20080868 Ver 2_County to take on activists over PCS_20090408

County to take on activists over PCS

Subject: County to take on activists over PCS
From: Susan Massengale <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 11:15:56 -0400
To: DWQ Clips <[e-mail]>
*County to take on activists over PCS*
Commissioners endorse mining company, vow to fight `tooth and nail'
By TED STRONG
Staff Writer
At its Monday meeting, the Beaufort County Board of Commissioners agreed to push
hard for PCS Phosphate's permit to expand its mining operation.
"I think now's the time to pull out all the stops," said Commissioner Ed Booth.
The board appointed a committee of Hood Richardson, commissioner; Paul Spruill,
county manager; and Tom Thompson, director of the Beaufort County Economic
Development Commission, to work on the matter.
"I think we've gone from the sublime to the completely ridiculous," said
Commissioner Al Klemm of the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to ask for
another review of PCS Phosphate's application.
Several commissioners criticized "long-haired" environmental activists who have
fought to limit the mine's expansion into environmentally sensitive areas.
"About two-thirds of them (environmental activists) are the biggest hypocrites you
ever met," said Commissioner Stan Deatherage.
Booth asked the other commissioners to comport themselves with more dignity when
discussing their opponents.
"Stop calling people names," he said.
He added that his call for respectful debate didn't signal any willingness to bend
on the issue.
"We're going to have to fight these people tooth and nail, and we're going to fight
them tooth and nail," he said.
The commissioners also weighed in on several issues of state government.
The board unanimously voted to support State Superintendent of Public Instruction
June Atkinson, who is fighting to save her elected job after Gov. Beverly Perdue
moved to replace her with an appointee.
Hood Richardson called the Raleigh fracas "a fur fight among the Democrats"before
voting to back Atkinson.
"I think the governor ought to be absolutely ashamed of herself," Klemm said.
Commissioner Robert Cayton, who raised the issue, praised the rare moment of unity
on the board regarding a political question.
"We have bipartisans support for good constitutional government," he said.
The board also voted to oppose N.C. Senate Bill 758 which would shift secondary
roads from state to county responsibility.
1 of 2 4/9/2009 5:12 PM
County to take on activists over PCS
"It's a very innocent sounding bill," said Richardson.
Commissioners worried the move would add tremendous cost to county government
before voting unanimously to oppose it.
The group also found broad support to endorse measures to define marriage in North
Carolina as between one man and one woman. The board tabled the decision to allow
county staff to determine what regulations on the subject are already on the books.
The board voted to endorse the use of e-verify technology statewide. If approved by
the state, the technology would be used by all employers to check employees'
immigration statuses.
Commissioner Stan Deatherage said that for now the illegal immigration issue has
largely "put its own self to bed" because immigrants are leaving as jobs leave, but
argued the county needs to be vigilant because the problem is likely to return when
the economy revives.
Richardson agreed, saying the county needs to act "before this swarm comes back on
us again."
"You don't get some jobs, you're not going to have to worry about e-verifying,"
Booth said.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
DENR.DWQ.CLIPS mailing list
[e-mail]
Part 1.3 Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Encoding: 7bit
2 of 2 4/9/2009 5:12 PM
EPA has second thoughts on coal, phosphate mines
2.oug OFD to le
Subject: EPA has second thoughts on coal, phosphate mines
From: Susan Massengale <Susan. Massengale@ncmai 1. net>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:09:19 -0400
To: DWQ Clips <[e-mail]>
From the Charlotte Observer
EPA has second thoughts on coal, phosphate mines
Agency rightly questions impact on streams, rivers and wetlands.
By Mary Newsom
Associate Editor
Posted: Saturday, Mar. 28, 2009
After eight years when it seemed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
valued politics over science, the Obama administration's EPA shows signs of renewed
vigor. Two recent cases are not conclusive evidence, but they are promising
indicators that the federal agency takes seriously its responsibility to protect
the environment.
This week, the EPA took reassuring steps on mining practices in different regions of
the Southeast. The EPA's Atlanta office challenged a proposal to expand phosphate
mining in 11,000 acres near the Pamlico River near valuable wetlands areas. Good.
