I inch long, or
tie wires. Extend the wire mesh support to the bottom of the trench.
S. When a wire mesh support fence is used, space posts a maximum of 8 ft apart.
Support posts should be driven securely into the ground to a minimum of 18 in-
ches.
' 6. Extra strength filter fabric with 6-ft post spacing does not require wire mesh
support fence. Staple or wire the filter fabric directly to posts.
7. Excavate a trench approximately 4 inches wide and 8 inches deep along the
proposed line of posts and upslope from the barrier (Figure 6.62a).
1
8. Baceill the trench with compacted soil or gravel placed over the filter fabric.
9. Do not attach filter fabric to existing trees.
Maintenance Inspect sediment fences at least once a week and after each rainfall. Make any
required repairs immediately.
Should the fabric of a sediment fence collapse, tear, decompose or become in-
effective, replace it promptly. Replace burlap every 60 days.
'
Remove sediment deposits as necessary to provide adequate storage volume for
the next rain and to reduce pressure on the fence. Take care to avoid undermin-
ing the fence during cleanout.
Remove all fencing materials and unstable sediment deposits and bring the area
to grade and stabilize it after the contributing drainage area has been properly
'
stabilized.
u
1 6.63.3

0 �
Figure 6.62a Installadondenilcl a sediment '
fence.
Ill1lit—� I
11."
III I I �Tf�la 11' _IIII1, '
Compacted fill
Backfill min B"
thick layer of gravel Filter fabric
�— 14" _
III—
.
Extension of fabric and wire '
into the trench
Filter fabric --->~ V 1)
III A =i;' `,.,•' t If e
1111="4„Ili` �1siSlt 1
.r
References R iefControl Measures
6.20, Tcmporvy Diversions
Owlet Protection
6.41, Outlet StabiBration Sncosre
Sediment Traps and Barriers
6.60, Temporary Sediment Trap
6.61, Sediment Basin
Appendix
8.03, Estimating Runoff
6.62.4

Practice Standards and Specifications
6.83
Definition Small temporary stone dams constructed across a dralnageway.
Purpose To reduce erosion in a drainage channel by restricting the velocity of (low in
the channel.
Conditions Where Thispractice may be used as a temporary or emergency measure to limiterosion
Practice Applies by reducing flow in small open channels. Limit drainage areas in 2 arres a less.
Do not use check dams in live streams.
Check dams may be used m:
• reduce flow in small temporary channels that are degrading, but, where
permanent stabilization is impractical due to their short period of useful-
ness;
• reduce flow in small eroding channels where construction delays or
weather conditions prevent timely installation of nonerosive liners.
Planning Check dams am an expedient way In reduce gullying in the bottom of channels
Considerations that will be filled or stabilized m a later dam. It is usually better to line the than•
nel or divert the flow to stabilize the channel than to install check dams.
However, under circumstances where this is not feasible, check dams may be
helpful.
Check dams installed in grass -lined channels may kill the vegetative fining if
submergence after rains is too long and/or silting is excessive. All stone and
riprap must be removed if mowing is planned as pan of vegetative maintenance,
Consider the alternative of protecting the channel bottom with materials such
as riprap, concrete• fiberglass mat, or other protective linings in combination
with gross before selecting check dams.
Design Criteria The following criteria should be used when designing a check dam:
• Ensure that the drainage area above the check dam does not exceed 2
acres.
• Keep the maximum height at 2 It at the center of the dam.
• Keep the center of the check dam at least 9 inches lower than the outer
edges a natural ground elevation.
Keep the side slopes of the dam at 2:1 or flamer.
• Ensure that the maximum spacing between dams places the we of the
upstream data at the same elevation as the mp of the downstream dam
(Figure 6.83a).
• Stabilize overflow areas along the channel to resist erosion caused by
check dams.
6.83.1

L = The distance such that points
A and B are of equal elevation
.aea
Figure 6.83a Space check dams In a channel so that the=at of downstream dam is at elevation of me We of upstream cam.
Use 2 to 15-inch stone (N.C. Department of Transportation class A or
class B erosion control stone).
Key the stone into the ditch banks and extend it beyond the abutments a
minimum of 18 inches to avoid washouts from overflow around the dam.
Construction 1. Placc stone to the lines and dimensions Shown in the plan on a filter fabric
Specifications foundation.
2. Keep the center stone section in least 9 inches below natural ground level
where the dam abuts the channel banks.
3. Extend stone at least 1.5 ft beyond the ditch banks (Figure 6.83b) to keep
overflow water from undercutting the dam as it re-enters the channel.
4. Set sparing between dams m assure thin the elevation at the top of the lower
dam is the same as the we elevation of the upper dam.
S. Protect the channeldownsbeam from the lowest check dam, considering that
water will flow over and crowd the dam (Practice 6.41, Outlet Stabilization
Structure),
6. Make sure that the channel reach above the most upstream dam is stable.
7. Ensure that channel appurtenances, such as culvert entrances below check
dams, are not subject to damage or blockage from displaced stones.
Maintenance Inspect check dams and channels for damage after each runoff evcne
Anticipate submergence and deposition above the check dam and erosion from
high flows around the edges of the dam. Correct all damage immediately. If sig-
nificant erosion occurs between dams, install a protective ripmp liner in that
portion of the channel (Practice 6.31, Fiprap-lined and Paved Channels).
Remove sediment accumulated behind the dams as needed to prevent damage
to channel vegetation. allow the channel to drain through the stone check dam,
and prevent large flows from carrying sediment over the dam. Add stones to
dams as needed to maintain design heighlerid crnss section.
6.83.2

Practice Standards and Specifications
Figure 8.83b Slone check Cam —Slone should be ptaced ever the channel banks to keep water from cutting around the dam.
References Runoff Conveyance Mearures
630, Grass -lined Channels
6.31, Riprall lined and Paved Channels
Owlet Protection
6.41. Outlet Stabilization Saacture
North Carolina Department of Tran.rportation
Standard Specifications for Roads and So-uctures
6.833

0
6.83.4

P
PhosphCSate AURORA tl�L 1AR? ---
PC6 PHOSPHATE COMPANY INC.
P.O. BOX 0. AURORA, NC US.A.2)AIk
December 20, 2000
Mr. Charles Gardner, Director
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Dear Mr. Gardner:
As required by our Mining Pe No. 7- nclosed are the descriptions of reclamation
activities for the last half of 2000, an the reclamation plans for the first half of 2001.
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,
ffJe ey :LA
ess
Senior Environmental Scientist
JCF:Pwo
Attachments
PC; Floyd Williams- DLR, WaRG
(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
(w/ attach.)
12-04-002-02
(w/attach.)
00-14-000
(w/o attach.)

PCS Phosphate - Mine Site Reclamation
Actual Reclamation for the Second Half of 2000
(July 2000 — December 2000)
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.
BI
The ditch cleaning in this area was continued to facilitate drying and consolidation.
Approximately 175 acres were chopped to cut down vegetation and disk harrowed. Of
these acres, 85 acres were sprayed for weed control and planted in a cover crop. The
cover crop that was planted consisted of winter rye and barley with ladino clover, sweet
clover, and alfalfa. Tree growth monitoring continued for comparison with the tree
growth in the R-1 area.
The ditch cleaning in this area was also continued to facilitate drying and consolidation.
Approximately 335 acres were chopped to cut down vegetation and disk harrowed. Of
these acres, 250 acres were sprayed for weed control and planted in a cover crop. The
cover crop that was planted consisted of winter rye and barley with ladino clover, sweet
clover, and alfalfa. Water levels were controlled using an outlet valve that discharges
into the 007 outfall canal. The ponded areas in the south end of R-3 are being used for
mine water clarification ponds. Water quality continued to be monitored, and this area
continued to dry and consolidate.

Actual Reclamation for the Second Half of 2000
(July 2000 — December 2000)
CONTINUED
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. Drainage
ditches were established to facilitate drying and consolidation over the majority of the
area. Approximately 74 acres were chopped to cut down vegetation and disk harrowed.
R-5
Sand tailings were placed along the northern edge of this area The process water from
the sand placement was collected in the R-5 area and returned to the process water
system Water quality monitoring cominued as the water was transferred to the process
water system. This area continued to dry and consolidate.
R-6
Sand tailings water was discharged into this area during this period. Dredge spoilwas
placed in this area to cap the stored blend. Water from the dredge spoil was returned to
the dredge system
Blend was discharged into this area during this period. The sand tailings dikes mound the
perimeter of this area were started.
Whitehurst Creek
Continued monitoring of vegetation growth and water levels and quality were done in
this area
Charles Tract
Continued monitoring of tree growth and water levels were done in Clay Ponds 3, 4A,
5A, and 5B.

'Y
PCS�\\` PlImphaatKS AU
O
NATECOMPANY,NRnRA / aFc12ZpOp
P.O. BOX Q. AURORA, NO USA. 9808
December 8, 2000
Mr. Tracy Davis
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of ENR
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687
Dear Mr. Davis:
In a letter from the DLR dated November 5, 1992 approving of dike reclassifications, an
inspection of the dike spillways is required to he 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 T. L. Baker reporting on the spillway inspection for 2000.
If you have any questions please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
/n
J. . Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
JCF:P v
Enclosures
PC: Floyd Williams, DLR - WaRO (w/encl.)
T. L. Baker (W/O encl.)
R. M. Thomas (w/o encl.)
D. J. Millman (w/o encl.)
R. K. Jenner (w/encl.)
M. L. Ashy (w/encl.)
12-04-002-06 (w/encl.)
00-14-000 (w/o encl.)

w ,

.A I
Phosphe eV memo
Date December 5, 2000
To T. L. Baker Location
From R. M. ThomasLocation
Subject Clay Pond Inspection
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 November 21 & 22,
2000.
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
Good
Outlet Pipe, Headwall, Splash Pad,
And Stilling Basin & Baffle
Debris in Flowway
Riprap in Outlet Channel
If you have any questions, please call.
All clear except Clay Pond 3
south spillway outlet. Debris should be removed.
Good
R. M. Thomas, Senior Maintenance Engineer

Re: PCs Phosphate aim Visit m 4130
Subject: Re: PCS Phosphate Site Visit on 4/30
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 09:02:34.0400
From: [e-mail]
To: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail]
Tracy:
Thank you for sending the digital pictures of the tour last Monday. The
only caption error I saw was the Charles Tract spillway pictures. The
spillway is at the No. 2 clay pond, not Nc.l.
Thanks again for arranging to get the ULR staff together to come and meet
and tour.
Jeff Furness
1 or 1
5/3/2001 9:29AM

PCs Phosphate She Visit on4V30
Subject: PCS Phosphate Site Visit on 4130
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 13:56:04 -0400
From: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Charles Gardner <[e-mail]>,
Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>, Jim Simons <[e-mail]>,
Mell Nevils <[e-mail]>, Judy Weiner Qudy. [e-mail]>,
Chris Hite <[e-mail]>, Jeff Furness [e-mail]>
Here are digital pictures (with captions I added) that I took during our
site visit on 4/30/2001. Let me know if you see any corrections that
need to be made to the captions. I will place a color printout of theme
pictures in our mine files for future reference.
Again, thanks Jeff for arranging this informative meeting and site
visit... your group's hospitality and technical expertise/professionalism
were most impressive and appreciated] Thanks. Tracy
Name: PCSPhosphate.4.30.Ol.doc
�PCSPhosphate.4.30.Ol.doc : Microsoft Ward Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
Tracy E. Davis, P.E. Q7acy.Davis(ri)ncmail.nct>
State Mining Specialist
Division of Imd Resources
NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources

14W
�)
f
..,M
DIUSION of LAND RESOURCES VISIT ro PCS PHOSPHATE 04-30-01
AGENDA
10:00 son Arrival, coffee and donuts Charles Gardner
Tracy Davis
Jim Simons
Floyd Williams
10: 10 am Introduction and Overview Tex Gilmore
Ujk-
10:20 am Miaing Activity Update Keith Muron fatm
10:50 am Reclamation Activity Update Rob Jenner 1 I:10 am Question and Answer �' G'94
11:30 am Lunch (with continued discussions)
12:30 pm Mine Tour (Block 26, NCPC, R-Areas and Charles Tract)
3:30 pm Return to Mine Office for wrap up session and soft drinks
Others attending from PCS Phosphate:
Ross Smith
Terry Baker
Jeff Furness

April 30, 2001 Site Visit and Meeting with PCS Phosphate (#07-01)
Attending: Charles Gardner, Jim Simons, Tracy Davis, Floyd Williams = DIR;
Terry Baker, Jeff Furness, Ross Smith, Tex Gilmore, Keith Muron, Rob Jenner =

'w
4

innd dice c n h mwm 1) li ' ni+ f :.ldim /Arca Nos 6 aiid 7

Another view of 6u=, sand dike constn.ctlon httwcen Reclaim Areas No 6 & 7

(with Charles Gardner for scale)

Overburden spreader in action at process water lake on main mine site (being filled
with overburden from pre -strip activities on the NCPC Tract by the bucket wheel
excavators and conveyor systems)

Charles Tract — Pond No. 5.A.
Charles Tract — Pond No. 5.A.

.:, ��-
.. ,�,.,�._. o
r:x�
��-
. �:� —.
�4 , , �,:
' � 7e a ♦ " �

_� .:
- �=;,
_ _ �,�.,
_ -_,,.:
H
�.a
��
11 ��rw�-` .•.
.•�•"61ifr! �. �
4 "b° ,

a
'
"
�•
.
�
�M t �
�111�•p � � _.
.
)
�
/�
�
, >.
�
��a*'�
TA
�
..
qA

Re: PCs ¢'ymphete site visit
Subject: Re: PCS Phosphate Site Visit
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:18:44 -0400
From: Tracy Davis <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Charles Gardner <[e-mail]>
He wanted to go, but Melt had already recruited him to facilitate a meeting on turbidity on Monday. Is it
ok with you that you, me and Jim meet at the LQS van at 6:45-7:00 am on Monday, 4/30? We should
pick up Floyd at his office around 9:00 am so we can get to PCS by 10:00 am. Thanks. Tracy
Charles Gardner wrote:
Tracy, good idea for Chris to go.
Tracy Davis wrote:
Jeff - It appears that the following Division of Land Resources staff will be attending the meeting on
4/30 at 10:00 am at your mine office: Charles Gardner, Jim Simons, Tracy Davis and Floyd
Williams. Let me know if you need anything else. See you on Monday. Tracy
Tracy Davis wrote:
Charles, I saw Jeff Furness this morning and he asked for a head count for our PCS visit on
Monday, April 30. So far, the attendees are: Charles, Jim S., Tracy, and Floyd (Mail has a
meeting). Can I invite Chris to go, as he has never been to PCS?
Jeff and I set the meeting for 10:00 am in the usual location at PCS. Therefore, we will need to
leave the Archdale parking deck around 6:45 am - 7:00 am to meet Floyd at his office around 9:15
am and then travel to PCS. We will take the LQS van. Please Jet me know if Chris can come
along, so l can give Jeff a firm head count by the end of the week. Thanks. Tracy
Charles Gardner wrote:
I have it on my caledar. Thanks.
Tracy Davis wrote:
> Charles - As you will recall, we have been holding Monday, 4/30 open for
> the above site visit. Previously, the Putnam Mine case had been
> rescheduled to this week, but now it has been canceled. Are you still
> planning on attending this meeting with Floyd and I? What about you,
> Mell and Jim? I would like to confirm this with Jeff Furness early next
> week.
> P. S. I have a meeting with the Division of Radiation Protection and PCS
> on Wednesday, 4/25, at DRP's office in Raleigh to discuss the permanent
1 of 2 4/27/20013:52 PM

10

Re: PCs A mphate Site Viet
> disposal of some slightly radioactive waste at the mine site (most
> likely in the reclamation of one of the gypsum piles). If any of you
> would like to attend, please let me know. Otherwise, I will keep you
> posted.
> Thanks. Tracy
Tracy E. Davis, P.E. <Tracy DavisOncmail net>
State Mining Specialist
Division of Land Resources
NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
2 of2 427/2001 3:52 PM

0

lot Phosphates AURORA
L/ ',i- _ PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY. INC.
P.O. SOX IS, AURORA NC U.S.A. WM
CERTIFIED MAIL
June 28, 2001
Mr. Charles Gardner, Director 0 ZO pl
Division of Land Resources -g.Y•
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Dear Mr. Gardner:
As required by our Mining Permit No. 7-1, enclosed are the descriptions of reclamation
activities for the first half of 2001, and the reclamation plans for the last half of 2001.
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,
V 1MAWt
Jeffrey C. Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
JCF:"0
Attachments
PC: Floyd Williams -DLR,. WaRD
(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. Tanner
(w/ attach.)
I. K. Gilmore / J. Schmid
(w/ attach.)
T. L. Baker
(w/ attach.)
12-04-002-02
(w/ attach.)
00-14-000
(w/o attach.)

PCS Phosphate - Mine Site Reclamation
Actual Reclamation for the First Half of 2001
(January 2001 — June 2001)
Mi
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
Tree planting in the R-2 area continued in the upland portions of the site. Approximately
10 acres of the larger sapling trees were planted. These trees included five to seven foot
tall Sycamore, Green Ash, Nuttall Oak, and Cottonwood trees. Approximately five acres
of seedlings were planted. These included bareroot seedlings and seedlings started in root
pruning containers. The seedling species consisted of Green Ash and Sycamore. Some
preparation work was done for tree planting anticipated late in the year. Cover crop
continued to mature and tree growth monitoring continued for comparison with the tree
growth in the R-1 area.
R-33
Tree planting in the R-3 area consisted of planting the large sapling trees as well as some
seedlings. The sapling trees were the same size and species as those planted in R-2 and
covered approximately 11 acres. The seedlings planted included Eastern Red Cedar and
Longleaf Pines along the R-1/R-3 separation dike, and a 3 acre plot of various select
hardwood species to test viability. The cover crop continues to mature in preparation for
tree planting.
Water levels were controlled using an outlet valve that discharges into the 007
outfall canal. The ponded areas in the south end of R-3 are being used for mine water

clarification ponds. Water quality continued to be monitored, and this area continued to
dry and consolidate.
A four acre Wetland Research Site was established in the center of the R-3 area.
This site is being developed in cooperation with Dr. Broome of N.C. State University and
is intended to provide information on species for wetland restoration on the mine -site
reclamation areas.
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. Drainage
ditches have been established to facilitate drying and consolidation over the majority of the
area in anticipation of bucketwheel spoil being placed over the area.
R-5
Bucketwheel spoil was placed over some of the northern sections of R-5. This area
continued to dry and consolidate.
R-6
Sand tailings water from the R-7 blend containment dike construction was discharged into
this area during this period. Preparations are being made to drain the process water to
the process water system upon completion of the R-7 dike construction that is adjacent to
R-6.
R-7
Blend was discharged into this area during this period. The sand tailings dikes around the
perimeter of this area continued between R-6 and R-7.
Whitehurst Cheek
Tree planting was completed in the Whitehurst Creek uplands early in the year. Eastern
Red Cedar and Longleaf Pines were planted to supplement the previously planted
hardwood trees. Continued monitoring of vegetation growth and water levels and quality
was done in this area.
Charles Tract
Design work on the outfall from Clay pond 5A was done. This outfall will allow
the application for release of Clay Ponds 3, 4A and 5A. Clay Pond 5A was chopped and
stomped in preparation for weed control and an anticipated late 2001 tree planting.
Continued monitoring of tree growth and water levels were done in Clay Ponds 3,
4A, 5A, and 5B.
Gypsum Stack No, 2
Removal of gypsum and shaping of the stack was done during this period.
Preparation work is being done to cap this stack and remove it from the cooling pond
stormwater catchment area.

