19951281 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19951228

Division of Environmental Management
Ecological Assessment Group
February 29, 1996
To: John Dorney ?/
From: Steven Kroeger? -
Subject: Construction Plan for Relocating Bailey Creek, PCS Phosphate
I have no objections to the plan submitted by PCS Phosphate concerning the
relocation of Bailey's creek and the creation of riparian wetlands. I suggest that PCS
Phosphate follow the Corps of Engineer's guidelines for Compensatory Hardwood
Mitigation (12/8/93).
I believe there is an opportunity for PCS Phosphate to receive credit for these
wetlands. Therefore a compensatory mitigation plan should be developed that addresses
hydrological restoration and vegetation establishment. In order for these wetlands to
receive credit wetland hydrology must be established along with a wetland plant
community.
The list of tree species on Sheet 1 of the Construction Plan (11-30-95) is
acceptable. A mitigation plan should address where along a topographic gradient a
particular species is planted, a planting schedule and monitoring protocols. It would be
beneficial to coordinate efforts with the Corps of Engineers and other agencies since the site
has the potential to receive compensatory mitigation credits.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Ja mes B. Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 29, 1996
To: Brad Peacock, PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Jeff Furness, PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 48
Aurora North Carolina 27806
From: John Dorsey
?EHNR
Subject: 401 Water Quality Certification for Bailey Creek, Beaufort Co, #951281
We have reviewed your application for it 401 Water Quality Certification for Bailey Creek. We
would like you to consider changes in your design in order to insure that Bailey ('reek is restored to
conditions similar or better than before the proposed mining activity occurs.
Please consider the following:
1) Since PCS Phosphate has proposed to relocate Bailey Creek, the opportunity exists to create it
more natural creek system. It is preferable that the relocated Bailey Creek have a narrow,
winding channel with gently sloping sides and tloodplain on each side. This type of design
(Figure 1) proposed by the Wildlife Resources Commission, would improve water quality
benefits and habitat for wildlife. Any riparian wetlands that would be created could be used to
alleviate the shortage of riparian wetlands in your mitigation plan.
In addition, stream meanders should be increased to compensate for the nct loss of 300 feel of
stream channel which will occur under your present design if Bailey ('reek is relocated. Figurc 2
illustrates a preferred route with meanders for Bailey Creek. We believe that the relocated
channel should extend between both railroad crossings of Bailey ('reek.
2) Vegetation in the form of grass should be established in such it manner that small grains will
stabilize die soil until native plants become reestablished. We recommend that fescue not be
planted. Preferable alternatives include Annual Rye Grass, Rye, Wheat, Oats, Sorghum or
Annual Lespedeza.
3) The list of hardwood trees looks acceptable. However, sweetgum should be eliminated from the
list of planted trees as this species provides less benefits and will easily return to the site
naturally.
"Trees should be planted at a density of 400 trees per acre with it goal of 320 trees per acre
after 5 years. At least two rows of trees shall be planted in alternating patterns (rather than
directly opposite each other) on the bank to provide canopy shading. Trees more tolerant of
flooding conditions (such as hold cypress) should be planted at the toe of the slope.
4) Natural substrate such as logs and woody debris should be placed in the relocated section of the
creek in order to introduce detrital matter and to provide benthic habitat.
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina
27607
Telephone x)19-733-9960 FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5017,; recycled/10%, post consumer paper
If you would like to discuss the atmve conditions for Biuley Creek, please call Karen Lynch or
myself at [phone].
cc: William Wescott, WRC
WARD DEM
Charles Gardner, L?uid Resources
Kristin Rowles, PTRF
I

0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission K
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Domey
Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Management, DE/H?NR-
FROM: Franklin T. McBride, Manager Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 22, 1996
SUBJECT: Review of Application for Nationwide Permit # 26 and Section 401 Water Quality
Certification for PCS Phosphate Company, Bailey Creek Relocation, Beaufort
County. DEM ID # 951281.
Staff biologists with the Wildlife Resources Commission 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 Stat. 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 General Statutes (G. S. 113-131 et seq.).
PCS Phosphate is requesting a permit modification to mine phosphate from a 770-acre
tract of land. Of the 770 acres only 520 acres will actually be mined. The area will be reclaimed
according to their present reclamation plan. The applicant proposes to relocate the headwaters of
Bailey Creek to an area outside of the mine site.
In the past, PCS Phosphate has demonstrated the ingenuity and capability to alter a non-
wetland landscape to resemble a natural wetland habitat/system. They have won many
reclamation awards for their efforts and accomplishments. In reviewing the plans for the
relocation of Bailey Creek, it appears that they have abandoned such efforts. PCS proposes to
relocate Bailey Creek by digging a winding, trapezoidal drainage canal. The recently constructed
Whitehurst Creek relocation project serves as the model for this project. Whitehurst Creek
Mitigation Channel (Figures 1 through 6) is nothing more than a winding drainage canal that in no
way resembles a natural stream system, nor does it restore natural functions or wildlife values.
The headwaters of natural creek systems have a narrow, shallow, winding channel with
wide, flat floodplains on both sides. This natural design is extremely effective in controlling flow

PCS Phosphate 2 January 22, 1996
rates, trapping sediments, and nutrient uptake. The water quality and habitat benefits of this
natural design are far superior to a drainage canal with steep banks that are mowed periodically.
We recommend that permits not be issued until PCS modifies the stream relocation plan to
more closely resemble a natural headwater system. Included is a design example that we would
prefer.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any concerns
regarding our comments, please contact William Wescott at [phone].
WW/fin
16

0
0
y
n
b
a
H
ti
N

o a.
V]
co ?
O
a`
c?
cr
0
< w
CD
H
b
o ?
CD o
CD y 'fl
C
bd o.
o ?''o
o
7d0
? y
gV
CD
^.
t.0 0
O
CD
b
N
CD

En
f?D
x
7d
O
1) 40
PCS
Phosphate VAURORA DIVISION
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC 27808
December 12, 1995
Mr. Cliff Winefordner, Asst. Chief
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Winefordner:
Enclosed is a Nationwide Permit No. 26 application for PCS Phosphate to mine through
approximately 0.3 acres of "Waters of the U.S." to continue mining operations while the EIS process is
on-going. This 0.3 acres involves a portion of the channelized drainage to Bailey Creek. This acreage
has been estimated based on the 10 foot msl surface contour criteria stated in a previous letter from the
Corps.
PCS plans to relocate this drainage segment permanently and has incorporated several
enhancements in the drainage relocation design, which should increase the permanent water habitat to
over an acre. Contained in the reclamation plan enclosed is a discussion of this drainage relocation
design. Also enclosed are various maps and drawings which relate to this permit request.
Please contact Jeff Furness of my staff at [phone] if you have any questions on this
matter.
9A. cerel ,
,t,?auss
'I Peacock
BAP/JCF/nsf
Enclosures
PC: David Franklin - COE, Wilmington (w/enc.)
T.J. Regan (w/o enc.)
T.C.. Younger (w/o enc.)
W.A. Schimming (w/enc.)
W.T. Cooper (w/o enc.)
H.M. Breza/I.K. Gilmore (w/enc.)
P.J. Moffett (w/enc.)
J.C. Furness (w/o enc.)
00-17-000 (w/o enc. )
11-02-001-35 (w/enc. )
f
DEM ID: ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERHTM APPLIED FOR (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT 1): 7f,
JOINT APPLICATION FORT( FOR
NATIONWIDE PERMITS TEAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION CONCURRENC
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS. SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
2. OWNERS ADDRESS: P.O. Box 48, Aurora, NC 27806
3. OWNERS PHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK): [phone]_
4. IF APPLICABLEs AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER: Brad Peacock
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 48
Aurora, NC 27806
[phone]
5. LOCATION OF PLANNED WORK (ATTACH MAP). COUNTY: ?Pptjfn rt
NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Aurora
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Bailey Creek channelized drainage near N.C. 33 and S.R. 1937
6. NAME OF CLOSEST STREAM/RIVER: Bailey Creek
7. RIVER BASIN: Pamlico River/South Creek
8. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, SA, HQW, ORW,
WS I, OR WS II? YES ( ) NO (X)
9. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES (X) NO ( )
IF YES, EXPLAIN. Nationwide oP---Mits ue-e used to f i i t 0. 6 ar-r Ac of
waters of the U.S. in July 1992 and 0.69 acres in January 1995 in the
10. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WATERS OF THE U.S., INCLUDING
WETLANDS. LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE. 0.3
9. (con It) Whitehurst Creek channelized drainage.
3/30/92