Someone needs to be asking harder questions, and there's no sign of the state doing
so on this project.
PCS Phosphate has operated a large open-pit phosphate mine in Beaufort County for 35
years. It wants to expand phosphate mining in a process that the EPA now says might
damage area wetlands and streams. Wetlands perform a valuable filtering function
for stormwater runoff and retention. While PCS would have to recreate wetlands it
destroys, even a temporary loss can have adverse consequences for nearby waterways.
In the Appalachian Mountain area, the EPA is also questioning Army Corps of
Engineers permits granted for two mountaintop mining projects because of possible
damage from the dumping of debris in streams and riverbeds in Kentucky and West
Virginia.
That's of special interest in North Carolina, where much of the coal-fired energy
plants use fuel mined in mountaintop removal projects. State Rep. Pricey Harrison
calls the process "a horrific and destructive practice" that involves "blowing up
mountains."
That comes with excessive human and ecological costs, she argues. Explosions have
ruined homes and communities and destroyed habitat for wildlife. She has filed
legislation that would wean N.C. power plants off coal mined this way.
These welcome steps by the EPA should begin to reassure the public that the Obama
administration will give more scrutiny to processes that adversely affect the
environment - and halt those where the price is simply too high.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
1 of 2 4/9/2009 5:12 PM
EPA has second thoughts on coal, phosphate mines
DENR.DWQ.CLIPS mailing list
DENR.DWQ.CLIPSClists.ncmail.net
Part 1.3 Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Encoding: 7bit
2 of 2 4/9/2009 5:12 PM
EPA delays PCS Phosphate's permit
2DDgDuoz
Subject: EPA delays PCS Phosphate's permit
From: Susan Massengale <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:58:10 -0400
To: DWQ Clips <[e-mail]>
From the Washington Daily News
*EPA delays PCS Phosphate's permit*
*By TED STRONG*
Staff Writer
The EPA on Monday asked for an additional review of PCS Phosphate's application for
a permit to consume wetlands as it expands its facility near Aurora.
PCS Phosphate officials aren't yet sure if the decision will mean lost jobs or
reduced production at the mine, said Ross Smith, the company's manager for
environmental affairs.
PCS Phosphate's application now goes to the assistant secretary of the Army at the
Army Corps of Engineers' Washington, D.C., office.
The assistant secretary's office has 30 days to review the application.
That office likely will send the application back to Wilmington with orders to
either improve the paperwork or issue the permit, said Tom Walker, who coordinated
the application's review at the Corps of Engineers' Wilmington office.
This is the first time he's seen a decision "elevated" in nine years, Walker said.
The Environmental Protection Agency's request is the latest turn in a permitting
process that has lasted more than eight years. The company wants to expand to
extract high-grade phosphate ore from areas that include thousands of acres of
wetlands.
Walker declined to comment specifically on the EPA's decision because he hadn't had
an opportunity to review it.
Smith was unhappy with the EPA's decision.
"We're very disappointed in EPA's response, particularly given our commitment to
environmental stewardship and our track record in that regard and the fact that this
process has been going on for more than eight years," he said.
He said the company will keep reviewing the situation as it changes.
"It's somewhat fluid because our goal is to minimize whatever impacts (to production
and employment at the mine) occur, so we're evaluating it," Smith said.
Private environmental groups oppose the expansion, saying it would be the largest
permitted destruction of wetlands ever in North Carolina. Environmentalists have
maintained the company isn't being selective enough in where it mines, tearing up
wetlands it could afford to avoid.
The EPA echoed those concerns last month when it proposed a different footprint for
the mine's expansion. The EPA's decision to request further review referenced the
footprint change it proposed. In its objection, the EPA specifically cited the
footprint proposal as an alternative the Corps of Engineers should have considered.
1 of 3 4/9/2009 5:18 PM
EPA delays PCS Phosphate's permit
Congressman G.K. Butterfield on Monday criticized the EPA for making that proposal
without consulting PCS Phosphate, which is the county's largest employer. The EPA
did consult other government agencies, Butterfield said.