North Carolina
"Department of Environment and Natural Resources �ppe�e
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary NCDENR
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist - Division of Land Resources
Faxn
To:
Of:
Fax:
Pages: including cnversheet
Date: �(L1 25)0
Comments: 7
wiy5mr0. 6 0 —/— Q l
FROM:
Land Quality Section
Telephone: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone] or [phone]
Land Quality Section [phone] Fax [phone] Geological survey Section [phone] Fax [phone]
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Division of Land Resources [phone] Fax; (919) 715-880I ,
AN EOLIAL OPPORTLNITY \ AFFIRMATIVE,\CTION EMPLOYER- 50%RECYCLED/ 10%POST CONSUMER PAPER

TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT
�r
TIME 04/10/2001 08:00
NAME GARDNER
FAX [phone]
TEL [phone]
DATE,TIME
04/10 07:59
FAX NO./NAME
82523224444
DURATION
00:00:38
PAGE(S)
82
RESULT
OK
MODE
STANDARD
ECM

PPCs
Phosphate Defluorinated (DFP) Plant
Subject: PCS Phosphate Defluorinated (DFP) Plant
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 19:49:42 -0400
From: Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>
To: "Tracy E. Davis, P.E." <Tracy. Davis@ncmail. net>
CC: Floyd,[e-mail]
Tracy,
Yesterday ( 4-04-01) I visited PCS Phosphate and met with Jeff
Furness and Don Maneval with PCS
Phosphate to go over the erosion and sedimentation control plan for the
proposed Defluorinated
Phosphate Plant . The site is located on the left side of the main
access road between the
Calciners and the Main Office. Pete Chiles P.E. with Robert M. Chiles,
P.E. was also at the
meeting. The erosion and sedimentation control plan is adequate for this
project and Jeff Furness
stated that the approval of the mine modification request is all they
need to start construction.
They just received an Air Quality Permit for the plant. I did not see
any problems with the
modification request.
1 of 1 4/4/2001 7:59 PM

PCs
Phvsphae AURORA
PC$ PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC U.S.A. 278M
VIA OVIERNIGI-i'r MAIL
Federal Express
April 2, 2001
Mr. Tracy Davis
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
Archdale Bldg., 5`' Floor
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Dear Mr. Davis:
PCS has received an operating permit from the N. C. Division of Air Quality to construct a
Defluorinated Phosphate (DFP) plant within the Aurora plant site. The currently grass -covered
area is within the boundaries of Mine Permit 7-1, and is 21.31 acres in size. Plantsite
construction is ready to begin at any time.
PCS Phosphate would like to modify Mine Permit 7-1 by incorporating the enclosed Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan for DFP Plant Site, dated March 29, 2001, into the permit. The plan
includes a bound narrative and a set of 2 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 immediately at [phone].
incere�lty
l�,1 AO IV is
J k
C. Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
Enclosures
PC: Floyd Williams - DLR, WaRO
w/enclosures
W. T. Cooper, Jr.
w/o enclosures
T. L. Baker
w/o enclosures
D. V. Maneval
w/2 enclosures
W. A. Schimming
w/o enclosures
S. J. Mayo
w/o enclosures
D. J. Franklin
w/enclosures
R. M. Chiles
w/o enclosures
12-04-001-55
w/enclosures
00-14-000
w/o enclosures

rFT�D
APR 0 4 1001
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
MOTO
"DFP PLANT SITE"
AT
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
AURORA, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
29 MARCH 2O01
RMC NO: 2000040

lAs2
M90
.0

Narrative
Project Description
Site Description
Scope of the Work
Planned Erosion And Sedimentation Control Practices
�cE1uFD
APg U 41aP1
3
3
4
E
Construction Specifications 5
Design Criteria 5
Maintenance Requirements 6-7
Responsible Party 8
Vicinity Map 9
Attachments
NCDENR Sedimentation and Erosion Control Standards
6.06 Temporary Gravel Construction Entrance
6.10 Temporary Seeding
6.15 Rip Rap
6.11 Permanent Seeding
6.30 Grass -lined Channels
6.31 Riprap-lined Channels
6.41 Outlet Stabilization Structure
6.50 Temporary Excavated Drop Inlet
6,62 Sediment Fence
Robert M. Chiles, P.E. prepared drawings for the DFP Plant Site at PCS Phosphate;
Drainage and Grading Plan, Sheet 1 of 2
Sedimentation and Control Measures, Sheet 2 of 2

1
1
NARRATIVE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The purpose of the project is to improve the existing drainage and provide sedimentation
and erosion control measures at the proposed Defluorinated Phosphate Plant.(DFP)site
within the PCS Phosphate Company, Inc., Aurora Plant Site. The site is located in
Richlands Township, Beaufort County, North Carolina, and in the north west quadrant of
the plant site.
A system of ditches comprise the existing drainage and sedimentation control measures.
These ditches are connected by culverts and discharge into the existing permitted
NPDES drain to the Pamlico River. The proposed system will collect drainage from the
proposed DFP facility through a system of swaies that are connected with culverts and
discharge to a proposed sump and pump system that will discharge to the existing "Mill
Pond" located west-northwest of the site. Areas currently served by the existing
drainage will, proposedly, drain to a new swale that will collect drainage and discharge
to the previously permitted outlet.
The proposed improvements include the excavation of a series of drainage swaies, a
pump sump, regrading the drainage ditch south of the site on the north side of the mill
road, removal of the existing pump sump, relocation of the discharge piping,
construction of a new manufacturing facility, and road and rail services to this facility.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed DFP Site is currently a grassed field with a gravel roadway running north
to south along the western edge and a ramp wand gravel roadway on the eastern edge.
The site is bordered on the south by the existing rock silos, to the west by the Mill Pond
and the Dorr-Oliver Thickeners, to the north by the Environmental Services building and
the Technical Services Office Building, and to the west by the western north south plant
road. The site is relatively flat and is currently sloped so that runoff is directed to the
ditches along the western roadway and the Environmental Service Building Driveway
ditch. Existing surfaces are grass covered with gravel roadways also existing.
PCs Phosphate Company, Inc. y 3— w — _ 2000040SEC
1

' SCOPE OF THE WORK
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. Surcharge Warehouse site with clean shell rejects. Install silt fence at perimeter.
3. Strip topsoil from piling areas, stockpile topsoil as shown for regrading. Drive pilings.
Pile pits are to be dewatered to a silt fence basin shown on the erosion and
sedimentation control plan. De -watering the pile pits to be accomplished with electric
submersible pumps. The pumps are to be placed in a perforated plastic or steel drum
' and the drum are to be places in an open excavation equal to twice the drum diameter
and the annulus between the drum and excavation filled with clean 57 stone.
' 4. Construct new pump sump. Install piping, make ready for service.
5. Teardown surcharge and utilize surcharge material for roadway and rail bed backfill.
Excess material to be returned to the mill rejects stockpile.
6. Excavate new drainage swales, install interconnecting pipe, drop inlets, piping, rock
dams, outlet stabilization, construct roadways and rail beds. Demolish existing pump
sump, put new pump sump in service.
7. Remove existing drainage piping and backfill existing ditches to project grade.
' 8. Grade site, backfilling with stripped topsoil as required, to provide for proposed building
pads, overhead conveyor foundations, and other improvements to preserve sheet flow
drainage to roadside ditches.
1
9. Stabilize channel side slopes with temporary and/or permanent vegetative cover.
10. Remove the existing culverts located in the south east corner that discharge to the east
and south.
11. Regrade, as needed, the areas immediately surrounding the new excavations and
cleaned ditches so that runoff can sheet flow into them.
12. Stabilize ditch side slopes with permanent vegetative cover.
References: 1. Grading and Drainage Plan (Sheet 1 of 2)
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E. Drawing # 2000040-1
2. Erosion and Sedimentation Measures (Sheet 2 of 2)
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E. Drawing # 2000040-2
PCs Phosphate Company, Inc. 4 2000040SEC

' PLANNED EROS[Qbl AND SEDIMENTATION CONT OL PRACTICES
1. Excavated side slopes shall be 3H:1 V or flatter.
' 2. Rip rap outlet protection shall be installed at outlets of culverts connecting the drainage
swales.
' 3. Riprap-lined channels as shown and where grade exceeds 5%.
4. Rock check dams installed as shown and as required in 6.83.
5. Temporary Excavated drop inlet protection at drop inlets along proposed railway.
6. Side slopes shall be stabilized using permanent vegetative cover.
' CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
' 1. New culverts shall be installed in accordance with the Geotechnical report for the site
and actual site plans by Mustang Engineering.
2. Culverts shall be dimensioned as indicated in the Mustang Engineering plans and
details.
' 3. Install new culverts at elevations and grade indicated in the plans and details.
4. Install riprap-line channels as shown.
5. Install DOT Class II rip rap erosion protection at culvert outlets.
6. Permanent vegetative cover shall meet NCDENR Permanent Seeding standard 6.11.
1 DESIGN CRITERIA
' The site's proposed erosion and sedimentation control measures 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 and a disturbed area of 21.31+1-
acres.
I
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc, 5 2000040SEC

I
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
The Owner shall maintain a file copy of the approved plans and specifications 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 ail 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, 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.
Mom.
The side -slopes, embankment, open grassed areas, shall be mowed as required to
' maintain a maximum height of six inches during the main growing season and at least 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 Section
5.11 Permanent Seeding of the approved Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan.
Inspections.
The Owner shall inspect the swales for sediment buildup 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, and bare areas.
Quarterly in addition to the monthly requirements; for the condition of all catch basins,
piping, and rip -rap.
' Semi-annually in addition to the quarterly requirements-
-to ensure that the swales are functioning in the manner originally intended,
-to determine the rate of sediment accumulation
-for any other land disturbing activities which have occurred inside the project limits
that will increase the amount of runoff directed to the drainage system.
Additional inspections shall be conducted during wet weather, or times of extreme weather
P 9
to determine if the channelized drainage is functioning properly.
Conclusion
' Inspection and project erosion and sedimentation control shall be considered complete at
the completion of construction and stabilization of the disturbed areas and channels.
PCs Phosphate Company, Inc. 6 2000040SEC
1

Sediment Removal.
The sediment removal/clean out cycle for the rock check dams 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.
' 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 channels 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 channel slopes and catch basins shall be removed and
disposed of according to local, state, and federal regulations.
Erosion Control.
Corrective measures and repairs shall be done immediately to the channels' 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.
Wetlands Plants and Nuisance Control.
The Owner shall remove cattails and other indigenous wetland plants when they cover 50%
' of the grass -lined channels. However, these plants shall be encouraged to grow along the
outlet swale in the north-eastern corner (if present). The Owner shall maintain the drainage
system 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.
' 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, Inc. 7 2000040SEC

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RESPONSIBLE PARTY:
I acknowledge and agree by my signature below that PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. is
responsible for all maintenance procedures listed above, and all incurred costs of
construction and annual maintenance.
Name of Owner/Responsible Party: PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Address:
P.O. Box48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Phone Number:
(252) 322A111
Name & Title:
1. co*CCR fie.
�j EJE(tAL MA�ACCP (�e1o�P�1n-rE �Rot�v. ro.i
Signature:
Date:
Notary Public: I, , a Notary Public for
the State of d County of , do hereby certify
that % . personally
appeared before me this _day of , 2001, and
acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing wet detention
basin/drainage system maintenance requirements. Witness my
hand and official seal.
U2UNL (6111Q/ SEAL
Notary Public
My commission expires: 22!9-49�
PCs Phosphate Company, Inc. a 2000NOSEC

I
-.
AKO
- l+
r
1
I
1�
IlE
1' •
{�
\
((
-a -
TZ
ir
el 4l
.na
-
4
iY\may/I
t .'��
L'
'lY
.J:
iF -4�A�F_?'�IJr
Jr. i�b -4L
�
_ '
1
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. 2 2000050SEC
1

Practice Standards and Specifications
6e06
Definition A graveled area or pad located at points where vehicles enter and leave a con.
struction site.
Purpose To provide a buffer area where vehicles can drop their mud and sediment to
avoid mansporring it onto public roads, to control erosion from surface rpsoff,
and to help control dust.
Conditions Where Whatever traffic will be leaving a concoction site and moving dimcdy ontoa
Practice Applies public mad orotherpavedoff-site area. Cousmucdonplans should limit traffic
to properly constructed entrances.
Design Criteria Aggregate Size —Use 2-3inch washed smne.
Dimensions of gravel pad.
Thickness: 6 inches minimum
Width: 12-ft minimum or full width a all points of the vehicular
entrance and exit area, whichever is greater
Length: 50-ft minimum
Location --locate construction entrances and exists to limit sediment from
leaving the site and to provide for maximum utility by all construction vehicles
(Figure 6,06a), Avoid steep grades and entrances at curves in public roads.
_ \) Figure 6,054 Gravel enaencWaxa keeps sediment from leaving the constmcaon sire (modlied from Va SWCC).
1 WSJ
6.06.1

0
Washing ---If conditions a[ the site are such that most of the mud and sediment
are not removed by vehicles traveling over the gravel, the fixes should be
washed. Washing should be done on an area stabilized with crushed stone that
drains into asediment nap or other suitable disposal area. A wash rack may also
be used to make washing more convenient and effective.
Construction
1. pear the entrance and exit area of all vegetation, roots, and other objec-
Specifications
tionable material and properly grade is
2. Place the gravel to the specific grade and dimensions shown on the plans, and
Smooth it.
3. Provide drainage to carry water to a sediment trap or other suitable outlet.
6. Use gemextile fabrics because they improve stability of the foundation in
_
locations subject to seepage or high water table.
Maintenance
Maintain the gravel pad in a condition to prevent mud or sediment from leav-
ing the construction site. This may require periodic mpdressing with 2-inch
stone. After each rainfall, inspect any structure used to trap sediment and clean
it out as necessary. Immediately remove all objectionable materials spilled,
washed, or tracked onto public roadways.
References
RungfConveyance Measures
6.30, Grass -lined Channels
V
Sedfinenr Traps and Barriers
6.60, Temporary Sediment Tmp
9

TS
1
Practice Standards and Specifications
TEMPORARY SEEDING
Definition Planting rapid-growingannual greases, small grains, orlegumestoprovidcin-
ival, temporary cover for erosion oonpol on disturbed areas.
Purpose To temporarily stabilize denuded areas that will not be brought in I" grade
for a period of more than 30 working days.
Temporary seeding controls runoff and erosion until permanentvegetation or
other erosion control measures can be established. In addition, it provides
residue forsoilprotection andseedbed preparationandreducesproblemsof mud
and dust production from bare soil surfazes during construction.
Conditions Where
On any cleared, unvegetated, or sparsely vegetated soil surface where vegeta-
Practice Applies
Live cover is needed for less than 1 year. Applications of this practice include
'
diversions, dams, temporary sediment basins, temporary road banks, and top-
soilstockpiles.
Planning
r
Annual plants, which sprout and grow rapidly and survive for only one season,
1
Considerations
are suitable for establishing initial or temporary vegetative cover. Temporary
seeding preserves the integrity of earthen sediment control structures such as
dikes, diversities, and the banks of dams and sediment basins. It can also reduce
the amount of maintenance associated with these devices. For example, the fre-
quency of sediment basin cleanouts will be reduced if watershed areas, outside
the active construction zone, are stabilized.
'
Roper seedbed preparation, selection of appropriate species, and use of quality
seed are as important in this practice as in Practice 6.11, Permanent Seeding.
Failure in follow established guidelines and recommendations carefully may
'
result in an inadequate or short-lived stand of vegetation that will not control
erosion.
'
Temporary seeding provides protection for no more than 1 yeo , during which
time permanent stabilization should be initiated.
'
Specifications
Complete grading before preparing seedbeds and install all necessary erosion
control practices, such as dikes, waterways and basins. N in'unize steep slopes
'
because they make seedbed preparation difficult and increase the erosion
hazard If soils become compacted during grading, loosen them to a depth of 6-
8 inches using a ripper, harrow, or chisel plow.
SEEDBED PREPARATION
'
Good seedbed preparation is essential io successful plant establishment. A good
seedbed is well -pulverized, loose, and uniform. Where hydromading methods
are used, the surface may be left with a more irregular surface of large clods and
'
stones.
Liming —Apply limeaccordingio soil testrecommendations. IfthepH(acidity)
_
of the soil is not known, an application of ground agricultural limestone at the
s
5.10.1