-2-
11. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WATERS OF THE U.S., INCLUDING WETLANDS, IMPACTED BY
THE PROPOSED PROJECT: FILLED: 0
DRAINED: 0
FLOODED:
EXCAVATED: 0.3
TOTAL IMPACTED: 0.3
Excavate top 30-40 feet
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK (ATTACH PLANS):
of ear
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: phosphate 'Wining
MEASURES ACTIVITY MBE
14. STATE REASONS WHY THECA APPLICANT
CARRIED OUT IN -W• WATERS
IMPACTS. F. ATTACHED SHEET
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ENDANGEREDG?RODTING THE HREATENED PRESENCE
LISTINGSERVICE
PROPOSEDFISHERIES
(USFWS) AND/OR ALISTED O MARINE
OR ANY FEDERALLY
SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAYO BE, AFFECTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES (K J
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS. ICER 16. YOU ARE REQUTIEDPRESENCEAOF H STORICEPROPERTZESPINSTHEAPERMITFFAREA WHICH
(SHPO) REGARDING
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT? YES (}{] NO ( J
HAVE YOU DONE SO?
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY DEM:
A. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, AND LAKES ON
THE PROPERTY.
B. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED BY
PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA SHEETS
RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
D. IF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT, ATTACH
COPY.
Mining, Agriculture
E. WHAT IS LAND USE of SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Railroad
F. IF APPLICABI?EA. WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?

lIG40U RE
i
DATE

S
w,a
rt
t
P4AVC0 R1vER
f
?'Zlr
I I
O ?
r ? ?c?c ?
r,
B'
NF r
r `pp1 y, t•
Mif 4 t J
Im S
»m
w? tw
? r
W
coin
FIGURE 1
VICINITY MAP
for
770 ACRE MINE BLOCK
Pbos=M AURORA DIVISION
DATE ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
JOB NO. 95175--- ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
SCALE: _NTS NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA
rnK
AueolA olvlsloH
Phasik
DATE: I1-3Q_tj _
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
joe No. 95173 ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
SCALE: NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA
LEI
W
/
lk?
'I r :i 0 I 'I I r I r r? ?
!!! I I i L,_1 I - - I s
n
I I
?'-4 I I ? Ivro
r?-
aj?
?" r • -??
i- - u i
/r7 l- ? ? I r
I r i ? I} I I 1? F K
j j-
i
Reclamation Plan for the 770-Acre Mine Permit 7-1 Modification
Reclamation Plan Discussion
PCS Phosphate plans to reclaim its mined property primarily with a blend
of clay and gypsum. In addition, approximately 25 percent of the mined area will
be reclaimed using bucket wheel excavator (BWE) spoil material or sand tailings.
These reclamation methods planned for the proposed mine continuation area are
already in use at PCS.
Drainage Plan
The reclamation area designated in this Mine Permit 7-1 modification
encompasses 2120 acres, which includes permit modifications approved in 1992
(700 acres), 1994 (360 acres), 1995 (290 acres), and this modification request
(770 acres). The reclamation design divides this area so that stormwater would
flow into three main areas which involve two watersheds to take advantage of
some existing and future features on the landscape (See enclosed Final
Reclamation Map). For example, the eastern drainage is designed to drain
eastwardly into the existing sedimentation pond and through the Whitehurst
Creek Mitigation Channel (Figures 1-5). This system includes a stilling basin
located approximately mid-way through the channel, which is already providing
wildlife uses (Figure 6). PCS has already been successful in the initial relocation
of the channelized drainage to Whitehurst Creek. Aquatic vegetation in the
-1-
channel as shown in Figure 4 was not planted but volunteered naturally.
Success Criteria for aquatic life re-establishment was met in only two years and
natural succession of the vegetative communities is noticeable after only three
years (Figure 5). PCS plans to incorporate this pond and channel system
permanently into the reclaimed landscape.
Secondly, the southern portion of the reclamation area will be backfilled
such that generally a north to south drainage pattern will be developed. The
perimeter roads will be maintained to provide access for long-term management
of the property. Stormwater from this portion of the reclamation area will report
to a segment of the perimeter depressurization canal through four culverts under
the road, and this canal will serve as permanent water habitat for aquatic life.
Surface water from excessive rainfall events will flow through this canal to a
sedimentation pond located in the southwest portion of the reclamation area.
Water overflow from this pond will be directed through the surface water
diversion canal, through the planned stilling basin for Bailey Creek, and through
a relocated segment of the Bailey Creek channelized drainage. If PCS
Phosphate's mining operation is permitted to relocate to the NCPC Tract by the
end of mining this 770 acre tract, then the western-most portion of this southern
area would only be partially backfilled, and be temporarily reclaimed as a lake.
This would allow the mining operation to resume activities in this area after
-2-
mining the NCPC Tract, utilizing this temporary lake for placement of BWE spoil
material.
This current mine continuation necessitates the relocation of a portion of
the channelized drainage to Bailey Creek containing approximately 0.3 of an
acre of Waters of the U.S. and less than one acre of Waters of the State of
North Carolina (both estimated). PCS plans to relocate this drainage segment
permanently and has incorporated several enhancements in the drainage
relocation design. First, a stilling basin will be established near the upstream
portion of the relocated channel to provide permanent water habitat similar to
that in the 1995 portion of the Whitehurst Creek Mitigation Channel (Figure 6).
The relocated channel design has also incorporated several enhancement
features including a meandering channel, permanent water habitat, and channel
check dam/vegetated flat zones (See enclosed drawing titled Construction Plan
for the Relocated Channel for the 770 Acre Mine Block). Additional construction
information is located in the enclosed Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan
written for this modification request.
The northern portion of the reclamation area will be backfilled such that
drainage will be directed to a depressional area near the center. In addition,
watershed drainage from areas west of this permitted portion of the reclamation
-3-
area will be captured in a portion of the surface water diversion canal and
ultimately directed to this depressional area. Excess surface water accumulation
here will flow through a rip rap spillway into a constructed stream channel that
would connect to Whitehurst Creek near the old S. R. 1941 bridge through a
culvert.
Vegetation Plan
The goal of reclamation for this mine site is to restore the surface gradient
to a configuration that is compatible with the subsequent use of the land. The
planned long-term use of this reclaimed land is forestry, which should provide
wildlife habitat. The permanent water habitat incorporated into the drainage
pattern designs should provide habitat diversity for the area.
In general, PCS plans to plant these reclamation areas with a variety of
legumes, grasses, and hardwood trees. Tree species such as sycamore, bald
cypress, sweetgum, green ash, and a variety of oaks are typically planted.
Although this general approach applies to areas along the relocated drainages
to Whitehurst Creek and Bailey Creek, PCS proposes to also plant a variety of
balled and burlapped trees along each side of these relocated channels. Balled
and burlapped tree species may include willow oak, green ash, red maple, river
birch, bald cypress, pond cypress, and sweet bay.
-4-
SCOPE OF WORK
RELOCATED BAILEY CREEK CHANNEL AND STILLING BASIN
A. Location: Beginning at N(-) 22300
E 8000
End at N(-) 23100
E 6500
Stilling Basin at N(-) 23150
E 6400
Note: Coordinates per PCS Grid and are approximate as scaled from aerial
photography.
B. Cross Section:
3:1 Side Slopes
10' Wide Bottom
Cut = 10 feet more or less
C. Procedure
1. Excavate channel leaving a 50 foot plug in the upstream and
downstream ends where it will tie into the existing channel until
excavation is completed and banks shaped. Spoil is to be placed
along the channel and graded.
2. Excavate the stilling basin leaving a 20 foot plug in the upstream and
downstream ends where it will tie into the existing channel. Spoil to be
placed as shown and graded.
3. Install new rock check dams In the channel and bank stabilization rip-
rap in the channel and stilling basin as shown on the drawing.
4. Grade, seed and stabilize spoil, side slopes and buffer to the channel
and stilling basin.
11
5. Connect the stilling basin and the relocated channel to divert the
existing channel flow into stilling basin and thence through the
relocated channel and block the existing channel that will no longer be
in service at both ends with compacted fill. Grade, seed and stabilize
disturbed earth at the connection.
D. References
1. Site Plan (Figure 6)
2. Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan (Figure 7)
3. Relocated Channel for 770 Acre Mine Block (Figure 11)
4. Vegetative Plan
12
PLANNED EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION PRACTICES
II. RELOCATED CHANNEL PORTION OF BAILEY CREEK
a) Channel Side Slopes to be 3:1
b) Channel side slopes to have a 5 foot wide seeded buffer a the outside of
each crest.
c) The channel is widened to lower flow velocity during periods of heavy runoff.
The existing upstream and downstream channelized portions of Bailey Creek
have a smaller cross section. This means that the flow velocity within the
new channel will be reduced which will allow sediments to fall out.
d) The channel is to be cut below sea level to allow pooling of runoff such that
a long narrow sediment basin will be created.
e) The rock check dams within the channel will protect the bank at the higher
flow velocity areas and provide a bench for natural vegetation to develop.
REFERENCE:
1. Relocated Channel to 770 Acre Mine Block (Figure 11).
14
1. All disturbed areas are to be seeded within 30 working days after final grade is
reached.
2.(a) Seed Mixture - Ditch Slopes and Spoil
Tall Fescue 80
Pensacola Bahigrass 50
Kobe Lespedeza 20
German Millet 10
Note: The above mixture is best planted in early spring (Feb. 15-April 30) or fall
(Sept. 1 - October 31). Should planting be necessary in summer months
increase rate of German Millet to 40 lb./acre. For winter months (November
thru January) add winter wheat at a rate of 40 lb./acre to general mix for
temporary purposes.
2.(b) Seed Mixture -Level Cleared Area
Winter wheat 120
3. Soil Amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests or 4,000 lb/acre ground agricultural
limestone and 1,000 lb/acre 5-10-10 fertilizer.
19
4. Mulch
Apply and crimp 4,000-5,000 lb/acre grain straw or equivalent cover of another
mulch on ditch slopes. Use netting on emergency spillway slopes at the sediment
basin.
5. Maintenance
(1) Mow no more than once per year.
(2) Re fertilize In the second year unless growth is fully adequate.
(3) Re-seed, fertilize, and mulch damaged areas immediately.
20
I
I
I
?I
-- ii
_ y
i
77
0
_- i
i
I G??
I I ?-
I I
1i I 1
y d
X11 I
?a
o ?
a. 1
r I
? I I' I
I 1
I°
1
L;
I
- lu
I I I .
I ,
/, I I I
I
I
ml I I ,
I I °° I I
1 1
I ? ?i I I 1
I
?dl
,_aI II .
II
t-
-
'i I I