"I would hope that the EPA would conduct themselves in a more objective manner," he
said.
Butterfield, a Democrat, represents the state's 1st Congressional District, which
includes part of Beaufort County.
In an April 3 letter to an EPA official, Thomas J. Regan Jr., president of PCS
Phosphate, wrote that the proposal isn't economically feasible because it would cut
years of mining life from the site and require the relocation of a state road at a
cost of $90 million.
"Furthermore, EPA's surprising requirement that we completely abandon more than 18
years of ore reserves in exchange for a permit is unwarranted," he wrote.
The EPA's letter announcing its decision, signed by Michael H. Shapiro, acting
assistant administrator of the EPA, identifies several other concerns the EPA has
about the Corps of Engineers' work reviewing PCS Phosphate's application.
The EPA contends the Corps of Engineers:
• used a faulty process to decide which alternative best balanced cost with impact
to the environment;
• shouldn't allow PCS Phosphate to mine part of a nationally significant natural
heritage area (a hardwood flat that was the center of a state permitting spat at
the end of last year) or, as much as possible, mine anywhere that would harm tidal
creeks;
should require better reclamation of the land after it is mined;
• should require the company to sign legal documents preventing it from ever
mining the areas it agrees not to mine now;
• should require more compensatory mitigation, which is the reconstruction of
wetlands to make up for the wetlands the mine would damage;
should ensure monitoring and management of mining and mitigation sites.
Local officials panned the decision.
"I'm personally dissatisfied that they did that," said Jay McRoy, chairman of the
Beaufort County Board of Commissioners. "I feel that they've done a great injustice
to ... the working people in Beaufort County."
Vice Chairman Jerry Langley agreed with McRoy.
"It's not fair to the employees," he said.
He added later, "If you're going to make a decision, make a decision, don't
procrastinate."
A call to the EPA's national headquarters Monday afternoon wasn't immediately
returned.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
2 of 3 4/9/2009 5:18 PM
PCS Phosphate drama continues
200 z 0 9 LD
Subject: PCS Phosphate drama continues
From: Susan Massengale <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:36:35 -0400
To: DWQ Clips <[e-mail]>
*PCS Phosphate drama continues*
And so the drama continues.
The decision by the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday to require additional
review of a PCS Phosphate permit once again delays the company's long-term planning.
The Aurora facility needs a permit to expand its mining for high-grade phosphate
ore from areas that include thousands of acres of wetlands. The permitting process
has taken more than eight years, during which time the company has slowly used up
what area it has for mining.
Considering PCS Phosphate's significance as Beaufort County's largest employer, the
continuing controversy has stoked anger and fear among some county residents who
resent what they see as unfair treatment to the company.
It certainly didn't help soothe the tension when a consortium of environmental
groups recently appealed a key state permit, saying the company's insatiable
appetite would cause the largest permitted destruction of wetlands ever in North
Carolina.
The groups contend the company isn't being selective enough in where it mines, thus
tearing up wetlands it could afford to avoid.
The accusations have flown back and forth particularly in the past few months, and
the matter has ended up in the hands of the assistant secretary of the Army at the
Army Corps of Engineers' Washington, D.C., office.
Though the matter is exceedingly complex, in most people's minds, it seems, there's
a clear choice: jobs or the environment.
PCS Phosphate points to its need to mine land that affords it a legitimate chance to
make a living. It also touts its well-documented wetlands-restoration efforts that
have helped mitigate environmental damage while allowing the company to continue
digging.
Environmentalists charge that no amount of mitigation following wetlands'
destruction will ever fully restore the land to its original health.
The truth, as in most cases, is probably somewhere in the middle.
PCS Phosphate needs a fair and unbiased chance to stay in business, but it must do
its best to protect the area's treasured wetlands. That may mean tightening its belt
as have so many other businesses in this country.