13
I
1
1
rate of 1 to 1 1/2 tons/acre on coarse -textured soils and 2-3 tonslacre on fine -
textured soils is usually sufficient. Apply limestone uniformly and incorporate
into the top 4-6 inches of soil. Soils with a pH of 6 or higher need not be limed.
Fertilizer —Base application rates on soil tests. When these are not possible,
apply r-10-10-10 grade fertilizer at 700-1,0001b/acre. Both fertilifet'and lime
should be incorporated into the top 4-6 inches of soil. If a hydraulic seeder is
used, do not mix seed and fertilizer more than 30 minutes before application.
Surface roughening —If recent tillage operations have resulted in a loose sur-
face, additional roughening may not be required except to break up large clods.
If rainfall causes the surface to become sealed or crusted, loosen it just prior to
seeding by disking, raking, harrowing, or other suitable methods. Groove or fur-
row slopes steeper than 3:1 on the contour before seeding (Practice 6.03, Sur-
face Roughening).
PLANT SELECTION
Select an appropriate species or species mixture from Table 6.10a, for seeding
in late winter and early spring, Table 6.10b for summer, and Table 6.10c far fall.
In the Mountains, December and January seedings have poor chances of suc.
cess. When it is necessary to plant at these times, use recommendations for fall
and a securely tacked mulch.
'
SEEDING
Evenly apply seed using a cyclone seeder (broadcast), drill, cultipacker seeder, 4
or hydroseeder. Use seeding rates given in Tables 6,10a-6.10c. Broadcast seed-
ing and hydroseeding are appropriate for steep slopes where equipment cannot
'
be driven. Hand broadcasting is not recommended because of the difficulty in
achieving a uniform distribution.
Small grains should be planted no more than I inch deep, and grasses and
legumes no more than 1/2 inch. Broadcast seed must be covered by raking or
chain dragging, and then lightly firmed with a roller orcuitipacker. Hydroseeded
mixtures should include a wood fiber (cellulose) mulch.
MULCHING
The use of an appropriate mulch will help ensure establishment under normal
'
conditions and is essential to seeding success under harsh site conditions (Prac-
tice 6.14, Mulching). Harsh site conditions include:
• seeding in fall for winter cover (wood fiber mulches are not considered
adequate for this use),
• slopes steeper than 3:1,
• excessively hot or dry weather, _Z
• adverse soils (shallow, rocky, or high in clay or sand), and
• areas receiving concentrated flow.
If the area to be mulched is subject to concentrated waterflow, as in channels,
anchor mulch with netting (Practice 6.14, Mulching). -
'
_%_ �.
—

Practice Standards and Specifications
4
Maintenance Reseed and mulch areas where seedling emergence is poor, or where erosion
occurs, as soon as possible. Do not mow. Protect from traffic as much as pos-
sible.
References Site Preparation
6.03, Surface Roughening
6.04, Topsoiling
Surface Stabilization
6,11, Permanent Seeding
6.14, Mulching
Appendix
8.02, Vegetation Tables
{

13
Table 6.10a
Temporary Seeding
Recommendations for Late
Winter and Early Spring
t
1
1
1
1
Seeding mixture
Species Rate (lb/acre)
Rye (grain) 120
Annual lespedeza (Kobe in
Piedmont and Coastal Plain,
'~ Korean in Mountains) 50
Omit annual lespedeza when duration of temporary cover is not to extend
beyond June.
Seeding dates
Mountains —Above 2500 ft: Feb. 15 - May 15
Below 2500 ft: Feb. 1 - May 1
Piedmont --Jan. t - May 1
Coastal Plain —Dec. 1 - Apr. 15
Soil amendments
Fallow recommendations of soil tests orapply 2,000 lb/acre ground agricul-
tural limestone and 750 lb/acre 10-10-10 fertilizer.
Mulch
Apply 4,000 lb/acre straw. Anchor straw by tacking with asphalt, netting,
or a mulch anchoring tool. A disk with blades set nearly straight can be
used as a mulch anchoring tool.
Maintenance
Refertilize it growth is not fully adequate. Reseed, refertilize and mulch im-
mediately following erosion or other damage.
r
11

Table 6.10b
Temporary Seeding
Recommendations for
Summer
1
1
1
1
Practice Standards and Specifications
Seeding mixture
Species Rate (Iblacre)
German millet 40
In the Piedmont and Mountains, a small -stemmed Sudangrass may be
suhstif red of a rate of 5016/acre. -•
Seeding dates t
Mountains —May 15 -Aug. 15
Piedmont —May 1 -Aug, 15
Coastal Plain —Apr. 15 - Aug. 15
Soll amendments
Follow rewmmendations of sciltests or apply 2,000Iblacre ground agricul-
tural limestone and 750 Will 10-10-10 fertilizer.
Mulch
Apply 4,000 Waste straw. Anchor straw by tacking with asphak, netting,
or a mulch anchoring tool. A disk with blades set nearly straight can be
used as a mulch anchoring tool -
Maintenance
Rafertilize it growth is not fully adequate. Reseed, relertillze and mulch im.
mediately following erosion or other damage.

13
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 6.1Oc
Temporary Seeding
Recommendations for Fall
r,.I OA
Seeding mixture
Species Rate (lb/acre)
Rye (grain) 120
..Seoding dates -�-;
Mountains —Aug. 15 - Dec. 15
Coastal Plain and Piedmont ---Aug. 15 - Dec. 30
Soil amendments
Follow soil tests or apply 2.000 [b/acre ground agricultural limestone and
1,000 lb/acre 10-10-10 fertilizer.
Mulch
Apply 4,000 lb/acre straw. Anchor straw by tacking with asphalt, netting,
or a mulch anchoring tool. A disk with blades set nearly straight can be
used as a mulch anchoring tool.
Maintenance
Repair and refertilize damaged areas immediately. Topdress with 50
Ib/acre of nitrogen in March. If it is necessary to extend temporary cover
beyond June 15, overseed with 5o lb/acre Kobe (Piedmont and Coastal
Plain) or Korean (Mountains) lespedeza in late February or early March.
0
U

Practice Standards and Specifications
6.11 lAiluggown
' PS
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 -
didons, and allows selection of the most appropriate plant materials.
' Conditions Where Fine -graded areas on which permanent, long-lived vegetative cover 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 disturbed soils is by
seeding grasses and legumes. The advantages of seeding over other means of
Y•, _. f establishing plants include the smaller initial cost, 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 liming
and fertilization, and timely planting and maintenance.
SELECTING 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 —Mountains, Piedmont, and -Coastal Plain
(Figure 6.1 la).
' To simplify plant selection, a Key to Permanent Seeding Mixtures is presented
in Table 6.11b. To rind seeding specifications for a specific site, follow this key
through the different 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

0
Table 6,11a
Suitability of Sol] for Establishment of Low -maintenance Vegetation
Criteria
Suitability
Limiting Factors
Good
Feb
Poor
pH
F
5,&7.8
4.55.5
<4.5
Too acid; possible
Al, Mn, Fe toxicity
Available
>.10
.051
<.05
Too dry
water capacityt
Texture
I,ailsi
so. ski
sc, sic
Too high in Nay
sl
cl
c
Is
s
Too high in sand
Coarse (3-10 in)
<15%
15.35
>35
Lg. stones restrict
fragments" (>10 in)
4%
3-10
>10
tillage; droughty
Depth to P
40
20-40
420
Insufflciact
_
bedrock (in.)
rooting depth
SaGnily (mr.hos/cm)
8-16
>16
Excess salt
tiri
Sandy clay loam (scl), silty clay loam (sid). clay loam (N), sandy
loam (is), silt loam (sil), loamy sand (Is), sandy
clay (sc), silty clay (sic), clay
(c), sift (si), sand (s), and loam (1).
"Percent by weight.
Source: National Soils Handbook, USDA-SCS, 1983.
Coastal Plain
Mountains Piedmont upper Middle Les
Wl" I /pryI 1,1111
brl 4^
A� mm
ni
Tidewater
Sand Hills
,<. )
L'
Figure 6.11a Major physiogi regions of North Carolina differing in climate, soils and Mrogn phy.
1 1
Uk

1
Practice Standards and Specifications
' through 6.1Iv). 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,
ican 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
t 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 time 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
I
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 magnesiumr,�hich 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.
After 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 fill slopes, for example, the last 4-6 inches might
— be left uncompacted. A loose, rough seedbed is essential. Large clods and stones
1

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
limjwd to broadcast or hydroweding, with hydroseeding giving the most de-
pendabic results. Vegetation chosen for these slopes mot not Mum mowing
or other intensive maintenance. Using a hydraulic seeder, wed, fertilizer, wood
fiber mulch, and a tacking agent can be applied in one operation. i
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 miming may be required to protect the slope.
Specifications SEEDBED REQUIREMENTS
EsubUshmentof vegetation should not be attempted on sites; thatare misaimble
due in inappropriate soil texture (Table 6.1 Is), poor dra4ge, concentrated
overland flow, a steepness of slope until measures; have been taken to correct
thew problems.
To maintain a good stand of vegetation, the soil must meet certain minimurn re-
quirements as a growth medium. The existing soil should have them criteria:
Enough fine-grained (sill and clay) material to maintain adequate mois-
ture and nutrient supply (available water capacity of at Iwit.05 inches
water to I inch of sail).
Sufficient pore space to permit root peneimitiort.
• Sufficient depth of soil to provide an adequate root zone. The depth m
rock orimpermeable layers such as harciparisshould be 12 inchesormore,
except on slopes steeperthan 2,1 where the addition of soil is nonfeasible.
• A favorable pH range for plant growth, usually 6.0-6.5.
• Freedom from large roots, branches, =no, large clods of each, or rash
of any kind. Clods and scones may be left on slopes weeper than 3:1 if
they are to be hydroseedcd.
If any of the above criteria are not mm—i.c, if die existing soil is too coarse,
dense, shallow cracidic to foster vegetation —special amendments are required.
The soil conditioners described below may be beneficial or, preferably, topsoil
may be applied in accordance wit Practice 6.04, Topsailim.
SOIL CONDITIONERS
In order to improve Elie structure or drainage characteristic of a soil, the fol-
lowing materials may be added. These aintruitnems should only be necessary
where soils have limitations that make them poor for plant growth or for Fine
turf establishment (we Chapter 3, Vegetative coaridoffionr).
Peat —Appropriate types are sphagnum mom peal, hypnum moss peel, reed -
sedge pew, orpothumus, all from Peat should be shredded
and conditioned in storage piles for at least 6 months after excavation.
Sand— clean and free of mxic materials.

h
1,
1
1
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 6.1 lb) to select the most
appropriate seeding mixture based on the general site and maintenance factors.
A iisting of species, including scientific names and characteristics, is given in
Appendix 8.02.
SEEDBED PREPARATION
Install necessary mechanical erosion and sedimentation control practices before
seeding, and complete grading according to the approved plan.
Lime and fertilizer needs should bedetermined by soil tests. Soil testing is per-
formed free of charge by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture soil test-
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 grading. 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 6.1lv).
Application rates usually fall into the following ranges:
• Ground agricultural limestone:
Light -textured, sandy soils: I-1 1/2 tons/acre
Hcavy-texttred, clayey soils: 2-3 tons/acre
Fertilizer.
Grasses: 800-I 2001b/acre of 10-10-10 (or the equivalent)
Grass -legume mixtures: 800-1200 lb/acre of 5-TO- 10 (or the equivalent)
Apply lime and fertilizer evenly and incorporate into the top 4-6 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 surface (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.
6.11.5

0
SEEDING
Seeding dales given in theseedingmixuare specifications(Tablesb.l lc through
6.11y) are designated as "best" or "possible". Seedings properly carried out
within the "beg" 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 rapidlyr9eeding on
the last dare 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 "CerdfledSeed"
label (figure 6.1111).
Figure e.11b Label displayed on all Narin
C amlina certli'red seed.
0
SM. :ewe.
a ��K1.'ero".M:'
w' cwn. wo`
GROWN IN NORTH CAROLINA
Nei wl. Ln........
Pore ewC....lbl ��
I%1..
M..
GmcI.ap....
Na.M)_
Germinal1w..1V .
ftffl ._I%t
Tow raw-.......
rp,.'Nwa/Ip. ....
Labeling of non -certified seed is also required by law. Labels contain important
information on seed purity, gemination, and presence of weed seetllr Seed must
meet State standards for contest[ of noxious weeds. Do not accept seed conmin-
ing "prohibited" noxious weed seed.
Inoculate legume seed with the R/ukobium bacteria appropriate in the species
of legume (Chapter 3. Vegetative Consideranona).
Apply seed uniformly with a cyclone seeder, drop -type spreader, drill, cW-
tipacker seeder, or hydtoseeder on a firm, friable seedbed. '>

I
Practice Standards and Specifications
When using a drill or cultipacker seeder, plant small grains no more than I inch
deep, grasses and legumes an more than 12 inch. Equipment should be cali-
brated in the field for the desired seeding rate.
When.psing broadcast -seeding methods, subdivide the area into workable sec.
_ u`ons 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 test pass (Figure 6.1 le).
Figure 6.11e Suggested pattern for
broadcasting seed and fertilizer
(source: NCAES BulennAGsgf.
Seeding Pattern
Cover broadcast seed by raking or chain dragging; then firm the surface
with a roller or cullipacker m provide good seed contact.
Muleb all plantings immediately after seeding (Praetice 6.14, Mulching)
HYDROSEEDING
Surface roughening is particularly important when hydros eding, 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; large clods, stones, and inegularaies
provide cavities in, which seeds can lodge.
Rate of wood fiber (cellulose) application should be at least 2,000 Ibtacre
Apply legume mcctdants at four times the recommended rate when adding in -
mutant to a hydroseeder slurry.,
If a machinery breakdown of 112 to 2 hours occurs, add 50% more seed to the
tank, 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

0
SPRIGGING
' Hybrid Bermudagrass cannot be grown from seed and must be planted vegeta-
tively. Vegetative methods of establishing common and hybrid Bernudagrass,
centipedegrass, andBahiagrass include sodding, pluggingandsprigging (Chap-
' ter 3, Vegetative Consideranons). Sprigs are fragments of horizontal stems
.which biclude at least one node Qoint). They ate normally sold hylhe bushel
and can either be broadcast or planted in furrows using a tractor -drawn tobac-
co or vegetable transplanter. i
Furrows should be 4-6 inches deep and 2 ft apart. Place sprigs about 2 It apart
' in the row with one end at or above ground level (Figure 6.1 Id).
Figure 6.11d Proper placement of grass
sprigs. Each sprig should have at least one Soil Surface
node (modified from NCAES Bulletin AG69).
1 - zip
' Correct Incorrect
Broadcast sprigs at the specified rate (Tables 6. 1lr and 6.1 Is). Press into the
[op 1/_r-2 inches of soil with a cultipacker or with a disk se[ nearly straight so
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
sessons or an speed development of full cover. It is a requirement for fine turf
estabohmen[and should be used elsewhere when feasible. However, Imgation
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-
tlad water.
Maintenance Generally, a stand of vegetudon cannot be determined [o be fully established
' until soil cover has been maintained for one full year from planting. Inspect
seededareas for failure and make necessary repairs and reseedings within the
same season, if possible.
1 3
Reseeding —If a Brand has inadequate cover, re-evaluate choice of plant mate.
rialsand quantities of lime and fertilizer. Re-establish the stand after seedbed
' preparation or ovenseed the stand. Consider seeding temporary, annual species
if the time of year is not appropriate for permanent seeding (Practice 6.10,Torn-
Wary Seeding).
s

Practice Standards and Specifications
If vegetation fails to grow, soil be must tested to determine if acidity ornutrient
imbalance is responsible.
Fertilization —On the typical disturbed site, full establishment usually requires
referdbzauon in the second growing season. Fine turf requires annual main-
- tenantt fertiluAtion-(Table 6.12b). Use soil tests if possible or follow du
guidelines given for the specific seeding mixture (Tables 6.11c through 6.l lv).
References Site Prep"tion
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
a

0
Table 6.11 b
Key to Permanent Sesi Mixtures Based on Site Characteristics
Region and Site Characteristics'
Seeding
_
Number
I. Mountains
A. Steep slopes (steeper than 3:1); low maintenance
1. Average soils ..................1M
2. Cold sites or rocky, rough, dry soils ..................2M
or
...................................7M
(trees)
S. Gentle slopes (3:1 or less)
1. Low maintenance
a. Average soil ... . .
, .3M
b. Rough, rocky, dry soil ............ . .. . . ...
2M or
............................
7M (trees)
2. High maintenance
a. Full sun, soils with good moisture retention ............4M
b. Full sun, drought -prone sails .. ...............5M
c. Sun orsemi-shade, minimum -care lawns ..............6M
C. Grass -lined channels . ..........................6M
It. Piedmont
A. Low maintenance
1. Steep slopes or stony, shallow or dry sails
.. 1 P
2. Gentle slopes with average or better soils ..............
213
E. High maintenance (slopes lass than 3:1)
1. Cool sites; soils with avers ?e or better moisture retention ..
. 3P
2. Warm sites; dry, poor soils ............... . ......
4P or 3CP
C. Grass -lined channels
1. Soils with average or better moisture retention .............
SP or eM
2. Full sun, drought -prone soils .....................7CP
If. Coastal Plain
A. Well- to poorly -drained soils with good water -holding capacities
1. Low maintenance ..........
, .lCP
2. High maintenance ..................... ......2CP
B. Well -drained sandy foams to excessively wail -drained sands
1. Highmaintenance, fine turf .... ,
..3CP
2. Low -to medium -care lawns ............. . . ....4CP
3. Low maintenance ...........................
SCP
C. Intertidal zones of estuarine shorelines, dredged
material, and graded areas in self water .................
6CP
D, Grass -lined channels ...........................
7CP
E. Coastal sands exposed to salt spray
and/or wind erosion ............................
see Table 6.1 Ga
'Refer to Table 6,11 a for soil suitability limitations.
Table
c
d
i
It
I
Im
n, r
v
P
9
IS
t
v
s
� ,
s

Table 6.11c
Seeding No. 1 M for: Steep
Slopes, Average Soil; Low
Maintenance
h
1
Practice Standards and Specifications
Seeding mixture
Species Rate (Iblacre)
Tall fescue 100
Sericea lespedeza 20 _
Korean lespedeza 10
Redtop 5
Kentucky bluegrass 5
Seeding note
After Aug. 1, use unscarified seed for sericea lespedeza.
Nurse plants
Between May 1 and Aug. 15 add 10 lb/acre German millet or 15 lb/acre
Sudangrass. Prior to May 1 or after Aug. 15, add 40 lb/acre rye (grain). It
may be beneficial,to plant the grasses in late summer and overseed the
lespedezas in March.
Seeding dates
Best Possible
Below 2500 ft: Aug. 15 - Sept. 1 July 25 - Sept. 15
Mar. 1 - Apr. 1 Mar. 1 - May 10
Above 2500 ft: July 25 - Aug. 15 July 15 -Aug, 30
Mar. 20 - Apr. 20 Mar. 5 - May 15
Complete seeding earlier in fall, and start later in spring on north- and east -
facing slopes.
Soil amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests or apply 4,000 lb/acre
ground agricultural limestone and 1,000 lb/acre 5-10-10 fertilizer.
Mulch
Apply 4,000-5,000 lb/acre grain straw or equivalent cover of another
suitable mulching material. Anchor mulcts by tacking with asphalt, roving,
or netting. Netting is the preferred anchoring method on steep lopes.
Maintenance
Mow no more than once a year. Refertilize in the second year unless
growth is fully adequate. Reseed, fertilize, and mulch damaged areas im-
mediately.
'Refer to Appendix 8.02 for botanical names