?}
5 m? a-ac- u n?uww
IiI
Q- ?
43 A
o

.Y. N
LLI
J v
W
z L) V
U z
_
ffi
1- ?

W E
e
W Y
W m
?
o
1 ? .
o $ 5`t
37YJS 3IHdvuo
a?wvv? "
III II
WN kw 1 W4
ea't lu.r7.1 CNO'1v IT' Haw aw wu I
H
IM
11
Vi19 i1]110N bA F 1111
I I I
4041 lwl1Jr V?
111
II
I
?? 111 I
111
III
III
111

Z 111
I?I
11
I I
11 111
III
111
III
111
Q II
111 111
111
J
111
III 111
II
IIII I
W l
N
Z ?avro auswIp ?
Q K W
J
Z }

11
1
II 7
N
z OZ
1 z
11 111 R

I I
I I U

II
II III

111
11 ?
II I
in+?? alauml rollnwrlwar.uq I
III
II
II I

II
II
II ._
III
III
III
WQI YI?M IIR?
III II o
II
11

II
III
YM'1 y?pJ11 I
III II
I I a
II ?
III
fGLd Li1017 ro11V'JINI?'b t11M I I I
Illi
III
1 II?

I
II
1
1111
II II
111111
1111
111111
111111
I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
JamesB. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 29, 1996
MEMORANDUM
AT4
ED EHNR
To: Brad Peacock, PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Jeff Furness, PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P.Of Box 48
Aurora Nor*Carolina 27806
From: John Dome
Subject: 401 Water Quality Certi lion for Bailey Creek, Beaufort Co, #951281
We have reviewed your application for a 401 Water Quality Certification for Bailey Creek. We
would like you to consider changes in your design in order to insure that Bailey Creek is restored to
conditions similar or better than before the proposed mining activity occurs.
Please consider the following:
1) Since PCS Phosphate has proposed to relocate Bailey Creek, the opportunity exists to create a
more natural creek system. It is preferable that the relocated Bailey Creek have a narrow,
winding channel with gently &loping sides and floodplain on each side. This type of design
(Figure 1) prqposed by the Wildlife Resources Commission, wouldimprove water quality
benefits and habitat for wildlife. Any riparian wetlands that would be created could be used to
alleviate the shortage of riparian wetlands in your mitigation plan.
In addition, stream meanders should be increased to compensate for the net loss of 300 feet of
stream channel which will occur under your present design if Bailey Creek is relocated. Figure 2
illustrates a preferred route with meanders for Bailey Creek. We believe that the relocated
channel should extend between both railroad crossings of Bailey Creek.
2) Vegetation in the form of grass should be established in such a manner that small grains will
stabilize the soil until native plants become reestablished. We recommend that fescue not be
planted. Preferable alternatives include Annual Rye Grass, Rye, Wheat, Oats, Sorghum or
Annual Lespedeza.
3) The list of hardwood trees looks acceptable. However, sweetguin should be eliminated from the
list of planted trees as this species provides less benefits and will easily return to the site
naturally.
Trees should be planted at a density of 400 trees per acre with a goal of 320 trees per acre
after 5 years. At least two rows of trees shall be planted in alternating patterns (rather than
directly opposite each other) on the bank to provide canopy shading. Trees more tolerant of
flooding conditions (such as bald cypress) should be planted at the toe of the slope.
4) Natural substrate such as logs and woody debris should be placed in the relocated section of the
creek in order to introduce detrital matter and to provide benthic habitat.
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina
27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action iitnployer 501, recycled/1017 post consumer paper