We hope, though, that a compromise can be fashioned that will keep people employed
and diminish potential environmental damage.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
1 of 2 4/9/2009 5:15 PM
PCS Phosphate drama continues
DENR.DWQ.CLIPS mailing list
[e-mail]
Part 1.3 Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Encoding: 7bit
2 of 2 4/9/2009 5:15 PM
Re: Petitioned Case
Zp C) LP
Subject: Re: Petitioned Case
From: John Dorney <j ohn. dorney@ncmail. net>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:53:59 -0400
To: "Leach, Janet" <[e-mail]>
CC: Al Hodge <[e-mail]>, "Matthews, Matt" <Matt. Matthews@ncmail. net>, Kyle
Barnes <[e-mail]>, Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>, Tammy L Hill
<[e-mail]>, Eric Kulz <[e-mail]>, Coleen Sullins
<[e-mail]>, Mike Schafale <michael. schafale@ncmail. net>, "Payne, John"
<[e-mail]>
Cyndi's name is spelled with a "y" not an extra "i" but I think she can be excluded
from the witness list.
I also suspect that Coleen Sullins may have to be a witness since she and Robin
Smith were involved in the discussions for the revised 401. However if she can
wiggle out of it, that is fine with me!
Also add Kyle Barnes (WaRO) and Mike Schafele (NHP).
Also add Tammy Hill and Eric Kulz (both Central Office) if mitigation is an issue
and I suspect it will be.
John Payne - we may need to add Corps and/or EPA folks depending on the outcome of
their recent debate. also edit these names as you see fit!
Leach, Janet wrote:
Hi All,
Petitioners, Pamlico-Tar River Foundation, North Carolina Coastal
Federation, Environmental Defense Fund and Sierra Club are in disagreement with
your issuance of the modified 401 Water Quality Certification No, 377 to PCS
Phosphate, Inc on January 15, 2009. The prehearing statement that has been
ordered by Judge Morrison will be filed on or before April 22, 2009.
Unless otherwise instructed, you will be listed as the witnesses in this
contested case. If I need to add others, please provide their names, titles and
telephone numbers and/or email address if they are not DENR employees. If
someone listed should not be included, please inform me of that also.
There is NO scheduling order included with the Order for Prehearing Statements.
Therefore, I do not know when this case will be scheduled for hearing. There
is, however, a mediation deadline which should be completed by June 24, 2009.
You should contact John Payne to let him know how things are going, when you will
be available for mediation or if a mediation is necessary.
Your prompt reply is appreciated. Thanks Much!!!
John Dorney
Wetland Program Development Unit
Parkview Building
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
1 of 2 4/9/2009 5:13 PM
Re: Petitioned Case
Raleigh, NC 27604
(o) 919-733-9646
/E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties./
2 of 2 4/9/2009 5:13 PM
EPA pushes new boundary for PCS growth od 0 mac '
Subject: EPA pushes new boundary for PCS growth
From: Susan Massengale <Susan. Massengale@ncmai 1. net>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:03:08 -0400
To: DWQ Clips <[e-mail]>
From the Washington Daily News
EPA pushes new boundary for PCS growth
Suggested boundary aimed at reducing damage to wetlands
By TED STRONG
Staff Writer
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed Tuesday another change in the footprint
of a mine expansion at PCS Phosphate in Aurora as the clock ticked on the agency's
window to request an extra review of the site.
"Based on our preliminary look at the information they provided, it's a very
significant change from boundaries that had been evaluated in the past, and it is
certainly very troublesome to PCS that after nine years of evaluation there's new
information presented by an agency that has been reportedly very engaged in the
proceedings the entire time," said Ross Smith, PCS Phosphate manager of
environmental affairs.
The Environmental Protection Agency has less than two weeks to decide if it will
ask the Corps of Engineers' Washington, D.C., office to perform an extra review of
PCS Phosphate's request to mine thousands more acres of wetland.
Corps of Engineers officials in Wilmington were still reviewing the proposed new
boundary Wednesday and didn't yet have a position on it.
The new boundary is aimed at reducing damage to wetlands. It mirrors recent
objections made by a coalition of environmental groups in an appeal of a state water
permit for the expansion.