1
Table 6.11 d
Seeding No. 2M for: Gentle to
Steep Slopes, Stony, Dry
'
Soils; Low Maintenance
1
1
Seeding mixture
Species' Rate (Ib/acre)
Tall fescue 40
Crown vetch 10
.,r Korean lespedeza 10
Redlop
Seeding note
M occasional mowing is desired, substitute 20 lb/acre sencea lespedaza
for crown vetch.
Nurse plants
Between May 1 and Aug. 15, add 10 lb/acre German millet or 15 Ib/acre
Sudangrass. Prior to May 1 or after Aug. 15, add 401blacre rye (grain).
Seeding dates _
Best Passible `
Below 2500 it: Aug. 15 - Sept. 1 July 25 - Sept. 15
Mar. 1 - Apr. 1 Mar. 1 - May 10
Above 2500 it: July 25 - Aug. 15 July 15 - Aug. 30
Mar. 20 - Apr. 20 Mar. 5 - May 15
Complete seeding earlier in fall, and Stan later in spring on north. and east.
lacing slopes.
Sol] amendments
Fallow recommendations of soil tests, or apply 4,000 aracre ground
agricultural limestone and 1,0001biracre 5.10.10 fertilizer.
Mulch
Apply 4,000.5,000 bracts grain straw or equivalent cover of another
suitable mulching material. Anchor mulch by lacking with asphalt, roving,
or netting. Netting is the preferred anchoring method on stasp slopes,
Maintenance
Do not mow sown vetch. Refertilize in the second year unlesIZterw r is
fully adequate. Reseed, fertilize, and mulch damaged areas irnmadiately.
'Refer to Appendix 8.02for botanical names.
0

Table 6.11 e
Seeding No. 3M tor: Gentle
Slopes, Average Softs; LOW
Maintenance
Practice Standards and Specifications
Seeding mixture
Species' Rate(lb/acre)
Tall fescue 60
Kentucky bluegrass 10
Sericaa lespedeza 15 --
Koreanlespedeza 10
t
Seeding notes -
1, After Aug. 15, use unscarified senses seed.
2. Where appearance is a consideration, omit winces lespedeza and in-
crease Korean lespedeza to 40 c/acre.
Nurse plants
Samoan May 1 and Aug. 15, add 10 Ib/acre German miter or 15 lb/acre
Sudangrass. Prior to May 1 or after Aug. 15, add 401b/acre ryejgrainj.
Seeding dates i
Boer Possible
Below 2500 a: Aug. 15 - Sept. 1 July 25 -Sept. 15
Mar. 1 - Apr. 1 Mar. 1 - May 10
Above 2500 it: July 25 - Aug, 15 July 15 - Aug. 30
Mar. 20 - Apr. 2D Mar. 5 - May 15
Soil amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests, or apply 4,000 lWacre
ground agricultural limestone and 1,000I1biapo 10-10.10 fertilizer.
Mulch
Apply 4,0001b/acre grain straw. Anchor straw by tacking with asphalt, net-
ting, or roving or by crimping with a mulch anchoring tool. A disk with blades
set nearly straight can be used as a mulch anchoring tool.
Maintenance
Refer ilize in the second year unless growth is fully adequate. May be
mowed once or twice per year, but mowing is not necessaryAseed, fer.
tilize, and mulch damaged areas immediately.
'Rotor to Appendix 8.021or botanical names.

:xa+*ax .�,•. ,_
__ ,...E .. _
' Table 6.11t
Seeding No. 4M for: Gentle
Slopes, Full Sun; High
' Maintenance
Seeding mixture
Species'
Rate (Ib/acre)
Kentucky bluegrass (manure of at
least three improved varieties
.o . ffand no companion plants)
75-100
Seeding note+
In shady locations, 40Y. by weight fine lescus, such as hard, red, or Chew-
ings red fescue may be substituted.
Seeding dates
Best
Possible
Below 2500 h: Aug. 1S - Sept. 1
July 25 - Sept. 15
Mar. 1 - Apr. 1
Mar. 1 - May 10
Above 2500 it: July 25 - Aug. 15
July 15 - Aug- 30
Mar. 20 - Apr. 20
Mar. 5 - May 15
Soil amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests, or apply 4,000 Iblacre
ground agricultural limestone and 1.000Ihracre 10-10-10 fertilizer -
Mulch
Apply 3,000-4,000 Iblaere grain straw or equivalent cover of another
suitable mulch. Anchor mulch by tacking with asphalt, roving, or netting or
by rolling and watering.
Mairderlanee
Refertilize annually in late winter and again in the tall. Turf -type fertilizer is
preferable, although more expensive and not essential. Reseed, fertilize,
and mulch damaged areas immediately.
'Rotor to Appendix 8.021or botanical names
-3

1
1
1
1
1
1
�1
Table S.11 g
Seeding No. 5M tor: Gentle
Slopes, Full Sun,
Drought -prone Soils; High
Maintenance
Practice Standards and Specifications
Seeding mixture
Species' Rate(lb/acre)
Tall fescue (KY-31 or a SC So
blend of two tud-type tall
fescuas) 200-250
50:50 mix of two improved t
bluegrass varieties 25-50
Seeding dates
Best Possible
Below 2500 it: Aug. 15- Sept. 1 July 25 - Sept. 15
Mar. 1 -Apr. 1 Mar. 1 -May 10
Above 2500 n: July 25-Aug. 15 July 15-Aug. 30
Mar. 20 - Apr. 20 Mar. 5 - May 15
Sall amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests, or apply 4,000 Wears
ground agricultural limestone and 1,5001b/acre 10-10-10 fertilizer.
Mulch
Apply 3,oac-4,000 Ibtacre grain straw or equivalent cover of another
suitable mulch. Anchor mulch by tacking with asphalt, roving, or netting or
by rolling and watering.
Maintenance
Refertil¢a annually in late winter and again in fall. Tud-type fertilizer is
preferable but not essential. Seed, fertile, and mulch bare spots im.
mediately, and reseed poor stands with the same mixture in the fall.
' Refer to Appendix 8.02 for botanical names,

161
Table 6.11 h
Seeding No. 6M for: Gentle
Slopes, Sun or Semi -shade;
High -maintenance,
Minimum -care Lawns
Seeding mixture
Species' Rate(Ib/acre)
Tali fescue blend (equal parts of
two or preferably three turf -type
w „,tall fescues) 200-250
Seeding dates `a
Beat Possible
Below 2500 it: Aug.15 - Sept. 1 July 25 -Sept. 15
Mar. 1 -Apr. 11 Mar. 1 - May 10
Above 2500 it: July 25 - Aug. 15 July 15 - Aug. 30
Mar. 20 - Apr, 20 Mar. 5 - May 15
Soil amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to sell teats, or apply 4,000 Ib/acre
ground agricultural limestone and 1,200 lb/acre 10-10-10 fertilizaL
Mulch
Apply 3.0004,000 Iblacre grain straw or equivalent cover of another
suhable mulch. Anchor mulch by tacking with asphalt, roving, or netting or
by rolling and watering.
Maintenance
The bunch -type habit of tallfescue restricts its spread into damaged areas.
Reseed bare spots in the fall. Refenllize annually in late winter and again
in fail. Reseed, fertilize, and mulch damaged areas immediately.
'Refer to AppendIx 8.02for botanical names.
z

Table 6.111
Seeding No. 7M for: Gentle to
Steep Slopes, Stony, Dry
Soils: Low Maintenance
Practice Standards and Specifications
Seeding mixture
Species' Rate (lb/acre)
Black locust 3
Korean lespedaza 10
Weeping lovegrass 2
Redtop I
Wnter rye (grain) 15
Seeding dates
Feb. 15 - Apr. t
Fall seeding is impractical; the heavier rate of rye and fertilizer required to
control erosion over winter would result in excessive competition with the
tree seedlings.
Soil amendments =
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests or apply 2.000 lb/acre
ground agnculural limestone and 1,000 Ib/acre 5.10-10 fertilizer.
Mulch
Apply 4,000.5,000 Wwre grain straw or equivalent cover of another
suitable mulching material. Stabilize mulch by tacking with asphalt, roving,
or netting. Netting is the profened method on steep slopes.
Maintenance
Hofertilize only B cover is too weak. Restrict amounts of fertilizer and seed
to minimize competlion with tree seedlings.
'Refer to Appendix 8.02for botanical names.

'
Table 6.111
Seeding No. 8M for:
Grass -lined Channels;
Mountains and Upper
'
Piedmont
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
_
1
Seeding mixture
Species' Rate(lb/acre)
Tell fescue 175-200(3 lb/1,000 ft?)
— Kentucky bluegrass 20 (1 Ibrt,000 itz)µ
Nurse plants
Between May 1 and Aug. 15, add 10 INacre German millet or 151b%acre
Sudangrass. Prior to May 1'or after Aug. 15, add 40lb/acre rye (groin).
Seeding dates
Best Possible
Below 2500 ft: Aug. 15 - Sept. 1 July 25 - Sept. 15
Mar. 1 - Apr. 1 Mar. 1 -May 10
Above 2500 h: July 25 - Aug. 15 July 15 - Aug. 30
Mar. 20-Apr, 20 Mar.5-May 15
Sou amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests, or apply 4,000 Ib/acre
ground agricultural limestone and 1,200Ib/acre 10.10.10 fertilizer.
Mulch
Use jute, excelsior matting, or a similar channel thing material to mverthe
bottom of channels and ditches. The lining should extend above the
highest calculated depth Pillow. On channel side slopes above this height.
and in drainages not requiring temporary linings, apply 4,000 livacre grain
straw and anchor straw by stapling netting over the top.
Mulch and anchoring materials must not be allowed to wash dawn slope
where they can clog drainage devices.
Maintenance
Inspect and repair mulch frequently. Relertilize in late winter according to
soil tests or apply 150 Ibacre• 10-10-10 fertilizer (3 Ib/1,000 ft"). Mow
regularly to a height of 2.4 inches.
'Refer to Appendix 8.02 for botanical names.
n

n
Table 6.11 k
Seeding No. 1P for; Steep
Slopes or Poor Sells; Low
Maintenance
1
1
1
1
Practice Standards and Specifications
Seeding mixture
Speclee Rate (boots)
Tall fescue 100
Sericea laspedeza 30
Kobelespedeza 10 `
Seeding notes
1. In Eastern Piedmont add 251racre Pensacola Sahiagrass or 101blacre
common Bermudagrass. Use common Bermudagrass only where his un-
likely tc become a pest.
2. After Aug. 15 use unscarified sericea seed.
3. Where a neat appearance Is desired, omit sencea and substitute 40
bracts Bahlagmss or IS lb/acre Bermudagrass.
4. To extend spring seeding dates into June, add 15 Iblacre hulled Ber-
mudagrass. However, h is preferable to seed temporary cover and seed
lescue in Sept.
Nurse plants
Between May 1 and Aug. 1S. add 101racre German millet or 15 bracts
Sudangrass. Prior to May 1 or after Aug. 15, add 401racre rye Igrain).
Seeding dates
Best Possible -
Fall: Aug. 25-Sept.15 Aug. 20-Oct. 25
Late winter: Feb. 15 - Mar. 21 Feb. 1 - Apr. 15
Fall is best for tall fescue and late winter for lespedezas. Overseeding of
Kobe laspedeza overcall -seeded tall fescue is vary effective. Use unhulled
Bermudagrass seed in fall.
Soil amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests, or apply 4,000 Ib/acre
ground agricultural limestone and 1.0001racre 10-10.10 fertilizer.
Mulch
Apply 4.000.5,000 Wachs grain straw, or equivalent cover7w another
suitable mulching material. Anchor mulch by tacking with asphalt, roving,
or rating, Netting is the preferredanchoring method on steep slopes.
Maintenance
Rafertilize in the second year unless growth is fully adequate. May be
mowed once or twice a year, but mowing is not necessary. Reseed, fertil-
ize, and mulch damaged areas immediately.
'Refer to Appendix 8.02for botanical names.

13
Table 5.111
' Seeding No. 2P for: Gentle
Slopes, Average Soil; Low
Maintenance
I
J
r
Seeding mixture
Species'
Tail fescue
Sericea lespedeza
Kobelespedeza
Rate (lb/acre)
80
20
10
Seeding notes
1. After Aug. 15 use unscarified sericea seed.
2. Where periodic mowing is planned or a neat appearance is desired, omit
sericea and increase Kobe lespedeza to 40 lb/acre.
3. To extend spring seeding dates into June, add 15 lb/acre hulled Ber-
mudagrass. However, after mid -Apr. it is preferable to seed temporary
cover.
Nurse plants
Between May 1 and Aug. 15, add 10 lb/acre German millet or 15 lb/acre
Sudangrass. Prior to May 1 or after Aug. 15 add 40 lb/acre ryelgrain).
Seeding dates
Best Possible
Fall: Aug. 25 - Sept.15 Aug. 20 - Oct. 25
Late winter: Feb. 15 - Mar. 21 Feb. 1 - Apr. 15
Fall is best for tall fescue and late winter for lespedezas. Overseeding of
Kobe lespedeza over fall -seeded tall fescue is very effective.
Soil amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests, or apply 4,000 lb/acre
ground agricultural limestone and 1,000 Ib/acre 10-10-10 fertilizer.
Mulch
Apply 4,000 lb/acre grain straw or equivalent cover of another suitable
mulch. Anchor straw by tacking with asphalt, netting, or roving or by crimp-
ing with a mulch anchoring tool., A disk with blades set nearly straight can
be used as a mulch anchoring tool.
Maintenance
ReferNize in the second year unless growth is fully adequate. May be
mowed once or twice a year, but mowing is not necessary. Reseed, fertil-
ize, and mulch damaged areas immediately.
Refer to Appendix 8.02 far botanical names.

1
Table 6.11 to
Seeding No. 3P for: Gentle
Slopes, Soils with Average or
Better Moisture Retention,
Cooler Sites; High
Maintenance
1
1
F]
Practice Standards and Specifications
Seeding dates
Best Possible
Felt: Aug. 25 - Sept. 15 Aug. 20 - Oct. 25
Winter: — Feb. 1 - Mar. 31
For quality turf avoid spring seeding. Where grading is completed during
late winter or spring, an alternative is to seed 30 lb/acre Kobe lespedeza,
keep mowed, prepare seedbed, and seed a permanent mixture in early
fall,
Soil amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests, or apply 4,000 lb/acre
ground agricultural limestone and 1,000 lb/acre 10-10-10 fertilizer.
Mulch
Apply 4,000 lb/acre small grain straw or equivalent cover of another
suitable mulch. Anchor straw by tacking with asphalt, netting, or roving or
by crimping with a mulch anchoring tool. A disk with blades set nearly
straight can be used as a mulch anchoring toot.
Maintenance
Fertilize according to soil tests or apply 40 lb/acre nitrogen in Jan. or Fab.,
40 lb in Sept., and 40 Ib in Nov., from a 12-4-8, 16-4-8, or similar turf fer-
tilizer. Avoid fertilizer applications during warm weather, as this increases
stand losses to disease. Mow to a height of 2.5-3.5 inches as needed.
Reseed, fertilize, and mulch damaged areas immediately.
' Refer to Appendix 8.02for botanical names.

13
Table 6.11 n
Seeding No. 413 for: Gentle
Slopes, Soils Somewhat
Warmer or Drier than 3P, or
with Physical Limitations;
High Maintenance
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Seeding mixture
Specles,
Blend of 50% KY-31 tall fescue
and 50% mixture of two or more
r turf -type tall fescues
'y or
Blend of three or more turf -type
tail fescues
Seeding dates
Hate (lb/acre)
200-250
200-250
Best Possible
Fall: Aug. 25 - Sept. 15 Aug. 20 - Oct. 25
Winter: — Feb. 1 - Mar. 31
For quality turf avoid spring seeding. Where grading is completed during
late winter or spring, an alternative is to seed 30 ib/acre Kobe lespedeza.
keep mowed, prepare seedbed, and seed permanent mixtureFbetween
Aug. 25 and Sept. 15.
Soil amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests, or apply 4,000 lb/acre
ground agricultural limestone and 1,000 lb/acre 10-10-10 fertilizer.
Mulch
Apply 4,000 Ib/acre grain straw or equivalent cover of another suitable
mulch. Anchor straw by tacking with asphalt, roving, or netting or by crimp-
ing with a mulch anchoring tool. A disk with blades set nearly straight can
be used as a mulch anchoring tool.
Maintenance
Fertilize according to soil tests or apply 40 lb/acre nitrogen in Jan. or Feb.,
40 lb in Sept., and 40 lb in Nov., from a 12-4-8. 16-4-8, or similar turf fer-
tilizer. Avoid fertilizer applications during warm weather, as this increases
stand losses to disease. Reseed; fertilize, and mulch damaged areas im-
mediately. Mow to a height of 2.5-3.5 inches as needed.
Refer to Appendix 8.02for botanical names.

Table 5.110
Seeding No. SP for:
Grass -lined Channels
1
1
1
1
1
t
Practice Standards and Specifications
Seeding mixture
Species' Rate (Iblave)
Tall fescue 200 (4-5 ib11,000 ha)
Z Nurse plants - -
Between May 1 and Aug. 15 add 151blacra Sudangrass or 101b1scre Ger•
man millet. Before May 1, or alter Aug. 15, add 40 lblacre rye (grain).
Seeding dates
Best: Aug. 25 -Oct.
Possible: Feb. - Apr. 15
Avoid seeding from Nov. to Jan. ff seeding must be done at this time, add
40 Wacre rye grain and use a channel lining that offers maximum protec.
tion.
Soli amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to sail tests, or apply 4,000 lb/acre
ground agricultural limestone and 1,000lb/scre 10-10-10 fertilizer. Operate
tillage equipment across the waterway.
Mulch
Use jute, excelsior matting, or other effective Channel lining material to
cover the'oottom of channels and ditches, and staple securely. The lining
should extend abcve:he highest calculated depth of Iiow.On channel side
slopes above this height, and in drainages not requiring temporary linings,
apply 4,0001b/acre grain straw and anchor straw by stapling netting over
the top.
Mulch and anchoring materials must not be allowed to wash down slopes
where they can clog drainage devices.
Maintenance
Inspect and repair mulch frequently. Refertilize in late winter of the follow-
ing year: use soil tests or apply 150 ro/acre 10-10.10. Mow ref{ ularly to a
height of 2-4 inches. s
'Refer to Appendix 8.07for'octanical names.