If you would like to discuss the above conditions for Bailey Creek, please call Karen Lynch or
myself at [phone].
cc: William Wescott, WRC
WARO DEM
Charles Gardner, Land Resources
Kristin Rowles, PTRF
.?
0-900
O ca,
O ?' O cd
A U , ter' ?
3
a 0
ce

C o

C/1 U U
aj F+-1
?
o"O 3

H
a
0
c?
0
x
U
MMM
FBI
w
A
a
0
V
V
O
i.i
U
V
i-?
?I
a
c
M >
O
..O
Q
3
?z
.t o
3 .?
o U
t
cd
z
-.5H
cd cv o
")
O H
o a
w Cl,
41
.. o
?N
N
'c7
C1.
_o
V
a> o?
a C C:
M 2
. 0 0
m 0 " -

-2 o -o .a
le (D O
C
m a 0

U o 0)
=
OL 0-

M

t
x
u
a?
c?
P?
0
a
CC
N
V
i-?
.r,
W

a?
c?
U
U
O
O
C
a
c0

RECEIVED
JAN 2 31996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
PAmuco-TAR RIVER FOUNDATION
P.O. BOX 1854, WASHINGTON, NC 27889 [phone]
January 18, 1996
John Dorney
DEM - DEHNR
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear John:

Thanks for the opportunity to review the Nationwide Permit No. 26 for PCS Phosphate to
mine approximately 0.3 acres of wetlands in Bailey Creek. Here are PTRF's comments and
questions:
1) It is our understanding that when the EIS process started for Texasgulf (now PCS
Phosphate) that there were to be no additional wetlands permitted for the mining operations
until the EIS process was complete. NEPA prohibits the commitment of resources prior to
the completion of the EIS. This condition was waived to allow mining through Whitehurst
Creek, and now, it would be waived again for Bailey's Creek.
These exceptions are representative of the piecemeal approach to wetlands permitting and
destruction that led to the EIS process in the first place. What is the basis for waiving this
previous condition and allowing the commitment of resources?
2) It is also my understanding that when the EIS process began, an area with no
wetlands was delineated in which the company would continue mining until the EIS process
was complete. Has the company moved outside of this area? If so, why?
3) If the Bailey Creek permit is granted, a more extensive restoration plan should be
required to compensate for the loss. The length of the stream restoration/reclamation should
be increased to create a stream of equal or greater length to the stream being destroyed.
Lengthening the project will improve the downstream segment and thereby provide more
adequate compensation for the impact of the permit.
As for the Whitehurst restoration, PTRF notes that the company has been unable to meet the
restoration requirements set forth in this permit. We would like to receive more information
E-DUCATION. ADVOCACY. RESEARCH.
" 100",, we ycled paper
on why this has occurred. The inability to meet restoration requirements is of great concern
to PTRF:
* It is a reminder of general concern regarding the company's ability to live up
to its restoration promises.
* It raises a red flag with respect to the proposed Bailey's Creek restoration and
as well as restoration proposed in the EIS process.
* It raises our concern in comment 2 above: is the company remaining within
the boundaries agreed to at the beginning of the EIS process? Why has the
need for the Whitehurst and Bailey's Creek permits arisen?
I also would like to refer you to the enclosed letter written by Derb Carter of the Southern
Environmental Law Center. This letter describes PCS Phosphate's multi-million dollar
settlement with the state of Florida when the company was unable to meet mitigation
requirements at a Florida phosphate mine owned by the company. In light of the company's
inability to meet restoration requirements, PTRF emphasizes that:
* When an activity is not water dependent, the activity must avoid impacts to
wetlands where practicable.
* When compensatory mitigation must be used, it should be backed up with a
performance bond that is adequate to ensure the completion of the promised
work.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Kristin Rowles, Executive Director
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
enclosure
cc: Derb Carter
Wayne Wright
R
Southern Environmental Law Center
107 EAST FRANKLIN STREET SUITE 404 CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514 [phone]
Regional Office
201 West Main Street, Suite 14
Charlottesville, VA 22901-5064
(804) 9774090
January 10, 1996
Dr. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Re: PCS permit application to mine wetlands in Beaufort
County, North Carolina
Dear Dr. Wright:
This letter, submitted on behalf of the Pamlico Tar River
Foundation, supplements our previous comments on the application by
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. (PCS) for a permit to mine wetlands in
Beaufort County, North Carolina. Attached to this letter is new
information concerning a proposed PCS phosphate mine in northern
Florida that is relevant to the pending permit application in North
Carolina. The attached documents raise serious questions about
PCS's claims in North Carolina that it can mitigate the loss of
wetlands it proposes to mine through restoration of wetlands. We
request that this letter and attachments be included in the record
on the pending permit application.
In 1987, the Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers
issued a section 404 permit to Occidental Chemical Corporation
(Occidental) authorizing the company to mine over 7000 acres of
wetlands to recover phosphate in the watershed of the Suwannee
River in northern Florida. As a condition to the permit, the
company is required to restore wetlands on the mined area and to
comply with applicable state reclamation and permitting
requirements. PCS recently acquired the Occidental phosphate mine
and is a successor in interest to the permit to mine phosphate in
Florida.
In June 1992, the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection denied an application by Occidental to modify the
existing conceptual reclamation plan for the phosphate mine in
Florida. The principal reason for the denial was the demonstrated
inability to restore functional wetlands on the mined sites. Under
Florida regulations, wetlands disturbed by mining operations must
be restored at least acre-for-acre and type-for-type. Florida
Administrative Code Chapter 62C-16.0051(4).
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources ` Division of Coastal Management James B. Hunt, Governor
p E H N R
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
3 January 1996
Mr. Brad Peacock
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
REFERENCE: Action ID 199601103
Nationwide Permit for an
Activity Located in Beaufort
County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Peacock:
The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management has reviewed the above
referenced application for a Nationwide Permit dated 15 December 1995 pursuant
to Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended. Based upon
our review, we have determined that the proposed activity is consistent with the
North Carolina Coastal Management Program provided the following conditions are
met.
1. The activity described in the above application qualifies to receive
one of the Nationwide Permits described in 33 CFR Part 330 with the
exception of Numbers 17, 21, 24 and 34 which were found inconsistent
with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
2. A 401 Water Quality Certification is received, where required, from
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management.
This letter does not relieve you of the responsibility to ensure that all
other State authorization and/or permit requirements are met prior to
implementation of the project. Please feel free to contact mta at [phone]
if you have any questions or need further assistance.
Sincerely,
i
Te ry E. Moore
District Manager
Division of Coastal Management
Washington Regional Office
TEM/pp
cc: St ve Benton - Federal Consistency Coordinator, DCM, Raleigh
n Dorney - Water Quality Section, DEM, Raleigh
Wilmington District Engineer
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
RECEIVED
JAN 91996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
"PA Nri j
1424 Carolina Avenue, Washington, North Carolina 27889 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/10% post-consumer paper
cC -1

e?j I
77L a."s wev-
r JOY-
S2--()spa,
7 L4
I/P
/I

C,?i(Ct+?YI????r.Al Yl, 06
?` w?-` 3 3 fob
CO ? - os ? a?w.S

c?- -4 lbj D ? cdouir
I',)
- 4001h.
W-D
117 -0
U a
IL N f

Nbkl -

pv6j??-m

?un K.2
anal ?Y.
kr -6- ?&- CTAI?Al
•C?l'v m_?t'.7? iM
uk i ; c o0-1 (guy- - C6? acss (Yv JG+ ?
-77 O a
0-6 V - ),
S

y ./(A 60-A, cj
wl?;,lr?,ws, clprld- W,„f
<.?Gov,?. Ices/.,?p wY??n-GrD
TF
6r "(:7 0- Cal

VCYI
i
'KyrDp
lip VVY).d?R. ?n ?
(Z? COP
-- 21nr ??-1*11 Fily, ?Fll
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles Gardner, P.G„ P.E.
Director and State Geologist
February 7, 1996
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. B.A. Peacock
PCS Phosphate
Aurora Division
P.O. Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
RE: 770 acre Modification and Name Change Requests
Mining Permit No. 07-01
Beaufort County
Dear Mr. Peacock:
,r
r
=v ..D
.O

This office has completed its review of the above referenced
requests. During the review process, a copy of the 770 acre
modification request was forwarded to the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission, the Division of Environmental Management, and the
Land Quality Section's Washington Regional Office. The following
information is needed in order to address these agencies'
concerns and to continue the mining permit application review
process:
1) The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) and the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) have several
concerns regarding the relocation and subsequent
restoration of Bailey Creek. Enclosed is a copy of
WRC's memorandum dated January 22, 1996 and DEM's
memorandum dated January 29, 1996 outlining both
agencies' concerns.
In light of these concerns, this office cannot concur
with the proposed creek relocation and restoration at
the present time. Thus, please resolve these issues
directly with the above agencies and resubmit, if
necessary, any revised mining and reclamation plans for
the 770 acre modification area and creek
relocation/restoration.
Geological Survey Section Land Quality Section Geodetic Survey Section
[phone] [phone] [phone]
FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone]
LT 0 "
oft Oft 001
DEHNF1
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Peacock
Page 2
2) How do you intend to screen the 770 acre modification
area from the nearby residences along NC 33/306?
Although it is not feasible to completely screen the
draglines from public view, reasonable screening
appears feasible to reduce visibility and noise. The
screening should be provided such that all activities
associated with the modification are interior to the
screening. Some acceptable methods would be
appropriately sized trees planted at staggered
spacings, vegetated earthen berms or a combination of
berms and tree plantings. It is recommended that the
screening height be 15 feet or similar to the height of
the screening berms your company installed in the past
along NC 306 that leads to the mine's entrance. Please
indicate the size and location of the screening on the
plans and provide a typical cross-section of the method
used. .
3) Will the dewatering of the 770 acre modification area
result in adverse impacts to nearby residential wells?
If so, how will such impacts be avoided or mitigated?
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT OUR REVIEW CANNOT BE COMPLETED UNTIL
ALL OF THE ITEMS LISTED ABOVE HAVE BEEN FULLY ADDRESSED.
In order to complete the processing of your modification and
name change requests, please forward two (2) copies of the
requested information to my attention at the following address:
Land Quality Section
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
As required by 15A NCAC 5B.0013, you are hereby advised that
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 based upon the information currently in the Department's
files at the end of the 180 day period.

CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Peacock
Page 3
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 requests
sooner.
As this office has received PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.'s
$500,000.00 surety bond, I am returning Texasgulf, Inc.'s
$25,000.00 surety bond to you for your use. The name changes on
Mining Permit Nos. 07-01 and 07-05 will be completed pending
resolution of the above matters.
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Tracy Davis, P.E.
State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
/td
Enclosures: WRC memorandum dated January 22, 1996
DEM memorandum dated January 29, 1996
Original $500,000.00 Texasgulf, Inc. surety bond
cc: Mr. Charles Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Mr. Floyd Williams, P.G., C.P.E.S.C.
Mr. John Dorney - DEM
Mr. Franklin McBride - WRC
01/24/1.992 03:40 9199469492 PTPF
1 1q CC" / PAGE 01
?r r l1
-?
PAMLICO4AR RIVER FOUNDATION
ro.BM 103+.wAsaMOTOlNC17W9 (919)946.11"
January is, 19%
John Dorney
DEM - DRfM
P.O. Boa 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626.0535
Dear John:
Thanks for tha opportunity to review the Nationwide Porn* No. 26 for PCS Phosphate to
mine approximately 0.3 acres of wetlands in Bailey Creek. Here are PTRF's comments and
questions:
1) It is our understanding that when the EIS process started for Texasgulf (now PCS
Phosphate) that there were to be no additional wetlands permitted for the mining operations
until the EIS process was complete. NEPA prohibits taut commitment of resources prior to
the completion of the EIS. 'Deis condition was waived to allow mining through Whitehurst
Creek. and now, it would be waived again for Bailey's Creek.
These taeeptions are representative of the piecemeal approach to wetlands permitting and
destruction that led to the EIS proem in the first place. What is the basis for waiving this
previous condition and allowing the commitment of resources?
2) It is also my understanding that when the EIS pro" began, an area with no
wetlands was delineated in which the company would continue mining until the EIS proem
was complete. Has the company moved outside of this area? If so, why?
3) If the Bailey Creek permit is granted, a more extensive restoftion plan should be
requited to compensate for the loss. The length of the stream resloratioo/realamation should
be increased to create a stream of equal or greater length to the stream being destroyed.
Lengthening the project will improve the downstream segment and thereby provide more
adequate compensation for the impact of the permit.
As for the Whitehurst restoration, FM notes that the company has been unable to meet the
restoration requirements set forth in this permit. We would like to receive more information
ErucATim. ADVOCACY. REsmacH.
0 100%roevelld paper
01/24/1992 03,40 9199469492 PTRF
PAGE 02
on why this bas occurred. The inability to meet r+estomdoe roquirenaeatts is of grit concern
PTRF: It is a reminder of general concern regarding the company's ability to livo up
to its restaration promises.
* It raises a red flag with respect to the proposed Bailey's Crook restoration and
as well as resmOon proposed in the EIS process.
* It raises our concern in comment 2 above: is the company remaining within
the boundaries agreed to at the ftinning of the 03 process? Why has the
need for the Whitahurst and Bailey's Creek permits arisen?
I also would WO to refer you to the mWosed letter wrium by Derb Carter of the Southern
Environmental Law Center. This letter describe: PCS Phosphate's multi-million dollar
wulement with the state of Florida when the company was unable to meet mitigation
requirements at a Plod& phosphate mina owned by the company. in light of the company's
inability to meet restoration requirements, PTRF emphasizes that:
* When an activity is not water dependent, the activity must avoid Impacts to
wetlands where practicable.
* When compensatory mitigation must be used, it should be backed up with a
performaacc bvad that is adequate to ensure the eompledon of the promised
work.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Kristin Bowles, Executive Director
PandiwTsr River Foundation
etMlosur+e
cc: Derb Carter
Wayne Wright
01/24/1992 03:40 9199469492 PTRF PAGE 03
T -
Southern Environmental Law Center
137 EAST FRANKLIN STREET SME 404 CHAPEL WILL, NC 27514 19191 967.1450
Regw d Office
201 West Man kreel, Suite 14
Chadmesviie, vA 22901-5064
00419774090
January to, 1996
Dr. Mayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Re: PCs g2rmit apoligation to jAine wetlands in Beaufort
County North Carolina
Dear Dr. Wright:
This letter, submitted on behalf of the Pamlico Tar River
Foundation, supplements our previous comments on the application by
PCs Phosphate Company, Inc. (PCs) for a permit to mine wetlands in
Beaufort County, North Carolina. Attached to this letter is new
information concerning a proposed PCs phosphate mine in northern
Florida that is relevant to the pending permit application in North
Carolina. The attached documents raise serious questions about
PC81s claims in North Carolina that it can mitigate the loss of
wetlands it proposes to mine through restoration of wetlands. We
request that this letter and attachments be included in the record
on the pending permit application.
In 1987, the Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers
issued a section 404 permit to Occidental Chemical Corporation
(Occidental) authorizing the company to mine over 7000 acres of
wetlands to recover phosphate in the watershed of the Suwannee
River in northern Florida. As a condition to the permit, the
company is required to restore watlands on the mined area and to
comply with applicable state reclamation and permitting
requirements. PCS recently acquired the Occidental phosphate mine
and is a successor in interest to the permit to mine phosphate in
Florida.
In June 1992, the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection denied an application by Occidental to modify the
existing conceptual reclamation plan for the phosphate mine in
Florida. The principal reason for the denial wags the demonstrated
inability to restore functional wetlands on the mined sites. Under
Florida regulations, wetlands disturbed by mining operations must
be restored at least acre-for-acre and type-for-type. Florida
Administrative Code Chapter 52C-16.0051(4).
01/24/1992 03:40

9199469492
PTRF
PAGE 04
Occidental appealed the Florida DEP denial of the proposed
modification to the reclamation plan. In February 1995, occidental
and the Florida DEP entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to
settle the appeal. Memorandum of Agreement, DOAK case No. 92-4506
(February 131 1995) (attached). Under the terms of the settlement,
Florida DEP granted occidental a variance from the regulatory
requirement that wetlands on the mined site be restored acre-for-
acre and type-fortype. Again, this variance was based on f!ha,
demonstrated inability to restore wetlands on the mined s es
.1
Instead of wetland restoration, the company agreed to pa $2
million to a fund to acquire and manage wetland areas it, the ^ 'V
vicinity of the mine site.
0\oY
The relevance and importance of the decisions in Florida to M
the PC$ proposal and permit application to mine wetlands in North ^X
Carolina are twofolds Pirst, the decisions in Florida were based
on the demonstrated inability to restore functional wetlands on the
mined areas. This raises serious questions about the claims by the
company in North Carolina that it can restore functional wetlands
to mitigate the impact of mining wetlands that it proposes to mine.
The PCS permit application and mitigation and reclamation plans in
North Carolina include an almost exclusive reliance on 'compensatory
mitigation through on-site and off-site restoration of wetlands to
replace the functions of the wetlands the company proposes to mine.
Second, the decision, in Florida provides an additional clear
and convincing roacon to require, as mandated by Corps mitigation
policy, that wetlands be avoided to the maximum extent practicable
prior to any reliance on compensatory mitigation through
restoration of wetlands. The Corps has determined that PCS has the
economically viable option of mining uplands for at least the next
ten years. As PTRF has previously asserted, if the Corps examines
a loins plan beyond the arbitrary project area it would find that
the company can further avoid and minimize wetland loess,
We appreciate the opportunity to supplement our previous
comments with this letter and attachments. If you have any
questions, please feel free to call.
Sincerely,.
0_,6 5. 6'
Derb S. Carter, Jr.
cc l?amliao'Tar-River ' Foundatioq
Environmental Protection Agency
NCDEHNR
NC Division of Environmental. Nanagement
PCS Phosphate Company

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 0
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ID E H N R
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 6, 1996
Beaufort County
DEM Project # 951281
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Jeff Furness
PCS Phosphate, Inc.
P.O. Box 48
Aurora, NC 27906
Dear Mr. Furness:
You have our approval to place fill in 1.05 acres of waters for the purpose of relocating a portion of Bailey
Creek near NC 33 and SR 1937. as you clescrihed in your modified application dated 27 Ftibruary 1996. After
reviewing your application, we l:.tve. decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification
Number 2671. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 26 when it is issued by the Corps of
Engineers.
This approval is only valid fOr the purpose and desi,,n that you descrihed in your application. If you change
your project, you must notify us --ad you may be required to send it,, a new application. h,r this approval to he
valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. Additional written approval is required
from DEM for a 1) monitoring p.au fur the stre:un relocation including a nuroitoring schedule and prutocul, and
compariSCm to water quality s dl;L11u(Is and 2) wetland mitigation plan including pLtntinc? ?,Ahedulc, nuwitoring
protocols and success criteria patterned after the COE's Buttuinland Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines. 7ltese plans
must be submitted to DEM before construction begins. 'phe final plan should address the feasibility of widening the
proposed flood plain/wetland at its uanowest point where the relocated channel intersects the existing channel.
Wetland mitigation is not a required condition of this Certification. If wethutd miti-atiou i, successful, PUS utay
elect to ask DEM and the (.'UE to credit the wetland iitigation for other wetland impacts associated with ruining.
In addition, you should uhtain any other federal, slate or local permits hefure you prox eed with your project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatury heating. YOU
trust act within 60 clays of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which
conforms to Chapter 150B of the North C'arulina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.U.
Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. 'I'his certification and its conditions are final and hinding unless you ask for
a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Linvironmental Mauagemeul tinder Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act_ If you have at:% queStiuus, please telephone John Durney at 919-733-17 6.
Si cel ?ly
re. tuft Howarc , . .
Kristin Rowles, Pamlico-'I a: River Foundation
Melba McGee
Charles Gardner
Tracey Davis
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District ('ores •t Fngine +rs
Corps of Engineers Washin_.ou Field Office
Washington DEM Re-iunal Office
Mr. John Durney
Central Files
William Wescott, WRC
951281.Itr
Environmental Sciences Branch, 44,01 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50°o recycled/10% post consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Ja mes R Hun:, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Fowes, Secretary
A. Preston Ho,,rard, Jr., P.E., Director
?A41 0
- -wok
ED FE Fl'
FAX TO: SS
FAX NUMBER: ` I ? ? ? ? ? ? I 2-6 O
FROM.:
PHONE:
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
I
COMM NTS:
Environmental Sc.ences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone 919-7?3-9960 FAX # [phone]
An Equal oprrtunf y Atirrnative Adion Ernployer SZ% recycled/10 % post consumer paper
IMPORTANT
ToZU'1A
Date..- "( - -- Time----- -----
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
of s Phi. Qg - - - -- -- - - -
Phone- _ - l [- 'r)
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Message----
Signed
WC. Dept, of Environment. Health. and Natural Resources
PCS
Phosphate VAURORA DIVISION
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC 27806
February 27, 1996
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Thank you for your letter of January 29, 1996 proposing revisions to the Bailey
Creek relocation plan submitted to you by PCS Phosphate as part of a 401
Water Quality Certification application. We have redesigned the channel
relocation plan to closely mimic what DEM and the Wildlife Resources
Commission have proposed, and seven copies of the new plans are enclosed
for your review and approval, as part of the 401 application process. We
estimate that this revised design will create 0.9 acres of Waters of the U. S.
and 4.8 acres of floodplain wetland. We agree with your recommendations for
vegetation and trees and have noted those specifications on the revised plans.
Also enclosed for your information is a copy of the revised Nationwide Permit
No. 26 application form that is being submitted to the Corps of Engineers. The
revisions center around the acreage impacted and the revised relocation plans.
If you have any questions regarding the revised plans, please call me at
919/322-8249.
Sincerely,
J ffrey C. Furness
Environmental Scientist
JCF/re
Encl.
pc: Tracy Davis - DLR, Raleigh (w/o encl)
David Franklin - Corps, Wilm. (w/o encl)
W. T. Cooper (w/o encl)
H. M. Breza (w/o encl)
B. A. Peacock (w/o encl)
P. J. Moffett (w/o encl)
12-01-004-28 (w/encl)
00-14-000 (w/o encl)
2.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Qualitative macroinvertebrate sampling
will be conducted during winter and summer at an upstream and a
downstream location. Nine standing sweep net samples will be taken at
each site for each seasonal survey. These samples will be hand-sorted
in the field and all m acroi nve rteb rates collected preserved in 10 percent
formalin. Additional m acroi nverte b rates will be collected from log washes
and rubs as well as by incidental captures made during visual searches.
All specimens will be transferred to 95 percent denatured ethanol in the
lab. Macroinvertebrates will be identified to lowest reasonable taxa within
each group. Taxa identification for specimens collected in the surveys will
e??s b rely primarily on Brigham et al (1982), and will be based on the level of
yr/ effort established by DEM during their sampling of Whitehurst Creek in
X i February 1992. Macroinvertebrate sampling will begin in winter 1997.
3.0 BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD WETLAND MONITORING
vwok_ The monitoring of the floodplain wetland that will be created adjacent
wk- to the stream channel will be based on the Compensatory Hardwood
to ° ?7 Mitigation Guidelines published by the Wilmington District of the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
CA u
?hou?? ?
, r\ ? t,at tl??n
Y4'G, yt t ,.`S
3.1 Planting Specifications. Hardwood trees will be planted at a density
of at least 400 trees per acre. The initial planting goal is 20 percent balled
and burlapped and 80 percent bare root seedlings, but may be modified
depending on ability to install larger trees. Tree species on the lowest
floodplain areas will include bald cypress, green ash and water tupelo.
Tree species on the higher floodplain areas and the transition slopes will
include, but not be limited to, willow oak, laurel oak, swamp chestnut oak,
water oak, overcup oak, white oak, river birch and holly. No trees will be
planted within the CP&L power line right-of-way.
3.2 Tree Monitoring and Success Criteria. Tree success will be
monitored with tree transects scattered throughout the relocation area.
Success is measured by tree survival and species composition. Average
tree density will be at least 320 planted trees/acre at the end of the fifth
growing season. At least six species of planted hardwood trees will be
present at the end of the fifth growing season (with bald cypress and pond
cypress considered as hardwoods).
-2-
3.3 Hydrology Monitoring and Success Criteria. The hydrology of the
bottomland hardwood floodplain areas will be monitored with eight 24-inch
wells spaced within the floodplain and checked periodically throughout the
growing season. On most areas, the hydrology should meet or exceed the
level of 12.5 percent of the growing season as specified in the Corps of
Engineers Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines. Wetland
restoration sites that are inundated or saturated to the surface for a
consecutive number of days greater than 12.5 percent of any one growing
season under normal conditions are hydrologically successful. Portions
of this site which after three years of monitoring are inundated or saturated
to the surface between 5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season in most
years will be considered successful on a case by case basis. Standing
water within 12 inches of the surface will be considered a positive indicator
of wetland hydrology.
4.0 ' REPORTS
An annual monitoring report will be submitted to DEM by April 1 of
the following year.
5.0 LITERATURE CITED
Brigham, A.R., W. U. Brigham, and A. Gnilka, eds. 1982. Aquatic insects
and oligochaetes of North and South Carolina. Midwest
Aquatic Enterprises, Mahomet, Illinois. 837 pp.
-3-

DEM ID: ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT APPLIED FOR (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT 0): 26
JOINT APPLICATION FORK FOR
NATIONWIDE PERMITS TWAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NATIONWIDE PERMITS TWAT REQUIRE SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION CONCATRRENCE
NATIONWIDE PERMITS TWAT REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NC 28402-1890
ATTNs CESAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: HR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS. SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: PC:S Phncnhnl-P &xrrr = Inc.
2. OWNERS ADDRESS: P.O. Box 48, Aurora, NC 27806
3. OWNERS PHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK): [phone]
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBERs Brad Peacock
5. LOCATION OF PLANNED WORK (ATTACH MAP). COUNTY: Beaufort
NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Aurora
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Bailey Creek channelized drainage near N.C. 33 and S.R. 1537
6. NAME OF CLOSEST STREAM/RIVER: Bailey Creek
7. RIVER BASIN: Pamlico River/South Creek
8. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, SA, HQW, ORW,
WS I, OR WS II? YES ( ) NO (X)
9. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES [)j NO [ )
IF YES, EXPLAIN. Natintiztiri?lP pi-rm is were used to fill 0.6 acres of •mtPrR of the
U.S. in 7/92 and 0.65 acres in 1/95 in the Whitehurst Creek channelized drainage,
10. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WATERS OF THE U.S., INCLUDING
WETLANDS, LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE: 1.05
5. (con't) and 1.1 acres of waters of the U.S. were created. 3/30/92

-2-
11. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WATERS OF THE U.S., INCLUDING WETLANDS, IMPACTED BY
THE PROPOSED PROJECT:
FILLED: 0
DRAINED: 0
FLOODED: 0
EXCAVATED: 1.55
TOTAL IMPACTED: 1.05
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK (ATTACH PLANS):
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: phosphate minim`;
to
14. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE
CARRIED OUT IN WETLANDS. ALSO, NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS. The reasons were lined in the application submitted on 12/12/95. The
llpci o„ of the rpl nratpcl Rai 1 ev Creek C e has been revised since then to
inrrpaGp the mitiuaticn acreac*e to U.y acres or craters or the u.5. ana 4.0
acres or wetianas.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) REGARDING THE PRESENCE
OR ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED
SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES (X) NO ( )
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT7
HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES (X) NO ( )
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY DEH:
A. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, AND LAKES ON
THE PROPERTY.
B. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED BY
PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA SHEETS
RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
D. IF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT, ATTACH
COPY.
E. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Mining. Agriculture, "ate n3?
F. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N/A
,?1 ?? a a? 9l0
O ' GNA URE DATE

Occidental appealed the Florida DEP denial of the proposed
modification to the reclamation plan. In February 1995, Occidental
and the Florida DEP entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to
settle the appeal. Memorandum of Agreement, DOAH Case No. 92-4506
(February 13, 1995) (attached). Under the terms of the settlement,
Florida DEP granted Occidental a variance from the regulatory
requirement that wetlands on the mined site be restored acre-for-
acre and type-for-type. Again, this variance was based on the
demonstrated inability to restore wetlands on the mined sites.
Instead of wetland restoration, the company agreed to pay $27
million to a fund to acquire and manage wetland areas in the
vicinity of the mine site.
The relevance and importance of the decisions in Florida to
the PCS proposal and permit application to mine wetlands in North
Carolina are twofold: First, the decisions in Florida were based
on the demonstrated inability to restore functional wetlands on the
mined areas. This raises serious questions about the claims by the
company in North Carolina that it can restore functional wetlands
to mitigate the impact of mining wetlands that it proposes to mine.
The PCS permit application and mitigation and reclamation plans in
North Carolina include an almost exclusive reliance on *compensatory
mitigation through on-site and off-site restoration of wetlands to
replace the functions of the wetlands the company proposes to mine.
Second, the decision in Florida provides an additional clear
and convincing reason to require, as mandated by Corps mitigation
policy, that wetlands be avoided to the maximum extent practicable
prior to any reliance on compensatory mitigation through
restoration of wetlands. The Corps has determined that PCS has the
economically viable option of mining uplands for at least the next
ten years. As PTRF has previously asserted, if the Corps examines
a mine plan beyond the arbitrary project area it would find that
the company can further avoid and minimize wetland loss.
We appreciate the opportunity to supplement our previous
comments with this letter and attachments. If you have any
questions, please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
Derb S. Carter, Jr.
cc Pamlico Tar River Foundatior}
Environmental Protection Agency
NCDEHNR
NC Division of Environmental Management
PCS Phosphate Company
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary p H N F4
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 2, 1996
Mr. Jeffrey Furness
PCS Phosphate
P.O. Box 98
Aurora, NC 27806
Dear Mr. Furness;
Re: Bailey Creek Monitoring Plan
Beaufort Countv
DEM #951281
DEM staff have reviewed your draft "Monitoring Plan for Bailey Creek
Mitigation Channel, Beaufort County, North Carolina" dated March 1996.
This plan is acceptable to DEM and meets the condition in our 401 Water
Quality Certification for this project issued to PCS Phosphate on 6 March 1996.
Please call me at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
+OR. or ney
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Washington Field Office
Washington DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
William Wescott, WRC
Kristin Rowles, Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
Melba McGee
Charles Gardner
Tracey Davis
Division of Environmental Management • Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 • Telephone [phone] • FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

PCS
Phosphate VAURORA DIVISION
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC 27806
March 18, 1996
???qR ? 0 1996
??MFNTA[ SG/FN?,?6
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:
The Water Quality Certification to PCS Phosphate for fill in 1.05 acres of waters
and the relocation of a portion of Bailey Creek (DEM Project Number 951281),
requires that written approval be obtained from DEM for monitoring the relocated
stream and associated wetlands. Specifically, approval is required for 1) a
monitoring plan for the stream relocation including a monitoring schedule and
protocol, and comparison to water quality standards, and 2) a wetland mitigation
plan including planting schedule, monitoring protocols and success criteria
patterned after the COE's Bottomland Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines.
Enclosed is a document titled "Monitoring Plan for the Bailey Creek Mitigation
Channel, Beaufort County, North Carolina," which fulfills the above two
requirements. Besides the COE's guidelines, it is patterned after the sampling
required in the Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel.
The Water Quality Certification approval also required that the feasibility of
widening the proposed floodplain/wetland at its narrowest point where the
relocated channel intersects the existing channel be addressed. The reason that
this approximately 100-foot segment was not proposed to be widened was for
soil stabilization and water quality benefits. This short segment is common to
both- the existing channel and the relocated channel, therefore water will
continuously be flowing through it. Construction of the segments above and
below this section, including stabilization with vegetation, can be accomplished
prior to connecting them to this narrow undisturbed section and diverting water
flow through the relocated channel. We believe that we are preventing a
potential sediment and erosion control problem by not trying to widen this short
section of channel while it is carrying water.

Mr. John Dorney
March 18, 1996
Page 2of2
Should you have any questions on this material, please call me at 919/322-8249.
Sincerely,
C ,lu nw
Jyrey C. Furness
Enclosure
pc: David Franklin - COE, Wilm. (w/encl)
Roger Thorpe - DEM, Wash to
William Wescott - WRC, Wash to
Tracy Davis - DLR, Raleigh it
W. A. Schimming "
W. T. Cooper "
T. C. Younger "
B. A. Peacock/00-14-000 "
H. M. Breza "
P. J. Moffett "
B. W. Bolick "
12-01-004-28 "

Monitoring Plan for the
Bailey Creek Mitigation Channel,
Beaufort County, North Carolina
March 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................1
2.0 STREAM CHANNEL MONITORING ......................... 1
2.1 Water Quality ..................................... 1
2.2 Fish ............................................1
2.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrates ........................... 2
3.0 BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD WETLAND MONITORING ......... 2
3.1 Planting Specifications .............................. 2
3.2 Tree Monitoring and Success Criteria ................... 2
3.3 Hydrology Monitoring and Success Criteria ............... 3
4.0 REPORTS ...........................................3
5.0 LITERATURE CITED ....................................3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In December 1995, PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. (PCS
Phosphate) submitted an application for a 401 Water Quality Certification
to the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) to
impact a portion of the channelized drainage to Bailey Creek. A drainage
channel relocation plan was included as part of the 401 application.
Comments on the channel relocation design, including suggested revisions
to the design, were received from DEM and the Wildlife Resources
Commission. A revised 401 application incorporating the suggested
design changes was submitted to DEM in February 1996 and DEM issued
the 401 Certification on March 6, 1996. This 401 Certification requires that
a monitoring plan be approved by DEM, and it must be submitted to DEM
before construction begins.
This document is the proposed monitoring plan as specified in the 401
Certification conditions. The design of the relocated channel and adjacent
floodplain is shown in Figure 1. The monitoring will be conducted in two
separate areas: 1) the 10-foot wide stream channel itself, and 2) the flat
floodplain areas adjacent to the channel. Construction should be complete
during summer 1996.
2.0 STREAM CHANNEL MONITORING
2.1 Water Quality. The parameters to be monitored include dissolved
oxygen, temperature, pH, conductivity, fluoride and total phosphorus.
Water quality monitoring will begin the first month after the water is routed
through the relocated channel, and will be done monthly from two
locations in the relocated channel, one at the upper end near the stilling
basin and one near the lower end.
2.2 Fish. Fish sampling will be conducted during winter (February) and
summer (July) using a backpack electroshocker at two locations, upstream
and downstream. Samples will be taken over 600-foot segments at each
site, with upstream and downstream blocknets used when needed. Fish
collected will be identified, measured, and either kept as vouchers or
released. Voucher specimens will be preserved in 10 percent formalin and
transferred to 95 percent denatured ethanol after 48 hours. The first fish
sampling will occur in winter of 1997.
-1-

II
I II
II r
Li H1

II
I
II
II x
? ` ? "r O
...
. ./
17
II I `
_
g
0

?`<
II LLJ
O
II
I I I
I ?
??
II I
I N

I II
I
I II /??
/j ,? ?
d
I I I cm
I I I II
11•
? c
I I I II II R
II ?
I I ? II ??
I I i ? \\

I
I I d `?
? Z
°

I
I
I
I
?
, ?I
N I:
>
<
I
I I
I I II ? &
I I I II ?j
I I I
II ?
I I II ??,
` W
I ??. -
o a
I I i II ?,
I I
I II ??
I
I
I I
I
I
j
j `?
u
p R
I
I
I I
I
I i

I ?

o
I I i II l? R
I I i II ??
I I
I I " \?
II \\
I I I " `1
I I ? o Iy
II R ??
I I i II ??.
I
I I
I
? ?
p ?
II
I I I ??

n ? u \\

I I i II \\
II \\
I
I I
i
i `\
II ,
?
I I i )
II
I I
I //
I
I I I
//

I I I II /?
I
I I
I
i " ?; R
II ?? \
I
I I
I I
? II \\
II ?`
I
I
I I
I
I I
;
j II R +?

II ? I I ?x
I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I a ?I
o ? .---
II ?? ;! . `
I
I I
I i
i II
? p L?
s
I I I II R '`jam
??
g? l
I i
I I
I
I u •.
< II
1
04
?N
r+
rt
C)
?G
O
(7
CD

r+
O
fD
M
r
CD
CC
C11
or
A
p
CD
Q.
b
O

a
6
r
rt
C)
O
n
C7'
r
(D
C
v'
r
cp
c?

I-!
?w
0
?p
ca
N?
b
CO
rt
f?D
8
O
0
cr'
c?
M
5
f9
I
p
0,

w

M
CD
c
f-+

rt
n
a
fD
O
.19 oxi
?d?
a?
(7
A
f9
r+•
p?
04
c?
80
??
w
a0
CD
N
O
A