"Our view has been all along that there could be significantly more avoidance of
wetlands than what has been proposed in Alternative L (the current boundary)," said
Derb Carter, a lawyer for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which represents
groups including the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation in the appeal. "The company could
continue to mine for an extended period of time, and there would be much less
impact on wetlands and water quality and fisheries (with a more-restrictive
boundary) than would result from the plan that the company has applied to receive a
permit for."
Smith said the new EPA-proposed boundary would represent "a significant reduction in
potential minable area."
The proposed boundary change is part of the EPA's response to a letter sent by the
Wilmington office of the Corps of Engineers, said Jim Jiattina, director of water
protection for the EPA Atlanta office.
In that letter, the Corps of Engineers outlined how it had addressed EPA objections
to proposed environmental safeguards for the mine's expansion. The letter was a key
precursor to the Corps of Engineers making a final decision on the permit, which
environmentalists have said would be the largest permitted destruction of wetlands
ever in North Carolina.
"We're still in the deliberative process within EPA," Jiattina said. "We're still
looking for opportunities to work with both the Corps and the applicant to address
our concerns."
In addition to the boundary change, the proposal the EPA presented Tuesday included
1 of 2 4/9/2009 5:26 PM
EPA pushes new boundary for PCS growth
more mitigation measures designed to offset destruction of wetlands.
If the EPA feels its concerns haven't been addressed fully by the Corps of
Engineers, officials could trigger the extra review process to the Corps of
Engineers' Washington, D.C., office. That decision is now being made by the EPA's
assistant administrator for water, who reports directly to EPA Director Lisa
Jackson, Jiattina said.
"What we have put on the table is an additional avoidance (of wetlands) and
minimization that we think would be critical given the resources" at the site,
Jiattina said.
It is likely, but not certain, the new boundary would require an additional
environmental impact study, said Tom Walker, a Corps of Engineer official involved
with the permitting process. If the EPA's national office decides to request the
second review, the Corps of Engineers would take roughly a month, Walker said.
That means the extra review would probably be quicker than adopting the EPA's
boundary-change proposal.
PCS Phosphate officials have said they hoped to secure all their permits by the end
of April, and Beaufort County's entire Congressional delegation sent a letter
earlier this year urging the EPA to decide more quickly.
Jiattina said the agency isn't out to destroy jobs, but does have a responsibility
to consider the matter fully.
"We're not in favor of putting the company out of business or in a terrible
financial position," he said.
He added later: "We are very sensitive to those issues, and at the same time we are
trying to do our jobs to protect the resources in that area."
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
DENR.DWQ.CLIPS mailing list
[e-mail]
Part 1.3 Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Encoding: 7bit
2 of 2 4/9/2009 5:26 PM
2_L`Ci C?,,' to T
Hill, Tammy
From: Massengale, Susan [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:22 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: PCS Phosphate granted permit to keep mining
Attachments: ATT00001.c
From the New Bern Sun Journal
PCS Phosphate granted permit to keep mining

EPA has 10 days to veto Army Corps' decision
June 3. 2009 - 6?50 PM
Nikie Mayo
Sun Journal Staff
The Army Corps of Engineers has granted PCS Phosphate a permit that will allow the company to continue its mining operations
in Aurora.
A Record of Decision was issued by the Corps' Wilmington District Office just after 6 p.m. Wednesday.
The Aurora-based company employs 1,000 people, including 400 workers from Craven and Pamlico counties.
"It's joy," said Ross Smith, PCS Phosphate's manager of environmental affairs. "Joy is the word for what we're feeling. There is
just a huge measure of relief after eight and a half years in this process."
The permit allows PCS Phosphate to mine 11,343 more acres, a proposal that impacts 3,927 acres of wetlands and open
waters, according to the Corps of Engineers. Compared to PCS Phosphate's proposed permit boundary, the approved one
reduces impacts to wetlands by 40 percent and to linear feet of streams by 80 percent, according to the Corps of Engineers.
"We're looking forward to implementing the permit in the next month or two," Smith said in an interview.