1*
Table 6.11 p
Seeding No. 1 CP for: Well- to
Poorly Drained Sails with
Good Moisture Retention;
Low Maintenance
Seeding mixture
Speciest
Tallfescue
Pensacola Bahiagrass
Sericaa lespedeza
Kobe lespedeza
Rate (tblacre)
80
50
30
10
Seeding notes
1. From Sept. 1 - Mar. 1, use unscarified sericea seed.
2. On poorly drained sites omit sericea and increase Kobe to 30 Ib/acre.
3. Where a neat appearance is desired, omit sericea and increase Kobe
to 40 lb/acre.
Nurse plants
Between Apr. 15 and Aug. 15, add 10 lb/acre German millet or 15 lb/acre
Sudangrass. Prior *a May I or after Aug. 15, add 25 Iblacre rye.(grain).
Seeding dates
Best Possible
Early spring: Feb. 15 - Mar. 20 Feb. 15 - Apr. 30
Fall: Sept. 1 - Sept. 30 Sept. 1 - Oct. 31
Sal] amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests, cr acpiy 3,000-5,000 tblacre
ground agricultural limestone (use the lower rate on sandy soils) and 1,000
lb/acre 10-10-10 fertiiizsr.
Mulch
Apply 4,000 lb/acre grain straw or equivalent cover of another suitable
mulch. Anchor straw by tacking with asphalt, netting, or roving ar by crimp-
ing with a mulch anchoring tcel. A disk with blades set nearly straight can
be used as a mulch anchcring tool.
Maintenance
tf growth is fess than fully adequate, refertilize in the second year, accord-
ing to soil tests or toodress with 500 lb/acre 10-10-10 fertilizer; Mow as
needed when sericea is omitted from the mixture. Reseed, fertilize, and
mulch damaged areas irn-ediateiy.
'Refer ,c AP.cendix 3.0e °cr-ctanicai naves

Table 6.11 q
Seeding No. 2CP for: Well- to
Poorly Drained Solis with
Good Moisture Retention;
+ High Maintenance
1
1
1
1
1
h
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Practice Standards and Specifications
Seeding mixture
Species] Rate (Ib/acre)
Tall fescue (blend of two or
three improved varieties) 200
Rye (grain) 25
Seeding dates
Bast: Sept. 15 - Oct. 15
Possible: Sept. 1 - Oct. 31 or Feb. 15 - Apr. 30
Soil amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests, or apply 3,000-5,000 lb/acre
ground agricultural limestone (use the lower rate on sandy soils) and 1,000
lb/acre 10-10-10 fertilizer.
Mulcts
Apply 4,000 lb/acre small straw or equivalent cover of another suitable
mulch. Anchor straw by tacking with asphalt, netting, or roving or by crimp-
ing with a mulch anchoring tool. A disk with blades sal nearly straight can
be used as a mulch anchoring tool.
Maintenance
Fertilize according tc soil tests cr apply 40 Iblacre nitrogen in Jan. or Feb.,
40 Ib in Sept., and 40 lb in Nov„ from a 12-4-6, 16-4-8, or similar turf fer-
tilizer. Avoid fertilizer acplicaticns during warm weather, as this increases
stand losses to disease. Reseed, fertilize, and mule's damaged areas im-
mediately. Mow to a height of 2.5-3.5 inches as needed.
'Refer to Appendix 8.02for imtanical names,

Table 6.11r
Seeding No. 3CP for; Dry
Sands to Sandy Loams; High
Maintenance, Fine Turf
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
seeding mixture
Specleat Rate(bW1,000 fts)
Tifway or Tdway II Minimuri
hybrid Sermudagrass Rapid cover: 10
r
Seeding notes
1. Sprig or sod (Practice 6.12, Sodding). Moisture is essential dudngini-
dal establishment. Sod must be kept well watered for 2-3 weeks, but can
be planted earlier or laterthan sprigs.
2. Common Bermuda can be seeded or sprigged but does net produce a
high -quality tun. it is also less cold tolerant than the hybrids, more wood
prone, and a pest in flower beds and specimen plantings.
Planting dates
Apr. -July
Soil amendments
Apply lima and fertilizer according to soil tests, or apply 3,000 Ib/acre
ground agricultural limestone and 5C0 Ib/acra 10.10-10 fertilizer, or 50
Ib/acre nitrogen from tun -type slow -release fertilizer, Add 25-50 16/acre
n@rogen at 2. to 3-week intervals through midsummer.
Sprigging
Plant sprigs in lurrcws with a:rectcr-crawn transplanter, or broadcast by
hard.
Furrows should be 1 o ndries deep and 2 it apart. Place sprigs about 2 it
apart in the row with one and at or above ground level (Figure 5.11d).
Broadcast at rates shown above, and press sprigs into the too 1/2-2 in-
ches of soil with a disk set straight so that sprigs are not brought back
toward the surface.
Mulch
Do not mulch.
Maintenance =
Water as needed and mcw to 3/4- to 1-inch height. Toodross wish 40
Ib/acre nitrogen in .Apr.. 50 S in May. 50 !b in Jure. 30 lb in July, and 25-
50 1b in Auc.
'Reiar :c 4pcercix 3.02.'cr=ar.,cal names.
(i

1
1
1
1
1
1
h
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
L:
1
Table 6.11 s
Seeding No. 4CP for:
Well -Drained Sandy Loams to
Dry Sands, Coastal Plain and
Eastern Edge of Piedmont;
Low- to Medium -Care Lawns
Practice Standards and Specif cations
Seeding dates
Mar. - June
(Sprigging can be done through July where water is available for irriga-
tion.)
Soil amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests, or appiy 300 lb/acre 10 0-
10.
Sprigging
Plant sprigs in furrows with a tractor -drawn transplanter. or broadcast by
hand.
Furrows should be 4-6 inches deep and 2 ft apart. Place sprigs about 2 it
apart in the raw with one end at or above ground level (Figure 6. i 1 d).
Broadcast at rates shown above, and Press sprigs into the top 1/2-2 in-
ches of soil with a disk set straight so that sprigs are not brought back
toward the surface.
Mulch
Do not mulch.
Maintenance
Fertilize very sparingly-20 lb/acre nitrogen in spring with no phos-
phorus. Centioedegrass cannot tolerate nigh pH or excess fertilizer.
'Refer to Appendix 8.02 for botanical names. '

Table 6.11t
Seeding No. 5CP for:
Well -Drained Sandy Loams to
Dry Sands; Low Maintenance
Seeding mixture
Speclest Rate (lb/acre)
Pensacola Bahiagrass 50
Sericea lespedeza 30
rCommon Bermudagrass 10
'German millet 10
.r
Seeding notes
1. Where a neat appearance is desired, omit sedces.
2. Use common Bermudagrass only an isolated sties where it cannot be-
come a pest. Bermudagrass may be replaced with 5 Ibyacre cen-
tipadegrass.
Seeding dates
Apr. 1 -July 15
Sol] amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according M soil testa, or apply 3,000 (Wave
ground agricultural limestone and $001b/acre 10-10-10tenilizer.
Mulch
Appy 4.000 Ib/acre grain straw or equivalent cover of another suitable
mulch. Anchor by tacking with asphalt, rcvirg, or netting or by crimping
with a muli:i anchoring tool. A disk with blades set nearly straight can be
used as a mulch anchoring t001.
Maintenance
Rerenilize the following Apr. with 5011 nitrogen. Repeat as growth re-
quires. May be mowed only once a year. Where a neat appearance is
desired, omit sericea and maw as often as needed,
'Refer to Appendix 2.02 for botanical names.
F
Y

Table 6.11 u
Seeding No. 6CP for;
Intertidal Zones of Estuarine
Shorelines, Dredged Material,
and Graded Areas In Salt
Water
Practice Standards and Specifications
Seeding mixture
Spill
Planting Zone (Figure 6.11 e)
Smooth cordgrass
mean sea level to mean high water
SaAmaadowcordgrass
mean high water to average high
water of storm tides--
Giantcordgrass
irregularly flooded areas where
salinity does not exceed 10 (ppt)
Spacing
2x2 it
Planting dates
Apr. -June
Site suitability
periodic flooding and draining is necessary for good growt1h7'in North
Carolina, estuaries south of Cape Lookout and areas near Inlets where
dhimal lunar tides range 2 to 5 it provide a relatively wide intertidal zone
for growth of smooth cordgrass. Larger estuaries north of Cape Lookout,
where water level is determined primarily by wind and freshwater runs
provide only a narrow imarlkfal zone in which plantings must be placed
precisely according to elevation.
Sources of plants
Greenhouse -grown seedlings may be obtained from commercial sources,
but usually only bycontraC orders. plants may be dug from existing stands.
Select plants from recently established marshes with open stands or marsh
edges where plants are vigorous and the root mat is not dense. Digging
and separating is easier in sand. Disposal areas for sandy, dredged
materials often provide a good source of plants. Care should be taken to
minimize damage to existing marshes.
Once plants are dug, prevent them from dying by packing the roots in moist
sand in buckets or tubs.
Planting methods
Hand planting may done by opening holes 4-6 inches deep with a dib-
ble or shovel, inserting a single stem, and Packing the soil around it. Large,
firm areas may be planted with a tractor -drawn transplanter (1coacoo or
vegetable transplanter).
(Table 6,1 to continued)

1
Table 6.11 u
(continued)
1
1
Fertilization
Lime and fertilizer should be applied at rates rewmmended by a soil test
(ask forrecommendations for fescue). Without asail test apply 2 tons/acre
limey100 Ryacre nitrogen (prelerably an all- ammonium source), and 200
_dblabre P2O5• Potassium is not required. Fertilizer may be broadcast and
incorporated before planting if the site can be graded and planfftbefare
flooding occurs. Incorporate all amendments into the upper 4.6 inches of
soil. .
M the area to be planted is flooded regularly, apply fertilizer below the sur-
face M planting. Slow -release fertilizers are more effective since they sup-
ply nitrogen over a longer period of time and can be placed in the planting
hole with little risk of damaging the roots. It soluble (quick-releasef mate-
Halsare used, cover with 2 inches of wif before inserting plant. Osmccate
(t4-1414 or 18-6-12) is an effective slow -release material that can be
placed in the planting hole W the rate of 05 to 1.0 oz (2.4 teaspoons) per
plant. y
Maintenance
Where plantings are exposed to wave action, replace plants that are
washed out. In the second and third growing seasons, broadcast nitrogen
and PzOS at i50bleats split into three equal applications in Ape, June,
and Aug. Always apply ieni0zer at law tide.

Table 6.11 v
Seeding No. 7CP for:
Grass -lined Channels;
Coastal Plain* Lower
Piedmont, and Dry Solis In
the Central Piedmont
Practice Standards and Specifications
Species' mate (tblacre)
Common Bermudagrass 40-80 (1-2lb/1,000 ttz)
Seeding dates '-
Coastal F 4ain: Apr. -July
Piedmont: Apr. 1S -June 30
Soil amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests, or apply 3,000 lb/acre
ground agricultural limestone and 500 lb/acre 10-10-10 fertilizer.
Mulch
Use jute, excelsior matting, or other effective channel lining material to
cover the bottom of channels and ditches. The lining should exr3nd above
the highest calculated depth of flow. On channel side slopes above this
height, and in drainages not requiring temporary linings, apply 4,C00
lb/acre grain straw and anchor straw by stapling netting over the top.
Mulch and anchoring materials must not be allowed to wash down slopes
where they can clog drainage devices.
Maintenance
A minimum of 3 weeks is required for establishment. Inspect and repair
mulch frequently. Refertilize the following Apr. with 50 lb/acre nitrogen.
'Refer to Appendix 8.02for botanical names.

<'. Practice Standards and Specifications
^^` 6.15
EM
' RR
Definition A layer of stone designed m protect and stabilize areas subject to erosion.
'?o
Purpose
protect the soil surface from erosive forces and/or imVFM.e stability of soil
'
slopes that are subject m seepage or have poor said structure. *4
Conditions Where
Riprap is used for the following applications:
'
Practice Applies
, cut -and -fill slopes subject to seepage a weathering, particularly where
conditions prohibit establishment of vegetation,
'
. channel side slopes and bottoms,
Wets and outlets for culverts, bridges, slope drains, grade stabilization
-
srrucnaes, and storm drains- -
'
streambank and stream grades.
• shorelines subject to wave action.
Planning
Ripmp is a versatile, highly erosion• esisnnt material that can be used effec•
Considerations
lively in many lecadons and in a varery of ways in conaol erosion on conscuc.
'
lion sites.
GRADED VERSUS UNIFORM RIPRAP
'
Riprap isclssseciaseidrer gmdedoruniioan.Graded nprap includes a wide mix-
ture of stone sizes. Uniform ripme consists of stones nearly all the same size.
Graded nprap is preferred an uniform riprep in most applications because it
'
Corms a dense, flexible cover. Uniform ripmn is more open and cannot adjust as
effectively to movement of the stones. Graded nprap is also cheaper to install
requiring less nand work"for installation than uniform riprap, which must be
placed in a uniform pattern. Un"' m ripmp may give a more pleasing ap-
'
pearance. Mw
'
Ripran sizes are designated by either he mean diameter or the weight of the
stones. I nediamemrspeculcadon is often misleading sincethe stones are usual-
-
ly angular. However. common practiceIs m specify stone size by o5e diameter
of an equivalent size of spherical stone. Table 6.1 Sa lists some typical stones by
weight, sphe^cal diamem., and the corresponding mctan,alar dimensions.
These scone sizes are based upon an assumed specific weight of 165 lbiftl.
A method commonly used for specifying the range of smite sizes in graded
'
ripmp is to designate a diameter far which some perceii!ige, by weight, will be
smaller, For examnie "deg" wecifles a mixrure of stones in which 55% of the
stone by weight would be smallenhan the diameter spec:ted. Most designs are
'
based an'•dao", or median size scones.
Rfpmp and gravel are often designated by Y.C. Deparunem of Transportation
'
specifications (Cable 6.15b).
S

Table 6.15a
Size of Riprap Stones
Mean Spherical
Length
Rectangular Shape
Weight (lb)
Diameter (ft)
(ft)
Width/Height (ft)
50
0.8
IA
O.s
100
1.1
1.8
0.6
150. _
1.3
2.0
0.7
300 -
1.6
2.6
0.9
Sao
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
T6
2.5
20000
6.1
10.0
3.3
source: Va SWCC
When considering riprap for surface stabilization, it is important to antic%gate
visual impacts, 'including weed control, hazards from snakes and other animals,
danger of slides and hazards to areas below weep 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-Riprapshould be a well -graded mixture with50%a by weight larger
than the specified design size. The diameter of the largest stone size in such a
mixture should be 1.5 times the d50 size with smaller sizes grading down to 1
inch.
The designer should determine the riptap size that will be stable for design con-
'
didons. Having determined the design stone size, the designer should select the
size or sizes that equal or excr:d that minimum size based on riprap gradations
commercially available in the area.
i
Thickness -Construction techniques, dimensions of the area to be protected,
size and gradation of the nprap, the frequency and duration of flow, difficulty
and cost of maintenancw, and consequence of failure should be considered when
determining the thickness of riprap linings. Thhp minimum thickness should be
1.5 times the maximum stone diameter,�ut 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 :_

Practice Standards and Specifications
Table 6.15b
Sizes for Riprap and Erosion
Control Stone Specified by
the N.C. Department of
Transportation
Riprap
Erosion Control
Class
Class
Class
Class
1
2
A
S
5 to 200 lb
25 to 250 lb
2' to 6`
5" to 15"
30% shail
60% shall
i
weigh a
weigh a mini -
minimum of 60
!mum of 100 lb
lbs 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-
Er, Wly dis-
tributed, no
tributed, no
gradation
gradation
specified
specified
source: Nerth Carolina Aggregates Association.
on exposure to water or weathering, and suitable in a1L outer respects for the pur-
pose intended. The specific gravity of the individual stones should be at least
2.5.
Size of stone —The sizes of stones used for riprap protection are determined by
purpose and specific site conditions.
• Slope stab 7ization—Riprap swne 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 significant
resistance oo sliding or slope failure and should not be considered a retain-
ing waU. The inherent stability of the soil must be satisfactory berore
riprap is used for surface stabilization. Slopes approaching 1.5:1 saav re
quire special stability analysis.
Outlet protection —Design criteria for sizing stone and determining the
dimensions of riprap pads at ch=. el or conduit outlets are presented in
Practice 6.41, butler Stabilization Structure.
• Channel stabilization and streambank protection—Desig7triteria for
sizing stone for stabiliry of channels are contained in Appendix 3.05.
Filter blank et—A'hiterblariicet is a laver or material placed between the riprap
and the underlying soil to prevent soil movement into or through the riprap.

41I
cal
w
39
0
W
37
1
LL
0
35
W
Z
33
'
a
31
MEAN STONE SIZE, DSO, If
pry p/ Op pp o ph po pO
�J
U■mil®
■I■■■����I����
�.���
i■
■
1■■
i■:INS
Niiii
==W:
6 9 10 20 40 60 too 200 400 600
MEAN STONE SIZE, Dsp, mm
' Figure e.raa Angle of repose of riprap stones.
t A suitable filter may consist of a well -graded gravel or sand gravel layer or a
synthetic filter fabric manufactured for this ezpmss 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 arsordance with the criteria below. The
designed gravel filter blanket may consist of several layers of increasingly large
particles from sand to erosion control stern.
' A gravel filter blanket should have the following relationship for a stable
design:
'
dts filter 5 —
des base
5 < dts filler <a0
'
ills base
dso filler < 40
'
dso base
4 - In these relationships, filter refers m the overlying material and base reliTto
'
the underlying material. These relationships must hold between the filter ma-
teriai 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 a least 6 inches thick

'
Practice Standards and Specifications
A synthetic filter fabric maybe used with Orin place of gravel filters.lTe fol-
lowing particle size relationships should exist
'
• Filter fabric covering a base with granular particles containing 50% or
less (by weight) of fine particles (less than U.S. Standard Sieve no. 200
'
= P74mm)): .__.
a. des base (morel
EOS' filter fabdc(mm)'t
b. total open area of filter should not exceed 36%
'
Filter fabric covering other soils:
a EOS is no larger it= U.S. Standard Sieve no. 70 (0.21mm)
'
b. tout open area of filter should not exceed 10%. _
*EOS • Equivalent opening size compared to a U.S. nandar�­sievs six.
No filter fabric should have less than 47n open area or an EOS less than U.S.
Standard Sieve No. 100 (0.15 mm). The permeability of the fabric most be
greater man that Of the sod. The fabric may be made of woven or nonwoven
moni filamenc yams and should meet the fallowing minimum requirements:
• daiclu ess 20 - 60 mils,
• grab strengh 90.120 lb.
'
• conform W ASTbI D-1682 or ASRil D-177,
Filter blankets should always be provided when seepage is significant orwhem
flow velocity and duration of flow or turbulence may cause the underlying soil
'
panicles in move through the riprap.
Construction Subgrade preparation —Prepare the subgrade for ripeap snit filter no the re.
Specifications quired lines and grades shown on the plans. Compact any fill required in dte
subgnde to a density approximating that of the surrounding url4knarbed ma-
terial or overfill depressions with riprap. Remove brush, pees, srumps, and other
objectionable material. Cut the subgrade sufficiently deep that the tinishedemde
of the riprap will be at the elevation of the surounding area. Channels should
'
be excavated sufficiently m allow placement of the norm in a manner such that
the tinisbed inside dimensions and grade Of the rorao meet design spa fica.
now.
'
Sand and gravel filter blanket —Place the firer blanket immediately after the
ground foundation is prepared. For gravel, spread filter scone in a uniform layer
to the specified depth. When 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-
don. Overlap the edges by at least 12 inches, and space anchor pins every 3 It
'
along the overlap. Bury the upper and lower ends of the cloth a minimum of 12
inches below ground Take care not to damage me cloth when placing riprap. if
damage occurs remove the ripmp and repair the sheet by adding another layer
r

761
1
1
1
1
1
1
of 6ltermaterial with a minimum overlap of 12 inches around the damaged area.
If extensive damage is susilmmd, remove and replace the entire sheet.
Where large stones are used or machine placement is difficult, a flinch layer of
fine gravel or and may be needed w protect the filter cloth.
8lon placement—Placementofriprapshouldfollowimmediamtfifterplam-
mentof the fdmr.Placeripmp So that it forms a dense, welt -graded masyof storm
with a minimum of voids. The headed distribution of stones throughoutthe mast
may be obtained by selective loading at the quarry and controlled damping
during final placement. Place ripmp to its full thickness in one operation. Do
notplwe riprap by dumping through chmesorother methods thatcause segrega-
tion of stone sizes. Take care not to dislodge the underlying base or filter when
placing the storms.
The roe of the ripmp 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 ripmp 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 ripmp should blend with the surrounding area. No overfall or provision
of ripmp should be apparent
Figure 6.15b Riprap slope protection
(modified trnn VDHaI).
6'
fill
Maintenance In genmral, once a ripmp instivadon has been properly designed and instilled it
requires very little maintenance. Ripmp should be inspected periodically for
scour or dislodged stones. Control of weed and brush growth in Vbeneeded in
some locations. _
References Ranoffconveymictimeaswes
631. Riprap-lined and Paved Channels
Outlet Protection
6.41, Outlet Stibil eoution Snucare

Practice Standards and Specifications
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
Stream Prorecrion
6.72, Vegetative 5treambank Stabilization
Appendices
8.05, Design of Stable Channels and Diversions
8.06, Design of Riprap Outlet Protection

IPractice Standards and Specifications
C
6.30
'
GL
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.
IConditions
Where
This practice applies to construction sites where:
Practice Applies
concentrated runoff will cause damage from erosion or flooding;
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 baciclot lines. Avoid channels crossing watershed boundaries or
ridges.
' Plan the course of the channel to avoid sharp changes in direction or grade. Site
development should conform to natural features of the land and use natural
drainageways rather than drastically reshape the land surface. Major recon-
' fisuration of the drainage system often entails increased maintenance and risk
of failure.
Crass -lined channels must not be subject to sedimentation from disturbed
areas.
esz~biished grass -lined channel resembies natural drainage s,:stems and.
_nerefore, is usu•!11, _rwfe—z ed tf -�esiQn ve?ccibes -,,c below j ft,'sec. Velcca:es
up :o o fvsec can ce safely used under certain conditions (Table 3.05a, .4open-
dL_- 3,05
' Establishment of a dense, resistant vegetation is essential. Construct and ve?-
3
etate grass -lined channels early in the construction scheduie beftn grading and
' paving increase the rate of runoff.
GeotexWe fabrics or special mulch protection such as fiber grss roving or straw
' and netting provide stability until the vegetation is fuily established. These
Protective liners must be used whenever design velocities exceed'' fusee 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 insets and outlets.

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 swale-like shape is pleasing and may besf tit site condi-
tions. .,1;
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 6.31, Subsur;-ace Drain and Practice 6.31, Riprap-;fined and
'
Paved Channels).
'
OUTLETS
Outlets must be stable. Where channei improvement ends, the exit velocity for
the design tlow must be nonerosive for the existing field conditions. Stability
conditions beyond the property boundary should always be considered (Prac-
tics 6.-' 1. Ou:Ie' Staoili=anon Strucmre).
AREA
Where urban drainage area exceeds 10 acres, it is re - commended thatgrass- lined
'
channels be designed by an �n;ineer experienced in channel design.
' Design Criteria Capacity --As a minimum„rzss-lined channels should carry peak unoff from
the 10-yr storm without eroding. Where flood hazard exists, increase the
capacity according m the potential damage. Channel dimensions may be deter-
mined by using design tables with appropriate retardanee factors or by
Manning's formula using an appropriate "n" value. When retardance factors are
used, the capacity is usually based on retardant-, "C" and stability on retardance
' "D" (Re;erences:.Appendix.8.05).
Velocity --The allowable design velocity for grass -lined channels is based on
soil conditions, . we of ve�ze ation, and cnethca or es al (ishmeat (Table 3.05a.
A noe-di :::3.051 .
it design 4elCc:i;% v[ 1 h'ar ne! io , vegetated by seedin_ xcatids ? 'VSZe ., a
' temporary channel, liner �S requires.. Tne design of the liner may be based on
peak tiow from a ?-yr storm. if vegetation is established by sodding, the per-
missib€e ve!ccity for established vegetation shown in Table 3.0Sa may ue used
' and no temporary liner is needed. Whether a temporary lirti gis requried or not
permanent channe€ linings must be stable for the 10-yr storm. A design approach
based on erosion resist :rtca of various liner materials develoced by the : edemi
Highway :administration is presented in.Appendiz8.05.
' Cross section—T rye channel shape maybe paraaoLc, trapezoidal, orV V-shaped, depending on need and site conditions (Figure 6.30a).

Practice Standards and Specifications
r
Figure 6.10a Crass sectlon geometry of
triangular, parabolic, and trapezoidal Triangular "V"
channels.
'
0
x-section area (A) = Zd2
'
top width (T) = 2dz
Z of
Parabolic
IT T
I
d
tx-saction
area (A) = 213 Td
top width (T) _,=A
d
'
Traoezoidal
'
T
li
d
'
— b -h
e
x-section area (A) = bid ; Zdt2
too width (T) _ b } 2dz
Z d
Hydraulic grade line —Examine the design water surface if thiiz4hannel sys-
hem becomes complex.
Side>lopes--Gnssedchanne! side slopes generally are r_nsa-icxd is i orteat.
' ter to aid inthe esmbilswnenref vegemuon and for mau enance. Side slopes of
N shaped channels are usually conspucted 6:1 or Hauer alanx roadways for
' Depth and width —The channel depth and width are proportioned to meet the
needs of drainage, soil conditions, erosion control, car.' ng capai� and site
' conditions. Construct channels a minimum of 0.2 ft larger around periphery
to allow ror soil bulking during seedbed preparation and sod buildup.
Grade —Either a uniform or gradually increasing grade is preferred to avoid
' sedimenration. Where the grade is excessive, grade stabilisation sauctures may
be required or channel linings of ripmp or paving should be considered (Prac-
tice 6.32. Grade Stabilization Structure).
' — a
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
sg
Drainage —Install subsurface drains in locations widt high water tables or
seepage problems that would inhibit establishment ofvegetacim in the channel.
Stone channel b000m lining may be needed where prolonged low flow is an-
ticipated.
..Outlets —Evaluate the outlets of all channels for carrying capacityand stability
mid protect them from erosion by limiting the exit velocity (Practice 6.41, Out-
let Stabilization Strucru>e).
Sedimentation protection —Protect permanent grass channels from sediment
produced in the watershed, especially daring the construction period This can
be accomplished by the effective use of diversions, sediment naps, protected
side inlets, and vegetative filter snips along the channel.
Construction 1. Remove all Gees, brush, stamps, and other objectionable material from the
Specifications foundation area and dispose of properly.
2. Facavaiethe channel and shape it to neat fines and dimensions shown on the
plans plus a 0.2-ft overcut around the channel perimeter to allow for bulldng
during seedbed preparations and sod buildup.
i. 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 sele^_don of species. Protect the channel with
mulch or a temporary liner su[Trcent to withstand anticipated velocities during
the establishment period (Appendix 8.05).
Maintenance During the establishment period, check gross -lined channels after every rain -
fail. After gross is established, periodically check the channel: check it after
every heavy rainfall event. Immediately make repairs. It is particularly impor•
Cant m check the channel outlet and all mad crossings for bank stability and
evidence of pining or scour holes. Remove all significant sediment accumula-
tions in maintain the designed coonng caoxiry. Keep the gross in a healthy,
vigorous condition at all dines. since it is die primary erosion protection for the
channel (P=, dce 6. 11. Permanent Seeding).
�E[erEnCES Surface Srabifi:anon
6.11. Permanent Seeding
6.11 Sodding
6.14, Mulching
OurlerPratecrion
6.41. Outlet Stabilization Strucar
Other Related Practices
6.91, Subsurface Drain
6.82. Grade Stabilization Structure

Practice Standards and Specifications
Appendices
8.02, Vegetation Tables
8.03, Estimating Runoff
8.05, Design of Stable Channels and Diversions
1
1
1
1
1

I
Practice Standards and Specifications
r 6.31 r
' 2*RR
Definition Channels with erosion -resistant linings of riprap, paving, or other structural
of e
�i material designed for the conveyance and safe disposal xcess water.
� P �
1 Purpose To convey concentrated surface runoff without erosion.
Conditions Where This practice applies where design flow velocity exceeds 2 it/secsothatachan-
Praetice Applies nil luting is required, but conditions are unsu table for grits -lined channels.
specific conditions include:
'
• Channels where slopes over 5% predominate; continuous or prolonged
flows occur: potential for damage from traffic (people or vehicles) exists;
Or soils are erodible and soil properties are not suitable for vegetative
'
protection.
• Design velocity exceeds that allowable for a pass -lined channel.
'
Property value justifies the cost to contain the design runoff in a limited
space.
• Channel setting warrants the use of special paving materials.
tPlanning
Riprap or paving materials are generally employed as channel liners when
Considerations design flow velocides exceed the tolerance of grass or where gross lining is in.
'
appropriate (Practice 6.30. Grass -lined Channels).
Flexible liners are preferred to rigid liners, and riprap is the flexible finer of
choice. Riprap is preferred primarily on the basis of cost, but it has several ad•
ditional advantages such as:
• Ripmp liners can be designed to withstand most now velocities bychoos-
ing stable stone size.
Riprap adjusts to unstable foundation conditions without failure.
' Fell=of s riprap liner is not as expensive to repair as a rigid Ilnerwuuld
be.
The roughness of riprap reduces outlerrc!ochy, and ands rsa reduce flow
volume by allowing Ntiim_uon.
Rigid liners tacit as cancre:e or flazone an car.,: !a le :Ioiumes Of .vita
without eroding. However, they are more expensive to design and construct. are
' less forgiving of foundation conditions, and introduce high energies that must
be controlled and dissipated to avoid damage to thane( outlets and receiving
streams. -0�
' Channels combining gassed side slopes and rpmp or paved bottoms may be
used where velocities are within allowable limits forgrass lining siong dtechan-
' nil sides, but long -duration flows, seepage, or a high velocity flow would
damage vegetation in the channel bottom.
' i

wpm
' Paving blocks and gabions have some of the same characteristics as riprap and
are often used instead of riprap to fit certain site conditions.
' Channels with smooth liners, such as concrete or flagstone, usually are not
limited by velocity, take up less land area, and can be constructed to fit limited
=si.te conditions. In addition, they provide a more formal appearaner-and usual-
fpregdire less maintenance. Exercise care to see that foundation soils are stable
and proper foundation drainage is installed. Appropriate measures are: needed
to reduce the exit velocity of the paved channel to protect the receiving chan-
nel or outlet.
Where urban drainage area exceeds 10 acres it is recommonded that riprap and
' paved channels be designed by an engineer experienced in channel design.
Design Criteria Capacity ---Design channels to contain the peak runoff from the 10-yr storm as
_ a minimum. Where flood damage potential is high, expand the c�Ladty to the
extent of the value or hazard involved.
Table 6.31 a
Guide for Selecting Manning
n Values
Velocity —Compute velocity using Manning's equation with an appropriate n
value for the selected fining. Values for Manning's n are shown in Table 6.31a.
Lining Material
n
Concrete:
Trowel finish
0.012-0.01.1
Float finish
0.0E 3-0.017
Gunite
0.016-0.022
Fiagstone
0.020-0,025
Paving 'blocks
0.025
Ricra.0
Determine from Table 3.05f
Gabion
0.025-o.030
Channel a adient— When the Froude dumber is between 0.%nd 1.W. Chan-
nei flows may become unstable and the designer should consider -modifying the
'
channel slope_ Reaches designed for supercritical flow should he straight unless
speciai design prcczdures are used.
1
yl �-
F-
A3
9
'
Where:
FR = Froude dumber, dimensionless
Q = Discharge, ft3/sec
B = Water surface width, ft
'
g = 31' €t/sev"
A = Cross -sectional area, ft'-
'
Cross section —Tile cross section may be triangular, parabolic, or trapezoidal.
Reinforced concrete or gabions may be rectangular (Figure 6.31a ).

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Practice Standards and Specifications
Vegetated V-shaped Waterway with Stone Center Drain
18"
6"
w
Id
III I_II III. 4-12"
Filter layer,
gravel or fabric
Trapezoidal Riprap Channel
d will
=�1 �cf.11d�•�!
L Filter layer, gravel
or 'fabric
Vegetated Parabolic -shaped Waterway with Stone Center Drain
w
2/3 w —�
'air=lil�_lil, d I Ilj 111h
18' �,I. =-lac•
T III__:ITi._
8 • r '-!Ill _ F'Ilter layer,
a =_il! 111=11ir' gravel ortabnc
Figure a. a,a Cc ns:uc;icn ce.ail of ricrap channel cress sechors,
Side slope —lase side slopes on the ma, crials and placement methods in Table
61
Hydraulic grade line —Ensure that the design •eater surface in ;.ie channel
meets the design flow eleradons of tributary channels and diversions. Ensure
that it is below safe flood elevation s for homes, roads, or other improvements.

1
13
1
Table 5.31b
Guide for Selecting Channel
Side Slopes
Table 6.31 c
Clhannel Lining Thickness
Maximum
Nonreinforced Concrete
Slope
Formed Concrete
Height of liningl .5 ft or less
vertical
Screeded concrete or flagstone mortared in place
= Height of lining less than 2 ft
1:1
— '' Height of lining more than 2 ft
2:i' m1'
Slip farm concrete
Height of lining less than 3 ft
1:1
Riprap and Paving Blocks
2:1
Depth and width --Proportion the channel depth and width to meet the needs
of drainage, carrying capacity, foundation limitations, and specific site condi
lions.
Lining thickness —Minimum lining thickness should be as shown in Table
6.3 1 c.
Filter layer —A sand/gravel filter layer should be used under the channel lining
to prevent piping and reduce uplift pressure (Appendi ; 8.05).
RiQrap--For the design of riprau channels ses:lppend:z8,05.
Concrete —Concrete for linings should be a dense, durable product sufficient-
ly plastic for thorough consoiidation but stiff enough to stay in place on side
slopes. As a minimum, use a mix certified as 340 lb/inch" .
Cutoff —Cutoff walls are needed at the beginning and end of paved orriprapped
channel sections to protect against undercutting. Expansion joints and addition-
al cutoff wails may also be needed.
Outlets --Evaluate the capacity and stability of all channel outlets and protect
them from erosion by limiting e:tit veiociry (Practices 6. *, Level Sorecder and
6.41, 0utler Stabilization Srruc:ure).
Material Minimum Thickness
Concrete 1 inc^es
F.cck d.0rap 1.5 z maximum secne
ciarneter
Fiags.cne 41. irches in6i 6r._ mcrar
Construction 1. Clear the foundation area of trees, stumps, roots, ioose round other ob-
Specii1Cas]Ons Sect onable material.
?. Excavate the cross secrion to the lines and grades of the foundation of the
liner as shown on the plans. Bring over -excavated areas to grade by increasing
the thickness of the liner or by bac culling with moist soil compacted to the den-
sity of the surrounding material.

1 Practice Standards and Specifications
3. Concrete linings:
' Place concrete linings to the thickness shown on the plans and finish them
in a workmanlike manner.
' Take adequate precautions to protect freshly placed concret&_. # om ex-
u4me temperatures to ensure proper curing.
• Ensure that subgrade is moist when concrete is poured.
' Install foundation drains or weep holes where needed to protect against
uplift and piping.
• Provide transverse (contraction) joints tocontrolcracking atapproximate-
ly 20-ft intervals. These joints may be Formed by using a 102•inch thick
removable template or by sawing to a depth of at least 1 inch.
' Install expansion joints at intervals not to exceed 100 ft.
4. Rock riprap linings: Practice 6.13, Riprap.
5. Place filters, beddings, and foundation drains to line and grade in the man-
ner specified. Place filter and bedding materials immediately after slope
preparation. Spread granular materials in a uniform layer. When more than one
gradation is required, spread the layers so there is minimal mixing. Hite,
material should consist of at least 3 inches of material on all sides of the drain
pipe. The drain pipe conduit should be a minimum of 4 inches in diameter. Ac-
ceptable materials include perforated, continuous, closed -joint conduits of clay,
concrete, metal, plastic, or other suitable material (Practice 6.81, Sub -Surface
Drain).
6. Perform all channel constmction to keep erosion and water pollution to a
t
minimum. Immediately upon completion of the channel, vegetate all disturbed
areas or otherwise protect Them against soil erosion. Where channel construc-
tion will take longer than 30 days, stabilize channels by reaches.
Mainteneance Inspect channels at regular intervals as well as after major rains, -arid make
repairs promptly. Give special attention to the outlet and inlet sections and other
'
points where concentrated Row enters. Carefully check stability at road cross-
ings and iook for indications of piping, scour holes, or bank failures. Make
repairs immediately. Maintain all vezetation adjacent to the channel in a heal-
thy, vigorous condition to protect he area from erosion and scour dunpg out-
oi-bank flow,
'
References Surr-aceStabilizarion
_
6.11, Permanent Seeding"
'
6.15, Riprap
Runorf-Conveyance Measures
1
6.30, Grass -lined Channels
Outlet Prorecrion
6.41, Outlet Stabilization Structure
'
� Y-

Other Related Practices
6,81, Subsurface Drain
Appendices
8.03, Estimating Runoff
$.05; Design of Stable Channels and Diversions

1r
Practice Standards and Specifications
■
6,41
. rOIL
'mmqqm
Wag
Definition
A structure resigned to control erosion at the outlet of a channel or conduit.
'
Purpose
Toprev8nterosion at the oudet ofachannel m conduit by mducingShY.velocity
ok low and dissipating the energy.
Conditions Where
This practice applies where the discharge velocity of a pipe, box culvert, diver.
Practice Applies
sion, open channel, aotherwatereonveyancesoucnneexceedsthe permissible
velocity of the receiving channel or disposal an.
'
Planning
The outlets of channels. conduits.=clocher structures are points of high erosion
Considerations
potential, because they frequently carry flows at velocities that exceed the al.
'
lowable limit for the area ditwnsaram. To prevent scour and undermining, an
outlet sunbilization structure is needed to absorb the impact of the flow and
reduce the velocity ro nonarosive levels. A ripmp-fined apron is the most com-
'
monly used practice for this purpose because of its relatively low cost and ewe
of iretalladon. The riprap apron should be extended downsc earrh coal stable
conditions are reached even though this may exceed Elie length calculated for
'
design velocity control.
Riprap-sulling basins orplunge pppis reduce flow velocity rapidly. They should
be considered in lieu of aprons where overfills exit at the ends of pipes c r where
'
high flows would require excessive apron length. Consider other energy dis-
sipaterssuch asconcrete impactbasinsorpavedoude sructures when sitecon.
'
ditions warrant, CFigure 6.' la),
Design Criteria
Design procedures for ricrac outlet structures are presented in Appendix 8.06,
tThe
criteria for design of, imp outlets are:
Capacity-10-:n, peak runoff or the design discharge of the water conveyance
'
structure, whichever is greater.
Tailwater depth —Determine the depth of Ltilwater immediately Maw the
pipe outlet based on the design discharge plus other conccuting flows. if the
'
tailwater depth is less than half the Name mr orthe ouder trice and the rr. eivitg
stream is sufsictenily wide so ac ecr ,he divereeace of flow, it is classed w c
minimum wilwater condition. if ;ne talwater depth is greater than hair the
pipe diameter, it is classed as a maximum tailwater enndifion. pipes that out.
'
let onto broad flat areas with no derined channel maybe assumed to have a min-
imum Wiwater condition unless sate conditions indicate otherwise gun
t
6.41b).
.apron size—T%e apron length and width can be determined according m dhe
'
tailwater condition. If the water conveyance strckm, discharges directly into
a well-defined channel, extend the anion across the channel bottom and uo the
channel banks to an elevation of O.5 it above the maximum tailwater depth or
to the top of the bank, whichever is less (Figure 6.41c).
'
_
s
1

Practice Standards and Specifications
Determine the maximum allowable velocity for the receiving suream, and design
the riprap apron to reduce [flow to this velocity before flow leaves the apron.
Calculate the apron length for velocity control crass the length required to meet
stable conditions downstream, whichever is greater.
rGrade—Ensure that the apron has zero. grade. Ilene should.be no overfall at
[he end of the apron; that is, the elevation of the top d din riprap at the
downstream end should to the same as the elevation of the bo[to7n of the mceiv-
ing channel or the adjacent ground if there is no channel.
Alignment —Ile 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—Enstre that riprap consists of a well -graded mixnne 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 13 times the dso size.
A Minimum
do ' s v 7ailwa er < 0.5 do
Maximum
Figure 6.41b Sage showing maximum and minimum milwater conamn.

0
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
Pipe Outlet to Flat Area —
No Well-defined Channel
Plan
mg_
eCtIGn ' blanket Notes
Pipe Outlet to Well-defined
Channel
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
Grass
la"
depth or to the top of the bank,
fined
whichever is less.
swa_e
4.
A filter blanket eriilter fabric
should be installed between
the riprap and soil foundaticn.
e,
w.c. oor
_p-raa s
ONII —III 14
J -6ZAM
�pj�
@-11I�11 Sec ion AA
Titer
blanket
Figure 6.41c R1PmPw4WPutwV0n Imo fWImm VasWCC). y
R

Practice Standards and Specifications
' Tbickness—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'uhdividual stones should be at least 2.5.
Filter —Install a filler to prevent soil movement through [.he openings in the
' ripmp. 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 ripmp follows due required lines
Specifications
and grades shown in the plan. Compact any fill required in the subg ade to the
tensity of the surrounding undisturbed maatial. Low areas in the subgrade on
undisturbed soil may also be filled by increasing the riprap thickness.
_
2. The ripmp and gravel Filter must Conform to the specified grading limits
'
shown on the plans.
7. Filter cloth. when used, must meet design requirements and be property
protected from punching or tearing during insaltadon. Repair any damage by
removing the riprap and placing another piece of fitter cloth over the damaged
t
area..Vl connecting joints should overlap a minimum of I It. If the damage is
extensive, replace the entire Filter cloth.
'
3. Riprap may be placed by equipment, but ake care to avoid damaging the Ill.
Mr.
'
S. The minimum thickness of the riprap should be 1.5 dines the maximum stone
diameter.
6. Riprap may be field stone orrough quarry stone. It should be hard, angular,
highly weather-resisanc and well graded.
7. Construct the apron on zao grade with no overfall ar the end ake the top
of the ripmp ar the downstream end level .vial the receiving area or slightly
below is
S. Ensure that the apron is properly aligned wide to receiving stream ana
preferably ;might throughout la lengeh. If a curve is needed w tit site eonai-
dons. place it in d:e upper section of the apron.
9. Immediately after construction, stabilize all disturbed areas with vegetation
(P=Eie eS 6.16, Temporary Seeding, and 6.11. Permanent Seediry
'
IbialntenanCe
Inspect riprap oudet s=rures after heavv mins to sea if any erosion around or
'
below the riprap has taken place or if stones have been dislodged. Immediately
make all needed repairs to prsvem further damage.

'
Practice Standards and Specifications
6.50
Definition
M eacavaa:d area in the approach to a storm drain drop Iola or curb inlet,
Purpose
:So trap sediment at the approach to the storm drainage systems.�is practice
wm -:bllos use of permanent stmwater conveyance at an early stage of site
development. f
'
Conditions Where
Where storm drain drop inlets are to be made operational before permanent
Practice Applies
stabilization of the disturbed drainage area. This method of inlet protection is
'
applicable where relatively heavy flows are expected and overflow capability
is needed (Figure 5.50a). Fmquemmaintenance isrequired and temporary flood-
ing in the excavated area will occur. This practice can be used in combination
with other unni ormy inletpmtection devices mch mPmctim 6.51,FauricDrop
Inlet Proiealon and Practice 6.52, Bock and Gravel Inlet Protection.
'
Excavated area (as required)
Side scope 2a
v
1 2 u=
IIIIIcj'::
..,.
.. .. .;.:::..:.... It Accumulated
'
ILI
♦
f�
a_I —_Ti sediment
11' �II=:n"
II Weep holes
•—
I t
Excavated de — .a for
depth, III
p �
min 1 1 —max 2' (tl—d dewaterino=1
I1{III—,.
m Gravel —supported by
IIII_ hardware cloth to allow
'
below top or
inlet III(I .^ tlt =11i
drainage and : e5:rict
sediment movement.
Flow
SOW
Flow
Fiaw
' Figure6.50a Excavated drop inletprotecaun. =
1

1
Design Criteria Limit the drainage area toIacre.Keeptheminimumdepthatlftandthemax-
imum depth of 2 it as measured from the crest of the inlet structure.
Maintain side slopes around the excavation no steeper than 2:1.
Keepethe iiinimum volume of excavated area around One drop inlet. at ap-
proximately iS yd'lecm disnubed.
Shape the basin to fitsisecon litions, with the longas[dimension oriented toward
the longest inflow area to provide maximum trap efficiency.
Install provisions for draining the temporary pool to improve trapping efficien-
cy, for small storms and to avoid problems from standing water after heavy mins.
Construction 1. Claw the area of all debris that might hinderexcavation and disposal of spoil.
Specifications =
2. Grade the approach to the inlet uniformly.
1 Protect weep holes by gravel.
1. NWhen the contributing drainage area has been permanently stabilized, seal
weep holes, fill the basin with stable soil to Final grading e!evadons, compact it
property, and stabilize.
Maintenance Inspect. clean, and properly maintain the excavatedbasin after every sawn until
thecontribudngdrainage area has been permanently stabilized. To providesatis.
facmry basin efficiency, remove sediment when the volume of the basin has
been reduced by one-half. Spread all excavated material evenly over the sur.
rounding land area or stockpile and stabilize it appropriately.
References mint Prorection
651. Fabric Drop Inlet Protection (Temporary)
6.32, Block and Gravel Inks Protecdon CTemporary)

n
Practice Standards and Specifications
1 6.62
r Definition A temporary sediment barrier consisting of Filter fabric buried at the bottom,
stretched, and supported by posts.
I— Purpose To reiairf sediment from small disturbed areas by reducing the velocrt3r-61sheet
flows to allow sediment deposition.
T
Conditions Where Below small disturbed areas less than 1/4 acre per 100 ft of fence.
Practice Applies where runoff can be stored behind the sediment fence without damaging the
' fence or the submerged area behind the fence.
— Do not install sediment fences across strearns, ditches, or waterways.
Planning A sediment fence is a permeable barrier that should be planned as a system to
Considerations retain -sediment on the construction site. The fence retains sediment primarily
by retarding flow and promoting deposition. In operation, generally the fence
becomes clogged with Fine particles, which reduce flow rate. This causes a pond
' to develop more quickly behind the fence. The designer should anticipate pond-
ing and provide sufficient storage areas and overflow outlets to prevent flows
from overtopping the fence. Since sediment fences are not designed to withstand
high heads, locate them so that only shallow pools can form. Tie the ends of a
sediment fence into the landscape to prevent flow around the end of the fence
before the 1 reaches design level. Provide stabilized outlets to protect the
l� �
Fence system and release stormflows that exceed the design storm.
Deposition occurs as the storage pool forms behind the Fence. The designer can
direct flows to specified deposition areas through appropriate positioning of the
fence or by providing an excavated area behind the fence. Plan deposition areas
at accessible points to promote routine cleanout and maintenance. Show deposi-
tion areas in the erosion and sedimentation control plan. A sediment fence acts
as a diversion if placed slightly off the contour. This may be used l* the design-
er to control shallow, uniform flows from small disturbed areas and to deliver
sediment -laden water to deposition areas.
' Sediment fences serve no function along ridges or near drainage divides where
there is little movement of water. Confining or diverting runoff unnecessarily
with a sediment fence may create erosion and sedimentation problems that
' would not otherwise occur.
Design Criteria Ensure that the drainage area is no greater than 1/4 acre per 100 €�f fence.
' Make the fence stable for the 10 ,yr peak storm runoff.
' Where all runoff is to be stored behind the fence, ensure that the maximum slope
length behind a sediment fence does not exceed the specifications shown in
Table 6.62a.
1� y

Practice Standards and Specifications
CONSTRUCTION
1. Consnuctthe sedimentbarrierof standard strengthorexnstrength synthetic
filter fabrics.
2. Ensure that the height of the sediment fence does not exceed 18 inches above
the ground surface. (Higher fences may impound volumes of water sufficient to
ca(ue ffilure of the structure.)-•
7. Construct the filter fabric from a continuous roll cut to the length ofthe bar -
net in avoid joints. When joints ate necessary, securely fasten the filter cloth
only at a support post with overlap in the next post.
S. Support standard strength filter fabric by wire mesh fastened securely to the
upslope side of the posts using heavy duty wire staples at least 1 inch long, or
de wtres. Extend the wire mesh support to the bottom of the north.
S. When a wire mesh support fence is used, space posts a maximum of Rattan.
Support posts should be driven securely into the ground to a minimum of IS in-
ches.
6. Extra strength filter fabric with &it post spacing does not require wire mesh
support fence. Staple or wire the Filter fabric directly in posts.
7. Excavate a nench approximately 1 inches wide and 8 inches deep along the
proposed line of posts and upslope from the barrier (Figure 6.62a).
8. BwUn the trench with compacted soil or gravel placed over the Filter fabric
9. Do not attach filter fabric in existing trees.
Maintenance Inspect sediment fences a least once a week and after each rainfall. Make any
required repairs immediately.
Should the fabric of a sediment fence collapse, tear, decompose or become in-
effective. replace it promptly. Replace burlap every 60 days. �
Remove sediment deposits as necessary in provide adequate storage volume for
the next rain and to reduce pressure on the fence. Take care to avoid undermin-
ing the fence during deanom,
Remove all fencing materials and unstable sediment deposits and bring the area
to grade and smbuiza it after the contributing drainage area has been properly
stabilized.

_� • •• i:yJyi —
0,0
i
jo
INv Aoa ///. ..
1 II111 IIII / : "\
I n n n l l 1 r! --------
i
iiililiiii I !1
11{
Inll,uu Ila
II111li11 I 11 III
r- � / IIIIIII III II c IIII
1 IIII1,111, II pj II:1
t._.� I ■ II IIIIIII II
W IIII
i■ ,II „III II I' II I � II III'll" I I II
'III III III III ILL
11 IIII
1 IIII II!1111 ILL
1 I 11 11'I
1 IIII II'I ll ' I II
i Ip4I'� I II Illl
1 11lINI111 I I II I
PROJECT LI p
1 Illllnl ; ;; ;Ill
it
1 IIII III I
21,31 AC I IIIIIII I i Ill{
_ Iili III
IIII III IIII
I
if _ __ /,, it ' if I
11
i - '
----------------------------�----- \X
II I
__ _ __________ _____ __________
111 if 1 (l // %=-_ ------ __-__- -� `\ // l_-Jill I-i - \�I`
I11 11 1 r 11
r IIIIII 11 %%% /// ____ II II `\\\\1 II II
ITI11!111 -- 11 II Il II
--�-__ III i II m 1x`i.JL.LA I I I 1 II II
1 I1 1 I III II --�-- 1'1I II III II III
t i t ---- ------------- ILL i' l l i 11 i i Y
1 IIIIII 1, III �It
ILL,II /�---_---------------- `I. 11 III H 11 II I 1 IIIII
t {RpIyI; !! W ii lI ii If i!
1 IIIIIII I II Il lldlll � 'I Ipi I II II II II 111 Xq11
I11;11 II L'I'°111 If
II III II II II'lll II I I 11 I 1 11
1 IIIIIII I I 11 IIIIIII! 11 IIIyII I I Il lyI III I, II II -f
I11I1!1 ! ii ;� 1111'llll I i !'Ill;
IIIII I1lIIlIU I. 1, II IICI II
IIIIIII , I, II IIHIIn I I 11 W IYII II l 11 IIII
, IIIIIII I I II IIIIII 111 1' ' I 11 IIWI II ' Ilwl
IIIIII 1 II II IIIIII j, II INI II I_ IIII
■ ;IIIIII t II it iiiillii ii I ` �� c l Ii it
I I111�111 II II
1 11!I!II ! Il II III11111 !I I II a- 101 I
1 1Im
111'I I 11 II IIII III IIIll If
II ¢ lil II I II IeIYII
1 Illil'1 l ll II IIIIII il'I II II i�l II ' IIeI
Iillli i II Ii liii'iiii IT }jlI- !'I
1 Ill'I I1 II II IIIIIII /� 11 Itl II c6 I
II 1 I IIII III 11 11 O I11 11 I I If
I
1 Ilnlll II IIIIIII II II 11 OI III II W I {1 I
IIII I 1, IIII'1 11 11 11 W 111 I! 111 1
1 III 11 1 II11'1 III 11 11 III ILe
1 I
' 1111'I I � II I III' III II II 11' II I Ill
� I111'1 I I! I IIII IIII II II �J „ I I
a IIIj 11 ry I IIII 1,111 11 II ----
111!Il ! 'f l! III IIII ;'
1111'll I h IIII IIILL I
1 IIIIIII I I II II Ijlllll 11 e,'
,I III I I 11 I II IIIII tl o---'_'� i
IIIy 11 , ,I II II III IIII
a IIIIII ' I II '1 I1 1 1Jill
1 D111 i I IuII IIII ii 1\____ `� r
! i!ijiil h i IIII111 i 1
i lIi'iil i li iil11li1i '!Im
it WWI
■ iiiiil II iiil dill --- -
lli'liI 11 / !
1 IIII)�I I II Iul ill: _ ri
�p IIIIII I II '1 III IIIII 'I �'� = I IE ii
III'l11 1 II IIII IIIII II I j117 If
111' 11 1 I"I I l lift
'I IIII li IIIIII IIIII 11 11 III 11
1 I'l11 1 I (IIIIIII I
IT I ,IIII
1 , InI11111 `_ _ ,IIIII
1'11 Itil1
; IIIIIII I II ' I II # T1--11
1; 11111I
11711 1 III IIII F� -� �- --_-''
111Ill Yfit
F it
fill it
lilt
1 It
Il lII1 II,I1I1 II l
, ,lullllllnul i ii iilii'iii/ ' -�:;:\`\\\\ I i 1 III! iiil
IIIIIII IIIILI 1 I 1( _--"yy\.\. 11\\ 1 ,1 ,jj11
1 III,�I(HILL
1 TWIT II ==lj'1 II11 I I II
II III, 1 IIIII I 1
� IIIIII II HILL
I II ,11 p,ll I IIII I nI I 1 of IIII iii'
liii ii Illn 1 IIIII
II I I n l l l li � I I I I IIIII � I tp 1111 I I I I I I nt'I, 11111 , II IIII L11 I'1 I 1
a 1 IIIII I'1I1I1 III II I'11111 1111'I 111 1 W Illllllll
1I 11,1111111!1 li I; I1111!Illn III III III, I �II�1111
I I III IIIIII I II II Ii IIIIIII Illyllll I IIII II'I
r I I 1111 I III I I l l l l l l l l III 44 �I�11 y I I I C
1 II IIII IIIIIIJill I I II IIII IIIII IIIJJ JI I _A—_ .po_ _—_—_ _ LIIII
p '!' Illilll Ill ill II IIII IIIIIII - IIII 111 I 4 1 ll11it
1
1 U II la,lllll I II IIII IDIIII _ ■ I1, I, 1 I IIII IIII
N Il Illlnl 1 I II I1111'I l,ll II, III I IY I 111 IIII
II III I, III II II II IIIIIII IIIIIII I f 1 IIIIIu II
1 11 M Ilnlll I I' Il 111llllllll 111,11I 1 /1� j 1 'III IIII
ILL it 'IIIII II IIIIIIIII I IN 1 1 ;;----- �;'111
� I I 11 III II'111I1 --
ul n ,nlll I n I u � I'I I
,-,--,-i III It Ill
tllll 11 IIIII II I I
I I I I I III IIIII 1
IIII I lilt nlll IIIII IIIIII , i , 1 II
' fI !!31 lllillll I11 III I i I I11
IIII Ib11 illi l J II IIIII IIII 111'I'I ' \ w 1,11
1 '+ 11 11 I III I I 11'I I I \
1 IIII III I11 ! I II 11111I11I1 IF IIII III I I \` I lI=
1 - iIi Ngg I III IIIII 11 I I I
LIMITiliil'
I
I III I I , ,I III 1111,,1 I I IqIT-1e
,III I III 1111il I
4+HeN'+Of
IF- I n lain 1 mo y
1 I I II null 111 I v P-
` IIII I I „ 1111111111 I IIIIIII, W I,
11 • III Ii llllllllll I IIII
j \` lilt I I'lll III II I III'lili
\\\` IIII 1 II1111'tllI , I I a I
III�IIll I
--I IIII IIII 1 III IIII IIIII 1 III IIII
illll ll I111 I I III II II IIIII l
1 1111I11II I111 I 111 111111\111 I111 'lilt
1 /Ill IIII l I -I
BM
fill ll II11 1 'II l\I\\\\\\ i .ii/,/iii I I w� \\\-.
IIfill, IIII I I III \ \.\\���----- ------ _-+;''ii q / I Kvt
'-'r--
pp
'iliii iii iii 1 II — f
I '
1 I;IW I11 III l � --------------_------ J--------------- -
1 III11 I'll IIIII I -----
1 111 Illllllll 1 — - -
IIIII 1 II I111-__�___-_`-_____`_______-_---_---.------------------—____-__----
p ;III! I!' IlIL'I ! li ;' ._ _ _ __ =—-_____-_------------ _- — - �------------.-----_= _
' lilt !i I'll, I Il I 1
C=
' III I I 11j1i1 I 1 ° ° ° c ,�_(( + .•�T' 0
IE 3.dI Jill,
bI 1 II I II'{lI'llPil� II !MD
° `LJIIHI n
p ; _ __�„ SOIIS NOON ONIISI%3 =
IIII IIII 1 ' p
I WIIII I1111 I I N
� o Q
TV —
1 _
e - \. \a--
Sfi / RCN5::34if
m' I CMI Ave.
1 I
1 I 1
1
1 l 1
1 (1
I
— - — - — - —
- — - — - — — - — - —
1
0
�
- ----'—
—
R
REIETENCE "AXMOS
chile
D
pC�\\\
RM CHILES. JR
$ED-O.IA,FN CS FGRLEI iGF NE^ Df➢ R,.B•
EREPAR
Phosnhat
RM. CHILES
Lilt
RRfRARL➢BY RCBERi 4. 4TaE5 R.E
B
Y
AURORA DIVISION
Wm
oR.:xAOE Ill BY Ifil RAAwA -mg5295,+- Al •ac>cI5M5-
t
PLANT GRID
NORTH
GRAPHIC SCALE
w a n w laD zoo
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 50 ft.
�tATCf-I GNE
SEAL
P� C2i t
If if C
ifillk
SHEET 1 OF 2
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
NEW BERM, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAWNB TT.E EN0111 D DAIS 28NARCHO
AIDW.
I AND DRAINAQE PLAN rDu s u 1•=50'
R
0
5
I

0
Figure 6.62a Insatlaaen detail of asedment
fence.
Compacted fill
Backfill min V
thick layer of gravel r Filter fabric
b--trench
Extension of fabric and wire
into the trench
_ Rter fabric
wire
'I il�
i ,ee(�nc85 2:nrc;�`Carurei ll. _sa:•s
5.]Q, Ttnmecr;: Dr: camas
Oada T: ote::ion
6.11. Outlet Smbiii:=pen Swrur_
Sediment .Traps area 6arriert
6.60, Temporary Sediment Tmo 3
6.51. Sediment 3zin
.{DPendix
8.0 . Estimating Runoff

Practice Standards and Specifications
6.83
r .
'
[Definition
Small temporary stone dams constructed across a drainageway.
Purpose
To reduce erosion in a drainage channel by restricting the velociv�of now in
'
;I,e channel. -
-f
'
Conditions Where
This practicemay be used as a temporary or emergency measure to limit erosion
by reducing flow in small open channels. Limit drainage areas m2acres orless.
Practice Applies
Do not use check dams is live streams.
'
Check dams may be caved m:
• reduce flow in small temporary channels that are degrading, but, where
permanent stabilization is impractical due to thew Short period of useful-
'
ness; z
• reduce flow in small eroding channels where construction delays or
weather conditions prevent timely installation of nonerosive liners.
Planning
Check dams are an expedient way to reduce gullying in the bottom of channels
Considerations
that will be filled or stabiuzed a a later dare.Itisusualivbeuertolinethechan-
t
nel or divan the flow m stabilize the channel than m instill check dams.
However• under circumstances where this is not feasfole, check dams may be
helpful.
Check dams installed in grass -lined channels may kill the vegetative lining if
submergence after rains is are long andlor silting is excessive. AM Stone and
'
ripmp mast beremoved if mowing is planned as pan of vegetative maintenance.
Consider the alternative of protecting the channel bosom with materials Such
as riprap, concrete, fiberglass mat, or other protective linings in combination
with grass before selecung check dams.
Design Criteria
The following criteria should be used when designing a check dam:
• —Ensure that the drainage area above the check dam does not exceed
'
acres.
Keep height ft
the maximum at'_ at the cents. of Ne dent.
• Keep the center of the check dam at least 9 inches lower than ;he outer
'
edges a natural potand elevation.
• Keep the side slopes of the dam at'_:1 or flatter.
Ensure that the maximum spacing between dams places the ace of Elie
'
upstream dam at the same elevation as the tip of the downstream dam
(Figure 6.33a%.
• Stabilize ovealow areas along the channel to resist erosion caused by
check dams.

PCS \\\
Phosphate AURORA
P.O 0OA Q AURORA. W �
PAY TO THE ORDER OF
NC OEPT OF ENR
1621 NAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC
27669
a.rrm.r,
/Y✓Cuy OE lPld
03 26=01
RUMBER` 605084
AMOUNT
1500oOO

Subject:
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:03:01 -0400
From: JFumess®Pcsphosphate.com
To: tracy.davis®ncmail.net
Dear Tracy:
Tomorrow we will Bend you via overnight mail an erosion and sediment
control plan for our new DPP plant to be built on our plantsite. We are
requesting a mine permit modification incorporating this E i SC plan. Floyd
Williams will be here at 9:30 tomorrow morning (Tuesday) to review the plan
and look at the site. I am attaching to this e-mail a copy of the cover
letter to you. I am hoping that you might be able to have a basic approval
letter, modeled after our recent trailer city modification, almost ready to
give to Charles for signature if Floyd calla you tomorrow or Wednesday and
says that the plan meets with his approval.
Talk to you Boon,
Ceff Furness(See attached file: 2001 April - DFP Permit.dcc)
Name: 2001 April - DFP Permit.doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
D2001 Uri] - DFP Permi[.doc Encoding: base64
Description: Microsoft Word 4
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
I or] 4/3/2001 12:1 B PM

VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL
Federal Express
April 2, 2001
Mr. Tracy Davis
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
Archdale Bldg., 5th Floor
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Dear Mr. Davis:
PCS has received an operating permit from the N. C. Division of Air Quality to construct a
Defluorinated Phosphate (DFP) plant within the Aurora plant site. The currently grass -covered
area is within the boundaries of Mine Permit 7-1, and is 21.31 acres in size. Plantsite
construction is ready to begin at any time.
PCS Phosphate would like to modify Mine Permit 7-1 by incorporating the enclosed Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan for DFP Plant Site, dated March 29, 2001, into the permit. The plan
includes a bound narrative and a set of 2 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 immediately at [phone].
Sincerely,
Jeffrey C. Furness
Senior Environmental Scientist
Enclosures
PC: Floyd Williams - DLR, WaRO
w/enclosures
W. T. Cooper, Jr.
w/o enclosures
T. L. Baker
w/o enclosures
D. V. Maneval
w/2 enclosures
W. A. Schimming
w/o enclosures
S. J. Mayo
w/o enclosures
D. J. Franklin
w/enclosures
R. M. Chiles
w/o enclosures
12-04-001-55
w/enclosures
00-14-000
w/o enclosures

.1, OU
eo
---------------
``\1 - nYA MNdWO
E

Legend
IL
Treesb 1'
Cover Crop h III I I
Drying for Reclamation
Water
Active Mining Area > G-6
R-4 & R-5 for BWE Spoil
R-6 for Drying
R-7 & R-8 Blend Storage
Sand Placement
Chopped and Plowed
Tree planting started iII!kII:)
LL
3t
Dig and Clean Ditches
for Drainage
,
ff
!
w
LL
R-5 j �`$!
Fsd
[� i
Mite
! !
Al
} t
y
PCs
hoswtalk
q
2nd half 2001December)
Scale2500 feet

Legend
0 0� Trees y
® Existing Cover Crop Y
Drying for Reclamation
Water is
0 Active Mining Area
R-4 & R-5 for Spoil
R-6 for Drying
R-7 & R-8 Blend Storage p
Dredge Activity
Sand Placement
- — Dig and Clean Ditches
for Drainage
_r.
i
Active
`1 ma R
I: -
G-6 -i J
Active
mine
PhosphCaStee
Aurora - Plantsite Reclamation
Planned Reclamation Development
1 st half 2002 (January - June)
Scale 1 inch 2500 t'eel

Legend
CoverTrees
11
Drying for Reclamation
n.
Water 'Y-
4
Active Mining Area
R-5 for Spoil
1
for Spoil
R-7 Blend Storage
Dredge Activity
- ;.
1
•/ PlacementCropPlanted
%Chopped
and Plo wed
jmq-
2E
Dig and Clean Ditches
for Drainage
Dredge
Active
Mine
Phosphate
Aurora - Plantsite Reclamation
Actual Reclamation Development
2nd half 2000 (July - December)
Scale 1 inch : 2500 feet
G-2

Planned Reclamation for the First Half of 2001
(January 2001 — June 2001)
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
A line of tree saplings is planned for planting along the west and southeast perimeter.
This line will consist of Cottonwood Green Ash, Sycamore, and Nuttall Oak trees.
Drainage ditch cleaning will be completed as necessary. Additional areas that were
chopped and disk harrowed in 2000 will be planted with a spring cover crop as conditions
allow. Tree growth monitoring will continue for comparison with the tree growth in the
R-I area.
R-3
A line of tree saplings is planned for planting along the east perimeter. This line will
consist of Cottonwood, Green Ash, Sycamore, and Nuttall Oak trees. A planting of
Eastern Red Cedar and Longleaf Pines is planned on the sandy R-I/R-3 common dike. A
plot of select hardwoods is planned for planting in the high center section of R-3.
Drainage ditch cleaning will be completed as necessary. Additional areas that were
chopped and disk harrowed in 2000 will be planted with a spring cover crop as conditions
allow. Water quality will continue to be monitored.
R-4
Continued drying and consolidation of this area is planned. 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.
R-5
Bucket wheel spoil will be placed in the northern side of R-5 during this period.
Stotmwater 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 eastern side of R-6. Some of the
process water from R-7 will continue to be transferred through R-6. Drainage ditching
will commence to facilitate drying of the dredge spoil capping material. This area will
continue to dry and consolidate.

Planned Reclamation for the First Half of 2001
(January 2001— June 2001)
CONTINUED
R-7
Blend and sand tailings water will continue to be placed in this area during the first half
of 2001. Construction of the containment dike around the perimeter will continue.
Whitehurst Creek
Continued monitoring of vegetation growth and water levels will be done in this area.
Tree seedling planting is to be done on the upland area around Whitehurst Creek. The
species of trees include Eastern Red Cedar and Longleaf Pine.
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 spillway which
will establish drainage for the remaining ponds.

0
c9i
t'
L uLV" .WL
LJVV 1LrML
Y

' r T ;7
1%
ig Cover
Crop
Reclamationfor
SpoilMining Area
h . % unit... +...
" V;:x.
-
l
Ask

Planned Reclamation for the Second Half of
2001
(July 2001 —December 2001)
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
Drainage ditch cleaning will be completed as necessary. Mature cover crop will be
plowed in, sprayed for weed control and prepared for tree planting late in the year.
Approximately 120 acres of seedlings are planned for planting in R-2. Species are to
include Green Ash, Sweetgu n, Sycamore and Eastern Red Cedar. Tree growth
monitoring will continue for comparison with the tree growth in the R-I area.
R-3
Drainage ditch cleaning will be completed as necessary. Mature cover crop will be
plowed in, sprayed for weed control and prepared for tree planting late in the year.
Approximately 220 acres of seedlings are planned for planting in R-3. Species are to
include Green Ash, Sweetgum, Sycamore and Eastern Red Cedar. Tree growth
monitoring will continue for comparison with the tree growth in the R-1 area
Water quality will continue to be monitored.
Continued drying and consolidation of this area is planned. Placement of a layer of
bucketwheel spoil will begin in this area during the first part of this period.
Water quality will be monitored as the water is transferred to R-3.
R-5
Bucket wheel spoil will be placed in the northern side of R-5 during part of this period.
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 eastern side of R-6. Some of the
process water from R-7 will continue to be transferred through R-6 until this portion of
the R-7 dike is complete. Process water will then be returned to the process water system
and storrawater will be directed to the Dredge Spoil lake. Drainage ditching will
commence to facilitate drying of the dredge spoil capping material. This area will continue
to dry and consolidate. The upland areas along the west side of R-6 are to be planted in
Eastern Red Cedar and Longleaf Pine.

Planned Reclamation for the Second Half of 2001
(July 2001—December 2001)
CONTINUED
R-7
Blend and sand tailings water will continue to be placed in this area during the second
half of 2001. Construction of the containment dike around the perimeter will continue.
R-8
Blend placement will be transferred to R-8. Process water is being used to charge this
area in anticipation of Blend storage. Some tree planting is planned on approximately 30
acres of bucketwheel spoil along the east side of R-8
Whitehurst Creek
The uplands adjacent to the original drainage area are to be graded and vegetated during
this period. The bottomlands are available for connection to the original channel
following resolution of the stormwater monitoring issue. This should give adequate time
to meet the June 2003 deadline for connection to the original channel. Continued
monitoring of vegetation growth and water will be done in this area.
Charles Tract
Clay pond 5A is to be sprayed for weed control, chopped and stomped, and planted with
Green Ash, Sweetgum, Sycamore, Loblolly Pine, and Eastern Red Cedar seedlings late in
the year. Continued monitoring of vegetation growth and water levels will be done in
this area. Continued planning work will be done for the construction of the final spillway
which will establish drainage for Clay Ponds 3, 4A and 5A.
Gypsum Stack No. 2
Final shaping of the stack and capping with a topsoil and clay mixture are to be
done during this period. Once the cap has been placed, the stack will be vegetated and
monitored before removing it from the cooling pond stormwater catchment area.

Legend
Trees
Existing Cover Crop
Drying for Reclamation
Water
Active Mining Area
R-4 & R-5 for Spoil
R-6 for Development
R-7 & R-8 Blend Storage
Dredge Activity
Sand Placement
Tree Planting
Chopped and Plowed
Dig and Clean Ditches
for Drainage
:
G_2
d a
Vrn
ai.
R5
r Actiy�
r .q mine
fir .
[Phospp2tee7
Aurora - Plantsite Reclamation
Planned Reclamation Development
2nd half 2001 (July -December)
Scale 1 inch: 2500 feet

�xg
1002 S - �3a
November 29, 2001
PCS
Phosphate AURORA
V.O. BOX
48. AURORA. NO U.SA 2)a]9
CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Tracy Davis, State Mining Specialist
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Dear Mr. Davis:
PCS Phosphate Mine Permit 07-01 includes a provision (granted in a letter dated January
259 2001) to add up to 150 tons/day of agricultural limestone on an as -needed basis to
supplement the neutralization capacity of clay fines in the gypsum/clay blend operation.
For the foreseeable future, it is anticipated that the mine will be operating at
approximately 50% capacity, limiting the amount of clay available for neutralization.
To address this shortage, PCS Phosphate requests that Mine Permit 07-01 be modified to
increase the daily limit on supplementary neutralization capacity to 300 tons/day of either
pulverized limestone or lime. This would be added on an as -needed basis. Enclosed is a
check in the amount of $500.00 for the permit modification fee.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please call me at [phone].
incerely,
x�, M^Kt1
J r @. F ess
Senior Environmental Scientist
Enclosure
W.T. Cooper, Jr.
W.A. Schimming
T.L. Baker
J.D. Robinson
D.D. Winstead
12.04-001-57
00-14-000
5-Z-o°l
.89�

PCS \I
Phosphate AURORA
P.O. BOX Q, AURORA, NC 27M
YAYTOi EOROEROF
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
rawor...
Nwf�AOE iwm
CONTROL 621137
November 29, 2001 NUMBER
AMOUNT
$500.00**