The company is still waiting for some state-level certifications, but all of those should be relatively simple to obtain with a federal
permit in hand, Smith said. He said PCS Phosphate would also soon re-evaluate decisions made in April to reassign some
workers and lay off others. The company said the decision to lay off or reassign those 24 workers was directly related to delays
in the permitting process.
"This Record of Decision culminates a long, complex and thorough process," said Col. Jefferson Ryscavage, commander of the
Corps' Wilmington district office.
"We are confident that we have identified an appropriately drawn and balanced alternative and proffered a permit that will allow
continued access to an important mineral resource while maximizing protection to wetlands ... and ensuring reclamation,
mitigation and stewardship of a sensitive and highly valued coastal ecosystem," Ryscavage said.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has 10 days to veto the Corps' issuance of the permit.
"This is a huge hurdle (cleared) for our organization," said Paul Spruill, a Pamlico County resident and a foreman at PCS
Phosphate. "But we know we still have a ways to go."
If the veto happens, it will meet with resistance from at least one county that depends on the company for 18 percent of its tax
base.
"The county's position is that the process should come to an end with the issuance of what we view as a responsible Record of
Decision," said Beaufort County Manager Paul Spruill, who is not related to the PCS foreman. "We will vehemently oppose ...
any remaining efforts to stretch out this long-overdue decision."
Nikie Mayo can be reached at [phone] or nmayo a freedomenc. corn.
Susan Massengale
Public Information Officer
DENR- Division of Water Quality
1617 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone]; fax [phone]
Please note: my e-mail address has changed to susan.massengalegnedenr.gov
E-mail correspondence to and ftom this address ntu}- be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Hill, Tammy
From: Massengale, Susan [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 10:50 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: PCS permit deadline passes quietly
Attachments: ATT00001.c
PCS permit deadline passes quietly
J..15, -
Nikie Mayo
Sun Journal Staff
A general 10-day deadline for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to veto a permit issued to PCS Phosphate passed
quietly Monday night, but without an official decision from the federal agency.
PCS Phosphate employs 1,000 people in Eastern North Carolina, 400 of whom live in Craven and Pamlico counties. For eight
years, the company has sought a permit to expand its mining operations in Aurora, a town in Beaufort County.
The Army Corps of Engineers granted PCS Phosphate its permit on June 3, but the EPA had a generally accepted 10-day
deadline to veto that decision. Because that 10-day window ended during the weekend, EPA pushed back any consideration
until Monday, according to spokeswoman Enesta Jones.
But as of Monday night, Jones said no EPA decision had been made. Additionally, the EPA had not issued any statements or
correspondence Monday indicating that the agency was closing its involvement with the permitting process.
Jones said she hoped to have more information today.
PCS Phosphate officials did not return calls Monday.
Until an EPA statement is issued, those dependent on the mining company are holding their collective breath, as are those who
oppose the permit.
Beaufort County Manager Paul Spruill said leaders in his county believe that the PCS permit is "long overdue."
"Any further delay is unwarranted and unfair," he said Monday night.
The Southern Environmental Law Center, a Chapel Hill firm that represents opponents of the permit, is also waiting to see what
action the EPA takes, if any.
"It would be premature now to say what our clients will do ... until we know what the EPA decides and the basis for that the
decision," said SELC attorney Derb Carter.
"The EPA has been very clear ... about the unacceptable adverse impacts that the permit would have, and also clear about what
steps are necessary to reduce those impacts," Carter said. "The Army Corps of Engineers' permit essentially ignores EPA
direction."
The permit allows PCS Phosphate to mine 11,343 more acres, a proposal that impacts 3,927 acres of wetlands and open
waters, according to the Corps of Engineers.
The Corps' Wilmington District Office issued the permit after "a long, complex and thorough process," Col. Jefferson Ryscavage,
commander of the office, said in a prepared statement earlier this month.
Nikie Mayo can be reached at [phone] or nmayo(a)freedomenc.cam.
Susan Massengale
Public Information Officer
DENR- Division of Water Quality
161.7 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1.617
(91.9) 807-6359; fax [phone]
Please note: my e-mail address has changed to susan.massengaleoncdenr.gov
E-mail correspondence to and,from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties,