19850123 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19860101

,1?,1/ t ?trr y APPLICATI
PERMIT TO EXCAVATE AND/OR FILL ER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
EASEMENT IN LANDS COVERED BY WATER L,AMA PERMIT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
Department of Administration State of North Carolina Department of the Army
(GS 146-12) Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Corps of Engineers Wilmington District
(GS 113-229, 143-215.3(a)(1), 143-215.3(c), 113A-118 (33 CFR 209 .1, ZI sc
. y.Sme.
A
Please type or print and fill in all blanks. If information is not applicable, so indicate by placing N/A in blank. / IJ?' S w 111^3
1. Applicant Information
A. Name -
Last First Middle
P. O. Box 2247 1 Harding Square
B. Address
Street, P. O. Box or Route
Washington NC 27889 [phone]
•
City or Town State Zip Code Phone
11. Location of Proposed Project:
A. County Carte
B. 1. City, town, community or landmark Morehead City
2. Is proposed work within city limits? Yes X No
C. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located or nearest named body of water to project
Calico Creek
111. Description of Project See Attachment See Attachment
A. 1. Maintenance of existing project 2. New work
B. Purpose of excavation or fill ,+ 200-255' -12.0 M.L.W.
1. Access channel Calico Creek length 2400'± width depth
2. Boat basin length width depth
3. Fill area Bulkhead Backf ill length 1600 width 0-80 depth -12 0 rrt T r+7.
4. Other length width depth
0-I:;O Ft.
C. 1. Bulkhead length 1600 Ft. Average distance waterward of MHW (shoreline)
2. Type of bulkhead construction (material) Sheetnile with sheetlt ile anchors
D. Excavated material (total for project)
1. Cubic yards 140,000 Cu. Yds. 2. Type of material Siltv fine to medium sand and some
organic clayey silt
E. Fill material to be placed below MHW (see also VI. A)
1. Cubic yards_ 30,000 01- Yds_ 2. Type of material Silty fin fin mEY3iinn gan(9
IV. Land Type, Disposal Area, and Construction Equipment: X
A. Does the area to be excavated include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes No
B. Does the disposal area include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes No X
C. Disposal Area see Attachment
1. Location , No. See Attachment
2. Do you claim title to disposal area.
N/A
D. Fill material source if fill is to be trucked in
E. Fio,, N., ill excavated material be entrapped and erosion controlled? Earth Berms with?roteCtive lint-r-,;.
F. Typc of equipment to be used Hydraulic Dredge
G. Will marshland be crossed in transporting equipment to project site? If yes, explain
UALITY
North Carolina Phosphate Corporation
D&F•B1
Rev 10179
m

B.
CONSERVATION
VI. Pertaining to Fill and Water Quality:
A. Does the proposed project involve the placement of fill materials below mean high water? Yes?X _No
B. 1. Will any runoff or discharge enter adjacent waters as a result of project activity or planned use of the
area following project completion? Yes XNd `
2. Type of discharge Storm Drainage Sewer and Eff u nt fr
hest End of Project Site into Calico Creek
. Location of discharge N/A
3
VII. Present rate of shoreline erosion (if known):
VIII. List permit numbers and issue dates of N/A evious Department of Army Corps of Engineers or State permits for
work in project area, if applicable: 22 months
IX. Length of time required to complete project:
X. In addition to the completed application form, the following items must be provided:
A. Attach a copy of the deed (with State application only) or other instrument under which applicant
claims title to the affected property. OR if applicant is not claiming to be the owner of said property,
then forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under which the owner claims title plus written
permission from the owner to carry out the project on his land.
B. Attach an accurate work plat drawn to scale on 8'/2 X 11" white paper (see instruction booklet for
details). Note: Original drawings preferred - only high quality copies accepted.
C. A copy of the application and plat must be served upon adjacent riparian landowners by registered or
Enter date served July 23- 1982
certified mail or by publication (G.S. 113-229 (d))
D. List names and complete addresses of the riparian landowners with property adjoining applicant's.
Such owners have 30 days in which to submit comments to agencies listed below.
North Carolina State Ports Authoritv
U. S. Corps of Engineers
XI. Certification requirement: I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed activity complies
with the State of North Carolina's approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a
manner consistent with such program.
XII. Any permit issued pursuant to this application will allow only the development described in this appli•
cation and plat. Applicants should therefore describe in the application and plat all anticipated devel-
opment activities, including construction, excavation, filling, and land clearing.
?? C
DATE Applicant's Signature
`I
.T- r D&F-B2 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR MAILING INSTRUCTIONS
Rev. 10/78
+ 12.0 Acres
1. Lot size(s) + 10.0 M.L.W.
2. Elevation of lot(s) above mean high water
3. Soil type and texture Firm to dense sand silt sands and silt-clay la ers.
4. Type of building facilities or structures Wood structure with concrete Pile foundations..
X Planned
5. Sewage disposal and/or waste water treatment A. Existing
B. Describe North Carolina state Port Sewer System.
6. 'Land Classification (circle one)DEVELOPEOTHERRANSITIONAL CO(See MUNITY CAMA Local Land LUse Plan Synopsis)
3. Housing Development or Industrial
4. Other
f?M

Zo
??. INELVE 9991L
as?nsq? 9/eE9
5qR N? ,C/0,?ly G ?C?C/?(l PyG?PN TE GO?C'f? P,pOJEG 51TE
IVER-)
.? I I Y I /
?
r--- /V.ri.?:R9; LAT.
1 ?... ` _
w W,
- --
; IKQRE+4 w CITY . . ................ f?451
w
o /ocv Woo
SGgLE /?/ FEET ?J
70
I •:
I3 U 5 UNl7 I• _ 0 00 N
I ?aoo.
R,q/p/o /sir ur_.
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
VICINITY MAP
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET ' STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE' CORP.
SHEET I OF 10 DATE JUNE 1982
W., -W
?CJLF
KEY PLAN
?? : WATER SI/Gi2ELlJd?
•rsTA+A?9"AWIM4 -gip ? ?.•
V L (-121Afl-U lLS
'jz WAt6R Txt7v
Pfsprh ,cEL?cgr-a

,?3A
I?L.E ?BASTR9?
gws17N4•N1RE?INE6N
S/lo
GCF?EK .«?
,CIEf? Pk0.9 E 5 ' -
/?oTES . - 'll X ?- L7*
1) DREWNki
i - P)T?X/MqTELY N9TEf35, noe) cV YD5. SAND 2) FILL - gP?POXiMgTEL y SAND 46t,/j1ZAL .
mina cl/ Yv5. F ¢-`
EARr# MOVING F.QaiP ------
ARfA1 6XcAVATEO 4.6-Ac. _ -_-_ --------?" L ???o_??_ ---- --
cRSAMD 8Y AU 2.2-Ac, ,
PIJ, m6Lc-.,PNoSPHgrE f(:7RT N?cIDLIiiC? o
57oieg4E FgG/LITY IW1TN ,C/EkJ 44H6RF 0 ZAP 400 v N I?
= MEq?I LOW 1?6TER N ti W W o
0,7 To
llgTloaq GL?E9!? 60I°VEY ecgl-E
ECrE/../ /0
i`lEW BLIILOIAIG
--1 EX/1377
??cO?NCr
IveW A3,PyALl P1/0
[ EX15T ASr'NQLT X1647
TTT )lEw 0/cc-OPc-- SLOB
T ,VC-??I ,oREACI•C ,D/K?
.r:r, NEKI GOVC.FETE _pU1,f 'r,
,LAY0417 pkAv - SN,mr 1
4
o.oopOSED 1(oGb?lH_gRF.o
F LNtE EXPI /S/G?
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MO REHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF BY NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICA PHOSPHATE CORP.
SHEET 2 OF 10 DATE JUNE 19 8.2

or
EXIST pN05PNF?TE
sT[+YC?iE_ C?L•A6c n
1,4A7CH L/NLr -
5E5 S?E?T
2 0? 1 q

X10
1 ?
1 1

-:3 KEY PLAN
o
!.5 _ E .S
195
.1
t
t
t
t ?
t
-?x?sriuc-,
AI AVIgA7710A "
CH"1496 ..
o 000 400
OGtIN?i
/4,:) /ACEA-1 7- L1140
T .4. C, STATE POR rs AuTNoRI 77"
0,A7%,A147-1C SH/PPEie5 CD.
® U"3' CD/2/V5 Of= 511cflxjes`?S
CWCT. 2 Fog CraAjE2AL
/,/O TES I AO, J4CEI•1 7' L4/1/0-
L,?yoL1
5cgi- E / FEET
tO?
lly
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
SHEET 3 OF IC DATE JUNE 1982
JW ME
or

1 ?
0, COO c.Y cgLicn c,?EEK
t ,RC-P rL 4X-591AL TO
SSE Ll$F.l? AS FILL
i?E,?s II

txLx
- - - ?xisT cRgvE a inn 4??
l?pE?V/OUS ?,1?V5?
ol0/0 o xE5
l?l l X15 gi lc r

PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
I N CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY PH NORTH
OSPHATE CORP
pRE,OCrE SFoIL PLAN I SHEET 4 OF 10 DATE JUNE 1982

0
or
el 0

31
JI
iA
J
Q
Q 1?
i
JQ I?
cA ib
o Iti
?N
I r+
ku4,
Q?
M
?tl
,u3
ur-

7 z

o > -v NA
W. Q

l a ? n
11
l
a
W
a
J
W
Q
G

hr W

14150.0E7A* 1Z5 ?WC7*101,,I$
'W
J
J
3 W
J Q
G v
W ii
M
4. N W
J tl
tL-
z N
ni
r,
?t
of
?I
i
WI
I
t v
WW
c?
I
1 H
11 J
I
i
t
1
V ?
G ?
,v
I
Zt
L^ i x
IW
1L' i
I
1
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY

W
N Z
W
G
Q
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION' BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
SHEET 5 OF IO DATE JUNE 19821
I
or
MEgTFO ItdO kt
E?D
M ?? dKY. WAY
AIW3 S WA!5#, ?6
P
• ?- --- 7YE,q?D!lXtP,?da
KY1E0 7th R Yl':S (3 3=5)
i
11

- -- 71?Eg7ED ldi2 &b
F,pi4/JIE 9eCY/A.n

?,(/Z
O P/PE L??NA/6
T,cVU q 5) 2rdi
(r s
s
6ID6 av[Y!
I?ETq? ?4
uTS.
TPE97D7 8/0.77 UlXJ7YfC1CEJ ? Ca2NE.23
DEEf.YE F/GG R)RTEQ/qL
ese/n ovE2 P/PE (Ib%q/N0
P.jeE Q?O/KE !V/G?!/L. /?gCYET!/Et/E _
- - GO?E.Q cur geou-t/o PIPE
G.M.F,? EFFwE1,1r =vice
i oaeviv4 r
1 J
SECT'/?I? ?
N.T.S.
MISC. 05%11 AN40 55CTIOrJ
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP
SHEET G OF IG DATE JUNE 1982;

4 -76
/'O?OIEEP,2A92?9P?
IDE AiL 3
?? JVM .
Ir l
N.S.L. fh9d. (14.L.N/.
? EX/ST. G.PADE
,,, . NOTF_
2/PQ9P TO 6. LLltS? 1 PE2 Tl:E NL?TF/
Cq,20L/N DEOT. OF T,pyN3Fd.2T9TG9'J
/;p'?FP2iP,QgP ?t9N09Qd SPEG/F/CyT/O?S FLAP Q,G??
PUG7'G QEB.
W b
SECj/0?1/ ' ?
N.FJ.
.Top Wry.
+14.otM,L.?cl
4 6.011U.4 ?K
_ STONE
R/PRA° FILTER AAASR4
3, o m,L iAl.
BLAIJKE r
?I
2
oErai?. ; s
Nr5
MISC. DETAI ? S Ai40 65CTIDN
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY"
N CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
SHEET 7OF 10 DATE JUNE 1982

MR4 ? 4% - a - a
q_y
n 4?n 8nn
?GA,LE /.t/ FEET
M
J/
f?

F??
f
> V C-,r
1
?/SCyQ?G? 1
STi?l1GTU?L ;

4 C4,0/°E
L ty?
6-11E1l Dl"?E? E.
CHEEK
2 =1r..aC.O1016,
WHSE
?I-ExAtT7
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
1,107*4 : REFER 1"41 0 2
FnR cEAemA- /-nff
DRE YE 5/00/,L AREA J%.Akl
IN CALICO CREEK
AT. MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP,
SHEET 8 OF 10 DATE JUNE 19821
I
,. w00/.?E?CI
200; o0o Tov AKGH
nNOS??t,?r?
77.
2o3'f
2 2
SECT/ON 9
N.T 5.
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
SHEET 9 OF 10 DATE JUNE 1982

w

w f
t IS
41
?? in nr ' ? ?-REE K
11= tiw + I ,
??? ntl?
t .
• - ?f?lA1?F :??? . - - -
P RO PO SE D PORT
_- 2 -- FACILITY
- - IN CALICO CREEK
' AT MOREHEAD CITY,.N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA,
PHOSPHATE CORP.
E3AR,C?E I.OADEIZ C?AIJE SHEET 10 OF 10 DATE JUNE 1982
f
...
ME a xl.. x"M MM ....... KIM
A -
o: till Itth o
S H"995 Fit=
F F I u e0 AI
MA" 4 S.08 K. 04 01
Ft=>
Sol ?ri..o1KJ.,
-CALIGo
EXIST •SILC?pE 3Q' _ - t GQEEIC
q f ???t - ?+++
IJGNC?I2 5N EE ?° i L•? fl l D. Leo
I
FALt:?E ZOs?
&JLXHEAo
C-AN6: -SHEETpI LE
--pow.
PILES
I. C)CKVVOED GREE,NE
ARCHITECTS - ENGINEERS
5K.TloN T I KU W HA Q F _ ATTT` / NEW YORK - SPARTANBURG - ATLANTA - DALLAS
A1L44TIc S HIF`Mk? FACI ?I i I c1I - 50 Approved ]%A- - Job No. ' t2(D
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
IN REPLY REFER TO July 3, 1985
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: File No. SAWCO82-N-016-0310
North Carolina Phosphate Corporation
Attention: Mr. Rusty Walker
Post Office Box 2247
_ 1 Harding Square
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dear Sir:
Reference your application for a Department of the Army
permit to widen a channel and construct and backfill a bulkhead to
establish a phosphate ore storage and loading facility on Calico
Creek at the North Carolina State Ports Facility, Morehead City,
Carteret County, North Carolina.
Your proposal has been reviewed and found to be consistent
with the provisions and objectives of general permit No. SAWC080-
N-000-0291. Therefore, you may commence construction activity in
strict accordance with applicable State authorization and the
-enclosed plan. Failure to comply with the State authorization or
conditions of the general permit could result in a violation of
Federal law.
If any change in your work is required because of unforeseen
or altered conditions or for any other reason, plans revised to
show the change must be sent promptly to this office and the N. C.
Division of Coastal Management prior to performing any such change
or alteration. Such action is necessary as revised plans must be
reviewed and the authorization modified.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. David Baker,
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Charles W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
-2-

Copies Furnished with enclosure:
Director, Atlantic Marine Center
National Ocean Survey, NOAA
ATTN: CAM04, 439 W. York Street
Norfolk, Virginia 23510
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. William Mills
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental
Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Charles Jones
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 25039
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5039
Mr. Randy Cheek
National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAA
Post Office Box 570
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Lee Pelej
Environmental Review Section
Environmental Assessment Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. James Mercer
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
I I I
C7 Q
Z •o
M9R6H
IS?gMr??..?.
Al
i
4•
.o
Q
r
N/Cp ' N/D ii6l igIN'C
O low 7l/N
-scql-E Al FEET

LAT.
34'45-
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
VICINITY MAP
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA •
PHOSPHATE CORP
SHEET OF 12 DATE: NOV. 1982
129ED4E SPO/L.
-,as?nAC, 9"?E9
uc?.? ??,??CiNaPy?ygrE ?o,?? f'?ovEGj ATE
J
ra '
APR 2 1985
OC71
KEY PLAN
t k,WaETA7-10A1-..
Cr- XAMCRVewrH5

E-xrsFNaVr, ? ij,
jtoo ,Igoe
c o s 4?6 64-Ciw
rgAk691 AW A WP4
Do K 494F lU At5(0hV
t'XIS?' HIGH
WATER -5 KWav4lE
1. DXEGY
Z.E LAS
01TIJV -M
4w1j3m:
F,aiGW7 Y
REBUuWES
tiI /? ? AY r
4 _A V p.
r„sjia-tt ro
's/LOS-t..lZ.soo

0
v
moo Cr. '6, 0(4
AVAMP 2. --
Ga.,4c. - _
[A?b c&Am? or
FILL n 3 * rv s. Hwr 7O,v = _ - -- _.
o, Wo, 400,
L r- - e,V D
NEW bul4lobvcr
C? EXIST. P,vIL/J//Jl?
_ NCK/ AevcwALT PA ?IAKr
i ' E9157 ASPHALT I'AVIA*
L ?
FT NEW ?oAer4,;qe vwto&
NEw pRaoco JoiKCS
' 'VEAV coVcRar
6Arau7" PLAI-J-V66r 1
CrR/, WC 5CALE
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N. C.
APPLICATION BY: NORTH CAROLINA.
PHOSPHATE CORP.
SHEET 2 OF 12 DATE= NOV. 1982
.;

APR 2 1W
T Z CF-rl _L . o1C11
4Att i i
OfWArE
r KEY PLAN
13
O ;

U*
f
I
v
? ELEV. -14.0 M.Is?J^(• ?!
'leOf,3?5EA /NNARf,?

.$,c
i

10
do L7 I
n Ak
•v ??,M?IRSHAL C / , t
?A AREA
0 1
zoo- .,
1500
i v[ •i AD CWr LAAg) OWNERS`
PCR?s AUTH.
2 ATCA.cIT/c S/,l/PwS CO.
1/ 6-CoeP5 of Euc,?NE s
PROPOSED PORT
-?.. _ FACT LITY
[/ S HW Y 70N
EX/ST. "4lgH i -
I,EVCL Se1CCf-E
LAMO UT PC AAI- 51?6&T 2
IN CALI CO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N. C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET, STATE N, C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP,
SHEET 3 OF 12 DATE: NOV. 1982
!..
CqL/Cn . G,pEEK c?GIE MAT.
rrgc%, l oo0o IN. 1,04.
10 ?? U?En A6_ rILL
rGaco E
y
r.
I I I
EXIST.
I? I
T c,?goE a 2nn 4?n
E 6x7
?q? E ? FEC?
EX/15r M Tck/!?[. T4 ?C [15EG
?i?r?c riD?l arr GiKr-S
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
v
01"Q610cre SOIL pLAAWl
??.?I.??l•In?l1?•?.rl?.?g1?o????r
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORR
SHEET 4 OF 12 DATE: NOV. 1982
0
ttt ?
l? N
IU `"
W?
O N
?9 O Iti vg? p
N N ?? h W
W ? J
`l
W
+• 4
Oiy?? ??t Q
o
?Q 3
.vv 3 ?
o > w ? w o
V
:u ? ?? w
w W ?J W I"
V h
1
/5 C. Off TA&5 SL=Cr1011S

APR 21985
WWAL RESOURCES COMM.
W h
V
0
c?
C ~
W
C 4 l
C '?z .
v
G ° ° N
V ?
a
J
N
W
v
v
i
1 v
1 WY
?e
1 G„ _
1 , -
J
1
I
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
io
N
Pi
Pi
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
s
O ?
W
W
c
m
n
4
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTER ET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
SHEET 5OF 12 DATE=NOV. 1982

770 9w or ED Ul/Td?I? EQ'3? ?
- -- • r¢r o rxt r??r,
aac? m,axra?? .sue)
R
L
I.aa
-- - - 7l'EgTBO An rki
WVA
fR+W1lE19M

for
spas av?j W
I
soti•
.
r A"\
IL w
..L
A/. i
R
N. 7.7-5;
mav?r» roam gnrny?s a GWWea
-aeEz" rat RRMW W,
,r .
G.M. ? EFAIWf Ir 101P6
jy? v ?tKE
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
M15c, 0ETAII. AN40 SgCTIOW
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP,
SHEET 6 OF 12 DATE: N OV. 1982
APR 2 7985
WASTAL RESOURCES COMIL
'o'aoE?anm?v?
? aoGRUW
QE 1Z 7
to t
ToP ELEY,
+ 14.o f
/7[q4
.. ? Erl5rQ,[4w
. .:'Q?/qPQ6L? 7C 6= fL?S?I iL?? TL'E NGP7?V
N ?K'GM' T?PyNSfoKr9T•A"/
3?tyyCLY
SELT/O?/
Nrx
't 6.0m.Z.Av
FRBR/FORr1
W M. L.W.
FILTER AAA C
?I
2 •
DET?A/,L, C 5
s
MISC. XTAI? $ A140 SECTION
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
SHEET 7OF 12 DATE=NOV. 1982
lq,y
n 4can inn
,aGALE /A/ FEET

12 5) 00 A r
WETLq,U,05 APR 2 1985
ROES COMM.
tAL REST
ToTAJ. OA g..
??EUetAr"'?

SRO/L 4861
5)OOIL AREA /-/'? 2
FED

45, ono
G.Y
? n
y-mFE 4 L1eEGYrE SLn?°?
6,9160 CHEEK ^---?''
EX? ??f?E
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
AlorE = fflcc'Ei'ri' FR 06,E 2
Ar;R Gr E?t/EAA4. AJo7'E!5
AAvr:) 4-ea Avo
,DRELI-4"E 51"OlL AREA PLAT
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
SHEET 8 OF 12 DATE: NOV. 19821 Y
0

2 ROWS OF --?
63' I.D. x 115'-4"H
SILOS (16 TOTAL)
RECLAIM--,
CONVEYORS
I '
li
APR 2 WS
76'-8WASTAL RESOURCES COMM.
TOWER _ .._... .?.
DUST COLLECTOR
CONVEYOR PENTHOUSE
_ EL. 12714' M,L,W,
EL. 12.0 M.L.W.
ELEVATION& SI LOS LOOKING WEST
01 40' 8d
GRAPHIC SCALE
?Eva,T1 nl? pF hi L n5
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
SHEET 9 OF12 DATE: NOV. 1582
.i
4-0'0' 70 1. O-?
APR 21985
I TAL RESOURCES COMM.
6101411 AF>OVE
i
I T/??Cf/ ROOr'?[,P
I
UNLO4DER
EL. X09:82 M.L.
NO/ST 71L ow ROOD @ LJ
G/RoE?' ? ' E1.64.17'4.4 JV
Hois7' Foe
D?iB6l E
C','?t/Tt COVER REMO?AL.
` SAPPER
.79 ANr?c 91 ss3C?F.?R 18 150' T
,N.44 I - 000
c
Uv- 1.41 A4. I- W.
KLW. c.w.
SHEETP/LE gU KHE? 0
,_, 0?R?C`ikQC
TYPICAL SECTION
n? ?01 40' G0l
CaVa4En SLIP
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY j N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET, STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA'
PHOSPHATE CORP.
SHEET 10 OF 12 DATE: NOV. 1582
J
0
O
Lo
MARSHALLING 15' x 22'
I YARD
BREASTING--\
I DOLPHIN
i
EL. 17.5 M,LlN. , i
w TREATED
z TIMBER
I? PILE
I
CONC,
PILE
r EL. 0.0 M.L W,
3
I W
I. a
I.J 3 EXIST,
IZ a GRADE
1 ? .?.
I = cn \ ?7/ti ?
Imo
a?
I z
CAST
STL, LOW
DBL.BIT
'4owir
-A.-J-." A L-J I *I v TYP. SECTION
BREASTING I THRU BREASTING DOLPHIN
DOLPHINS - si I , Iol , _.. - __20 0 1
tLAN
0' 100' 200'
GRAPHIC SCALE
MAtz?NAI.Lt I.IGI BAR p
GRAPHIC SCALE
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE OF N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
SHEET II OF 12 DATE= NOV. 1982
mmmwmno
1
524' 52V 50'
Iw. F

saAsTWoi oawowij
hewai0a ompHid -
EL.? IpDMI.,?I
coy r,- pIL
oil -
,l M•t,.W. cw? 49F
. 4 . Ex1,51. KIPKAI'
u 4
? T?
i
1
1 ?? 1
-Wi 0 1 1
?? .?0•
1 1.
PROPOSED PORT
Q FACILITY
cv IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
M?O•TGN I SEE EST' 3 APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
A PHOSPHATE CORP.
MIhG. MTAILKv G,e-rIe%Jb SHEET 12 OF 12 DATE.-NOV. 1982
1
i
::,f
Permit,glass Permit Number
Now STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 96-85
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
and
Coastal,tesources Commission
R E
for -
?n$5 a Majo Navieloppiintin,atf fEnvironmental
Concettrr?auant to 3A-318
WATER QISrt? (TY SECTION ?,.
OPERATlO(`Ja r RANCFI ® Excavation agd)oJr filMg ptiisuant to NCGS 113-229
lssuedto N. C. Phosphate Corp., P. 0. Box 2247, 1 Harding Square, Washington, NC 27889
authorizing development in Carteret Countyat Calico Creek (N. side of State Ports
Authority) as requested in the permittee's application dated 11/5/82 with rev. sheet
1 of a 1. dated rec. 4/2/85 incl. attached plats, sheet 1-12 of 12 dated 11/82 with
rev. sheets, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8L 9, & 10 dated rec. 4/2/85.
This permit, issued one • -L/ . YS , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may subject
permittee to a fine, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
(1) All fill material to be placed below
confined behind the permitted bulkhead.
(2) No excavated or fill material will be
or surrounding waters outside of the
on the plat.
the mean high water level will be
placed at any time in any marsh
alignment of the fill area indicated
'.(3) All excavated materials will be confined above mean high water and landward
of, regularly or irregularly flooded marsh behind adequate dikes or other
retaining structuresto prevent spillover of solids into any marsh or surroun-
ding waters.
(4) ,The disposal area effluent will be contained by pipe, trough, or similar
device to a point at or below the normal water level to prevent gully erosion
and unnecessary siltation. Such. effluent will be discharged back into
waters which have been closed to 'shellfish by the N. C. Division of Health
Services.
`. (5) `The terminal end of the pipeline will be positioned at or greater than
50' from any part of the dike and a maximum distance from spillways to
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee
or other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the
issuing date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work
initiation or continuance, as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on-site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification
not covered hereunder requires further Departmental
approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
December. 31, 1988
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina
agrees that your project is consistent with the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DNRCD and
the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
David W. Owens, Director
Office of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Permittee

N. C. Phosphate Corporation
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
allow settlement of suspended solids.
Permit #96-87
Page 2 of 2
(6) A water control structure will be installed at the intake end of the effluent
pipe to assure compliance with water quality standards.
(7) The diked disposal area will be constructed a sufficient distance from
the mean high water level or any marsh to eliminate the possibility of
dike erosion into or upon any marsh and/or surrounding waters.
(8) No marsh grass will be excavated and/or filled.
(9) The entire newly established shoreline of Marsh Island will be lined with
riprap material. The riprap will be clean material free from toxic pollutants.
(10) The construction and associated activities will not cause an unacceptable
interference with navigation.
(11) No attempt will be made by the permittee to prevent the full and free use
by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent to the activity authorized
by this permit.
NOTE: An Easement is required from Council of State through the State Property
Office, Dept. of Administration for bulkhead and fill to be placed below
mean high water.
NOTE: An Erosion and Sedimentation control plan will be required for this
project. This plan must be filed at least thirty (30) days prior to
beginning any land disturbing activity. Submit this plan to the Dept.
of Natural Resources and Community Development, Land Quality Section,
7225 Wrightsville Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403.
NOTE: Section 401 Water Quality Certification #1798 was issued for this project
on May 7, 1985 by the Division of Environmental Management. The conditions
of that Certification are hereby incorporated into this permit and any
violation of those conditions or restrictions will be considered a violation
of this permit.
NOTE: Air Discharge Permit #5637 was issued for this project by the Division
of Environmental Management on June 21, 1985.
NOTE: The permittee is strongly urged to operate the facilities at the highest
level of management practices available in order to reduce to an absolute
minimum: 1) dust emission, 2) noise generation, and 3) unreasonable
interference with established navigation uses in the adjacent waters.
* .' -6
APPLICATION
FOR
fv.
PERMIT TO EXCAVATE AND/OR FILL WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION APR 1
EASEMENT IN LANDS COVERED BY WATER CAMA PERMIT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
Ct) STAL l;&lfl hG".; f*0L
Department of Administration State of North Carolina Department of the Amoy
(GS 146.12) Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District
(GS 113-229,143.215.3(x)(1), 143-215.3(c), 113A-1IS (33 CFR 209:320-329)
Please type or print and fill in all blanks. If information is not applicable, so indicate by placing N/A in blank.
1. Applicant Information North Carolina Phosphate Corporation
A. Name
Last First Middle
B. Address P. 0. Box 2247 1 Harding Square
Street, P. O. Box or Route
Washington NC 27889 [phone]
City or Town State Zip Code Phone
11. Location of Proposed Project:
A. County CarrPret
B. 1. City, town, community or landmark Morehead City
2. Is proposed work within city limits? Yes X No
C. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located or nearest named body of water to project .
Calico Creek
Ill. Description of Project See Attachment See Attachment
A. 1. Maintenance of existing project 2. New work
B. Purpose of excavation or fill
1. Accesschannel Calico Creek length 1900'+ width225`-28WJepth -12.0 M.L.W.
2. Boat basin length width depth
3. Fill area Bulkhead Backf ill length _755' width 0-20' depth- -12.0 M.L.W.
4. Other length width depth
C. 1. Bulkhead length 755 Ft . Average distance waterward of MHW (shoreline) ) 0 FPpr
2. Type of bulkhead construction (material) Sheetpile with batter piles .
D. -Excavated material (total for project)
1. Cubic yards -80,000 Cu. Yds . _2. Type of material Silty fine to medium sand and
E. Fill material to be placed below MHW (see also VI. A) some organic clayey silt.
1. Cubic yards 35QO .u. Us - _ _2. Type of material Silty fine to medium sand.
IV. Land Type, Disposal Area, and Construction Equipment:
A. Does the area to be excavated include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes No X
B. Does the disposal area include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes No X
C. Disposal Area
1. Location See Attachment
2. Do you claim title to disposal areal N0 • See Attachment N/A
D. Fill materiel source if fill is to be trucked in
E. How will excavated material be entrapped and erosion controlled? Earth Berms with protective liners.
F. Type of equipment to be used Hydraulic Dredge
G. Will marshland be crossed in transporting equipment to project site? If yes, explain
D& F-61
Rrv. 10178

V. Intended Use of Project Area (Describe) .
A. 1. Private
2. Commercial Phosphate Ore' Storage and Loading Facility
3. Mousing Development or Industrial
4. Other
B. 1. Lot size(s) + 11.0 Acres
+
:.,.,...._.._.... ._.?..____...,_...._.._......;
2 Elevation. of tot(s) above mean high water 10.0 M.L.W..
3. Soil type and texture Firm to dense. sand, silty sands and silt-clay layers. -
4. Type of building facilities or structures Concrete silos with concrete pile foundations.
S. Sewage disposal and/or waste water treatment A. Existing X Planned
B. Describe , North Carolina State Port Sewer System
6. 'Land Classification (circle one) DEVELOPED TRANSITIONAL COMMUNITY RURAL
CONSERVATION OTHER (SeeCAMA Local Land. Use Plan Synopsis)
VI. Pertaining to Fill and Water Quality:
A. Does the proposed project involve the placement of fill materials below mean high water? Yes No
B. 1. Will any runoff or discharge enter adjacent waters as a result of project activity or planned use of the
area following project completion? Yes X. No
Z Type of discharge Storm Drainage Sewer and Effluent from, Dredge Operations
3. Location of discharge Calico Creek
VII. Present rate of shoreline erosion (if known):. N/A
VIII. List permit numbers and issue dates of previous Department of Army Corps of Engineers or State permits for
work in project area, if applicable: N/A
IX. Length of time required to complete project:. 22 months
X. In addition to the completed application form, the following items must be provided:
A. Attach a copy of the deed (with State application only) or other instrument under which applicant
claims title to the affected property. OR if applicant is not claiming to be the owner of said property,
then forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under which the owner claims title plus written
permission from the owner to carry out the project on his land.
B. Attach an accurate work plat drawn to scale on 8% X 11" white paper (see instruction booklet for
details). Note: Original drawings preferred - only high quality copies accepted.
C. A copy of the application and plat must be served upon adjacent riparian landowners by registered or
certified mail or by publication (G.S.113-229 (d))Enter date served NnyemhPr- a_. 1982
D. List names and complete addresses of the riparian landowners with property adjoining applicant's.
Such owners have 30 days in which to submit comments to agencies listed below.
North Carolina State Ports Authority
U S Corps of Engineers
XI. Certification requirement: I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed activity complies
with the State of North Carotinals approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a
manner consistent with such program.
X11. Any permit issued pursuant to this application will allow only the development described in this appli-
cation and plat. Applicants should therefore describe in the application and plat all anticipated devel-
opment activities, including construction, excavation, filling, and land clearing.
DATE Z
Applicant's S' ature
D&F•82 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR MAILING INSTRUCTIONS
Rev. 10/78

d
Z o
O?
o r?
sue..
a

MqR6N
AJ iS?gNr?
,sRjovD - /Sz
t
LAT.
F
34" 45?
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
VICINITY MAP
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
SI-1=ET i OF 12 DATE: NOV. 1982
9,604E SPO/L
-,015190594, ' Rff
N%?<'= ,7,?oL/ii'PyG?i"N9TE GO?'f' f',C'O?cGj 517-E

o lnev ?oev
SGgGE IAI FEET N

KEY PLAN
WATER ae-PlHS
--tv .._, ? f fYP,?
E315f, ?i V-ig i
bow
AE's? V 198
? I
4 A N a-
f I
l9$R/FORMT TM? A/ A
Q
cuef?'s nF c-c rr??VEE ?
MAI/-ER, 4Wr RAMPS
CaCK A9V V AMMAIAl 4?VS?Eie co?vv?
v
EXIST ti?f.N?HIGH---=?:, = _ = - _ ' = - _ _ ?- = ?"_ ? . _ _ _ -: ? Q
WATER SNCWEL AX ? N. q/aTE Ra, ?
11.
4:147Z/41 :M,
, RJ?FR?,SE-
f?cILIT'Y
? SlLDS._?!_I2?50o ? ? t ?J
Yom*. 6 /2 AIS ! t i
mxCY5Ab
rly
VA 7" Z.CotAc.
LA4b C&ArEx?Ar FIL L n 3!Ac, ?? S ywr. 70
--
?HG?°/? Raej,?cc%x.1c11,?/hT?GE o, zoo, 400I
A/IrN t/Ehl lJNA?F,
LECfr- ?'lC7
NEW 64/kowcr
EXiSr, a IL10/NCB
146W A5°NALr PAV/MCr
? -_- ? EX/ST ASPHALT PAV/?l¢
MEW ,oREDg6 5401°E
NEw CRc--oGa lo/KC5
T NEK/ CoAlcRETE
?ArauT IOLAk/- SIVEEr 1
P7eAPiV /C SCALE
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N. C.
APPLICATION BY: NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP,
SHEET 2 OF 12 DATE: NOV. 1982
. MEET Z OF 1 5?HCE T '? Qclt

VECT Z 0F7t ... GweEr Cr 1 i
- ? C:? =CryGf ? ?
&40Ac KEY PLAN
,gyp
6•° •
-(vE etg
44.
1IfARSA/
4. A
Too as v e
O FI?BRiFORM ? ?14.Dsc?1.L.w j;-
jjj
W 'rOL ? &1,EV -14.0 M.4;rW"• ? '?
0? ! 'PROPpSE,D !t/HARf? ? ?
JIV
W 8
? ????4JQ5HAL L /? ? D 70 ,
.400
AREA
-
I
- -- ,
200 ? .
05 CIDl?, 500
' TCWS?EA.
MI
P#/Ic..5=16 I
. C[?61 ?!E4YORS \,
- = _ - - - , ,DIAL h t N.c. 'szarC PQR' S AUTH.
? ' > >\ 2 ATLA VT/C 5WIPPERS GO.
- 3 U. 5 • cogR5 OF E rrINEERS
I O i' EX/?T. ,
--- `°^'VEy PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
-- IN CALICO CREEK
-- AT MOREH EAD CITY, N.C.
ex/sr. HiC11-H-1 COUNTY OF CARTERET, STATE N. C.
4,EV6L Ae14?qE APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
LQ1'QUT ?'CA?CI•S!-,/??T 2 ( SHEET 3 OF 12 -DATE: NOV. 1982
r lp

cq?l?n C,ieEEK -oeie Mv?T
? b.P?Rc? 10000 G?. rOS, I
'(? gE ??En Ah FSLL
I
_ I
F7 1 pis I
Ex/5T '
; II
2 ,- - - - o 9.5 fy1.L.kl, ?.l
?xl5r ckgvE d 2nn ??
?GqL E i FECT-
?CxlST M Tc*117L Tn 15 u5,EC
lV Ci >A,16 ?,-UC jrGAJ a19 0/4645
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
I N CALICO CREEK'
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP
0960cre; SAIL pLAI%l 1 SHEET 4 OF 12 DATE: NOV. 1982
f
? )b

J'
Oi
N
JI
V?
R.
?ILI)
v? 3
77
?8 1
rL
T
c?g

J
W
{? Q
W
APR 2 1985 3 j
COASTAL RESOfl GES COMM.
*, I
Lu
a
V 1?
a
M
N N
EH W
4 v
O
?1 = W
Q Y
V
J
V ?
1 0. o
a
M/15 C. OffU/Z5 5 rc7-10I.-IS

cn
Y

M
r?
1

i? vas
v
O
c?
WI
N
W
Y N
O
J

\
1
j W ku W

l?

n ??
1411
j
r
1

W
ti
13
1
G 1 ?
v ? Q

n ? 0
Q'
f
1 ?
1
IN
1 41
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C-
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
SHEET 5 OF 2 DATE=NOV. 1982
a
. 7PE 7'EO WD IrI
m O _iffrwaw . '
?JTS4W
? as?j
,
--- 7YGMD AM Pries
GALrED 70 AX06113 _vclo)
?srss =.
O I ?
V
J.a s?
' ---- 7pEg7L?o lbrt ?rG
F11i4/JIE y2LY/A?O
ME IWO !LQ .
?R/eQQQP
y
3 [
DO/i2 P/PE LAN/N6
(?EG[/?W 7D?rAts
&#)W N*C5)
ma
4
'
S/DS GWl» ,
/>ET iL
s ?4.'
u.T

:r

.R

72F9rED //QED !fXffY RXE$ E CDeAM I
D2EQsE ?/LG /71/4TEQ/Ijlt;
6E21,7 OVER G/OC (I-0'A7/NJ
.6-A-11=, rFF4, ue-1 ' la%°E
ryX v /VlKf
-. L IJ-
31 ?
SECT"/4hl ??
N. r,5.
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
MISC. 05%1. A?40 SECTIO?J
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTER ET STATE N.C_
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP,
SHEET 6 OF 12 DATE= NOV. 198

/-)E ,qlL A-_
Krd

Er/.4r dAM E
APR z 1985
C!STAL RE;OhCES f',OMN;.
?•< - NOTE-
¢/OQgP ro A a*5:5I AKe JOE AW7N
.QOL,/DEPT. a- TP.fW3Fd?7'WrTW
/•o'c?EV.QiP,ei? o ?ucr ?? r'?".s sVe aaaI'
• SECT/Oi1/ i '
N.T• s•
ToPELE?.
rl,C.k/
.4 6.0
FRBR/F09111 -\/

F_RLTER MBRIC
?I
2 •
0.0 rA IL
Nrs
MISC. DETAILS ACID SECTIOW
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP
SHEET 7OF 12 DATE: NOV. 1982
a
AJ%
lQ'y
C? 4f?1? BC?I?
GALE 1AJ FEES"

125,000 a. ?-
?WET?q?C/p5 qPR ? 1985
"19, L
TOTDL 12?b?c.
??ij ?15Pl?Sb? aQ?EA
?Y
rVEUE -- -
N07'E = l'eEFER 7-0
FnR 0? 2
aEA/ERALj07EG
DRELrIE 510OX AREA MLA I
ScO/L 411fEq . 45, ono
N=1 ?'Y
5;401L 41f6A AIE 0
S ...
?- / NEW D?EGYa E 5f.c'?/°?
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP,
SHEET 8 OF 12 DATE. NOV. 1982
r -l
4 ?.Y? i v3 kJY" '+a
APR "2 l?F
761 -8'? '?•`?=.;Sry'_ hFJi,?lr<.,ES comm.
CL 2 ROWS OF
63' 1. D. x 115'-4"H
TOWER
511-0S (16 TOTAL)
DUST COLLECTOR
CONVEYOR PENTHOUSE
EL. 127'4!' M,L,W,
IT.
I ?I
RECLA I M
CONVEYORS
EL. 12.0 M.LW.
ELEVATION&SILOS LOOKING WEST
In iiiiii
0' 4080GRAPHIC SCALE
' I.EVATI O1 OF r;) T L o5
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
SHEET 9 OF 12 DATE: NOV. 1982

X07
4-0-0 70 0
APR 2 1985
3101klCr A,50VE j
COW RDOF ONLY,
%rJ/Cf/ ?OOF?t:/
UA14 OA06Q CL . !0 9.8 2 /7L-
,y0/ST ? ?. -? 7/LOW ROOF @ L.P,

ORiBt3L E HO/5' FO,Q ?H.?
Cr-??JI't CcvCA' tCni10VA%
Wavee'lp
i 91?' , 55.3' CL?dR
5N/POFrRS fdC/Ct; ?.

? :,,,
i r eI E1;1.41 /5A RC,- E ,I ,
b.Q kf. 4W. /

SF'EETP/LL= !344-KNZ44) L

ORICbNAL

TYPICAL SECTION
n' ?o' 401 GDI
(AC.6.?'HU, AV4-A
COY, 2Er;) SLIP J?A^ZJCi
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
N CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET, STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
SHEET 10 OF 12 DATE= NOV. 1582
41 ? i
52'-6" 52'-611 50? MARSHALLING
I YARD
BREASTI N G
?n
N
INI
BARGE
YP.1 i
Q
E
C
17
U9 -
C-41 1
N
D
F-1
11
BREASTING
DOLPHINS
PLAN
DOLPH I N
EL.17.5 M LXV,_
I
U-J TREATED
Z
I ?
ER
P
L
i I
E
I
EL. 0.0 M.l W.
mid
3
.
cr
I w
I I
3
I_j
W
z
I<cn
?X 0

I W
Z Q
D
151 X 22'

CONC,
PILE -
EXIST,
GRADE
__7
CAST
STL, LOW
DBL,81T

i v TIP. SECTION
THRU BREASTING DOLPHIN
4w I o'-----. 1o' - z0'
GRAPHIC SCALE
0' 100' 200'
GRAPHIC SCALE
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE OF N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
MAQ,GNAt,1 r1? TARP
SHEET II OF 12 DATE: NOV. 1982
I/

40
?L
??IZF.A571I?G? nnL?Ni? ?
MC??tIJ? ?LhNII? GGIrIG, CAp ? ? GrD?LIGO G?LL?K ?

EL 7 lAl.
O'W. LA 19, H. W.
I°I2LGd?T
1 G"? oI M.L.W.
7/
AL" 4/?T I ' 10.)
,•f9t l'? ?'? .0 9LKi S.W.
ll, -t2,o' M.W.

4 EKI*'? Kip K •?
co?IG. I°il-? ,.;
?/?/?JI ! ?o' 4

OW,o O 1 FEET

f 7i 7 "

i ?L 1

1 ?? 1
1
h3 ' y
o i
o
; PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY

IN CALICO CREEK
?b AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
o ,1 COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
I?O•TGI? t E?h??IE?T'?3 APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
A PHOSPHATE CORP.
MIs06. r-tTAXL-4 GpPjl0J5 SHEET 12 OF 12 DATE.-NOV. 1982
J
jaw,

4
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
IN REPLY REFER TO June 17, 1985
ulatofp Branch
SUBJECT: File No. SAWC082-N-016-0310
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Parker:
RECEIVED
,;iJN 241985
WATER QUALITY SECTION
OPERATIONS BRANCH
Reference the application of North Carolina Phosphate
Corporation for a Department of the Army permit to widen a channel
and construct and backfill a bulkhead to establish a phosphate ore
storage and loading facility on Calico Creek, at the North
Carolina State Ports.Facility, Morehead City Harbor, Carteret
County, North Carolina.
The Federal agencies have completed review of the proposal as
presented by the application and your field investigation report.
We recommend that the following conditions be included in the
State authorization:
a. All excavated materials will be confined landward of the
mean high water (MRW) elevation contour `within adequate dikes
or other retaining structures to prevent spillover of solids
into any marsh or surrounding waters.
b. The terminal end of the pipeline from the dredge into
the diked retention area will be positioned at or greater than
50 feet from any part of the dike and at a maximum distance fron
spillways to prevent dike erosion and to allow adequate settlement
of suspended solids.
c. A water control structure will be installed at the
intake end of the effluent pipe leading from the retention area in
order to insure maximum settlement of suspended solids.

-2-
d. Flow fran the diked retention area will be confined by
1,pe, tr h, or similar device to a point at or below the mean
_ow wate (MLW) elevation contour to prevent gully erosion and
resultant unnecesssary siltation.
k 6
e. As mitigation for the loss of marsh vegetation resulting
fran widening the channel, the permittee will convert not less
than 1 acre of high ground on Marsh Island to Spartina
alterniflora marsh as per instructions and under the supervision
of the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management.
f. The entire newly established shoreline of Marsh Island
will be lined with riprap material. The riprap will be clean
material free from toxic pollutants.
g. The construction and associated activities will not
cause an unacceptable interference with navigation.
h. No attempt will be made by the permittee to prevent the
full and free use by the public of all navigable waters at or
adjacent to the activity authorized by this permit.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. David Baker,
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Charles W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Copies Furnished:
?Mr. William Mills
water Quality Section
Division of Environmental
Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Charles Jones
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 25039
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5039
Mr. Randy Cheek
National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAA
Post Office Box 570
.Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Lee Pelej
Environmental Review Section
Environmental Assessment Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
? 1
State of North Carolina
Departj?ent atural Resources and Community Development
' "IZ North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor - S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
May 7, 1985
Mr. R. H. Grosz, President
North Carolina Phosphate Corporation
P.O. Box 2247
Washington, NC 27889
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section
401 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
Proposed Phosphate Handling
and Storage Facility
:North Carolina Phosphate Corp
.Carteret County
Dear Mr. Grosz:
Attached hereto are two (2) copies of Certification No. 1798
issued to North Carolina Phosphate Corporation dated May 7, 1985.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely yours,.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY: D.R.R.
R. Paul Wilms
Director
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
W'lmington Regional Office
. William Mills
Mr. David Owens
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conrormity with the requirements ox _
Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United-States and
subject to the North Carolina Division of Environmental.Management
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to N.C. Phosphate Corporation
pursuant to an application filed on the 5th day of November, 1982 to
construct a phosphate ore storage and handling facility at.the State _-
Port in Morehead City.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of
fill material into the waters of Calico Creek and Newport River in
conjunction with the proposed ore storage and handling facility in
Carteret County will not result in.a violation of applicable Water
Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore,-the State of .
North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate Sections
301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in
accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. That turbidity of the receiving waters
shall not exceed 25 NTU as a result of the
project activity both during construction
and after completion of the facility.
2. That earthen berms for the diked
spoil impoundment area must
be stabilized with vegetative
cover to prevent erosion.
3. The adjustible flashboard risers
and stilling well must be constantly
maintained at the effluent location
of the diked,disposal impoundment.
4. Liquid from the spoil area must be
conveyed by pipeline or through from
the impoundment area to a point at
the mean low water contour.
5. All poured in place concrete must be
placed in completely dewatered forms.
At no time is concrete to enter the
waters.
6. Should mechanical process equipment
failures occur after completion and
during facility operation, the corpo-
tion'must take immediate steps to
repair control equipment to avoid`
the discharge of product materials
into arby waters -
7. No oils, asphaltic material or other
toxic substances may be stored adjacent -
to nearby waters. _
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in
revocation of this Certification.
This Certification shall become null and void unless the above
conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit.
This the 7th day of May, 1985.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
ORICIr!Al 51C'qFD BY: D.R.R.
R. Paul Wilms, Director
WQC# 1798

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
April 23, 1985
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Thru:
Subject:
Bill Mills
Operations Branch
Michael F. Williams
4U
Wilmington Regional Office
A. Preston Howard, Jr.
Wilmington Regional Office
Review of Final Environmental Impact Statement
N. C. Phosphate Corporation
N. C. State Port Terminal-Morehead City
Carteret County
RECEIVED
2 /4 W5
WATER r ',A LVI ;' SECTIOAI
The subject final EIS document has been reviewed to determine possible
impacts upon water quality in the area of the Morehead City State Port
Terminal, specifically, the Calico Creek and Newport River estuary.
The N. C. Phosphate Corporation (NCPC) proposes to construct a calcined
phosphate rock handling and storage facility at the N. C. State Port Authority
(NCSPA) at Morehead City. Approximately 3.7 million tons of calcined
phosphate rock is proposed to be transshipped annually. Mining operations
are performed in eastern Beaufort County near Aurora, N.C. The product is
loaded onto barges measuring 250 feet long by 52 feet wide and pushed by the
boat south along the AIWW to the port docks. The barge is forced under a
covered unloading slip where a clamshell dribble dredge with vacuum hood
system removes the product from the barges. The product is then transferred
into a hopper, to a series of conveyors and then stored in 16 cylindrical
silos each 115 feet high and 63 feet in diameter.
In order to facilitate the movement of barges within the area, the
Morehead City Yacht Basin navigational channel must be expanded and deepened.
NCPC proposes to hydraulically dredge 1900 feet of channel, expanding the
width to 225 to 280 feet wide to a depth of -12 feet MLW, producing approximately
180,000 cubic yards of spoil. The spoil material is proposed to be deposited
into a diked disposal area of approximately 16 acres on Marsh Island, located
just north of the NCSPA. Liquid from the spoils is proposed to be discharged
back into the channel to be dredged.
NCPC also proposes to construct a sheetpile bulkhead, 755 feet in length,
along the south bank of the channel. Approximately 3500 cubic yards of
backfill material will be required to complete the bulkhead portion of the
project. Mooring dolphins and breasting dolphins are proposed along the
Memo
Page
April
to Bill Mills
2
23, 1985

southwest portion of the wharf area and to the east of Marsh Island along
the AIWW, for temporary mooring purposes.
Two avenues of concern were noted during the review of the EIS. First,
NCPC proposes to hydraulically dredge the Calico Creek Channel (Morehead
City Yacht Basin Channel) where sediments which contain heavy metal
concentrations at or above the water quality standards for waters classified
SC. Sediment sample results contained in the EIS indicate that the 9
stations sampled along the channel had mercury concentrations that are in
excess of the Water Quality Standards established for mercury. Sample
results expressed for cadmium and cooper indicate that these metals are
present in concentrations approximating the Water Quality Standards for
these two constituents. While the hydraulic dredge method is considered to
be the best method for avoiding resuspension of particles within the water
column, some resuspension of metals is likely to occur. On the other hand,
the proposed dredging would serve to remove the metals from the channel to
an onshore disposal area.
The second concern deals with calcined phosphate rock materials entering
nearby waters should the facility be located at the NCSPA terminal. Air-born
particulates, stormwater runoff, particulate control equipment failures, and
spillages may be likely to contribute to the degredation of the nearby waters.
The waters surrounding the port terminal including the Morehead City Yacht
Basin Channel are classified SC. The AIWW located to the east and northeast
(The Newport River Estuary) is classified SA. Waters to the northwest (Grab
Point Bay) is also classified SA.
In conversation with Bob Benton, Shellfish Sanitation, he advised that
shellfish areas are currently closed to shellfishing in and around Marsh
Island (just north of the NCSPA). The closest areas open for shellfish
harvesting are located approximately 1/2 mile north and 1/2 mile east of the
NCSPA.
Conversations with Roger Thorpe of the Washington Regional Office reveal
that NCPC is currently in the construction phase of the phosphate plant on
South Creek and no known phosphate related water quality violations have
been documented although some turbidity standards violations have occurred.
NCPC holds an NPDES permit limiting the corporations effluent to the following:
Total Phosphorous 3 mg/1 avg. 9 mg/l max.
Flouride 7 mg/1 avg. 10 mg/l max.
TSS 30 mg/1 avg. 60 mg/l max.
pH 6 s.u. min. 9 s.u. max.
Based on the review of the EIS and information gathered by the writer,
it is recommended that the 401 certification for this project contain the
following conditions:
q
Memo to Bill Mills
Page 3
April 23, 1985
1) That turbidity of the receiving waters shall not exceed 25 NTU
as a result of the project activity both during construction
and after completion of the facility.
2) That earthen berms for the diked spoil impoundment area must
be stabilized with vegetative cover to prevent erosion.
3) The adjustible flashboard risers and stilling well must be
constantly maintained at the effluent location of the diked
disposal impoundment.
4) Liquid from the spoil area must be conveyed by pipeline or through
from the impoundment area to a point at the mean low water contour.
5) All poured in place concrete must be placed.in completely
dewatered forms. At no time is concrete to enter the waters.
6) Should mechanical process equipment failures occur after
completion and during facility operation, the corporation must
take immediate steps to repair control equipment to avoid the
discharge of product materials into nearby waters.
7) No oils, asphaltic material or other toxic substances may be
stored adjacent to nearby waters.
If you have any questions concerning this project, please advise.
MFW/sf
cc: Preston Pate-DCM-Morehead City
Wilmington Regional Office
Central Files
OFFICE OF
North Carolina Department of Natural COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Kenneth D. Stewart
Resources &Community Development Director
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Joseph W. Grimsley, Secretary Telephone [phone]
October 21, 198E E^ E V E D
Mr. Rusty Walker OCT 24 1983
N. C. Phosphate Corporation WATER QUALITY SECTION
P. O. Box 2247, CPERIII,CN!S BRANCH
Washington, N. C. 27889
Dear Mr. Walker:
As promised to you in the meeting last week, here is the list of
major issues--including policy issues--which must appear in the environ-
mental report which you and your consultants will be preparing for
NCPC's roposed facility at More d City. Since additional issues
can be expected to be i entified in the scoping process, you must not
take this list as exhaustive. You can, however, be confident that work
begdn now on these issues will be directly useful to you in the
environmental report.
MAJOR ISSUES
(1) Is this sort of development consistent with state and local policies?
This question will require=an analysis of legislation, appropriations,.zoning,
land use plans, the Radio Island plan, local resolutions, local ordinances,.
and the N. C. Coastal Management Plan, as well as of any short-,.mid-, and
long-term plans of the State Port Authority.
(2) What related current activities..and plans are there for phosphate at
SPA? How would they interact with NGPC's project? What would be the
cumulative transportation, air, and water quality impacts? What is the
ultimate capacity limit of the loading facility? What would be the total
impacts at that level of operations?
(3) Regarding air quality:
(a) An ambient modeling analysis that includes the proposed facility
and all significant sources in the impact area must be done. It -should
include areas where residents live, public docking facilities, and Radio
Island. Modeling should also address emissions during malfunction situations
and fugitive emissions.
(b) Control measures and equipment should be selected and analyzed
using BACT as a guide.
(c) Ambient monitoring of particulates should be conducted before
and after operation.
J
P. 0. Box 27687 Raleigh, N. C. 2 761 1-7687
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Mr. Rusty Walker
October 21, 1983
Page 2
(3) Regarding air quality (continued):
(d) Secondary impacts should include effects on visibility,
soils, vegetation, wildlife, endangered species, and possibility of
nutrients being added to surrounding waters.
(4) Will the'NCPC facility or operations (including entire barge route)
interfere with recreational boating? Will construction interfere?
(5) What will be the long-term dredging schedule? What will be the
spoil disposal sites for the expected life of the facility?
(6) Will increased barge traffic create congestion in the AIWW?
How will it change the frequency of bridge openings on NC 101 at
Core Creek?, (Current values, projected values without NCPC,'and
seasonal variation should be included.) What additional vehicular
traffic delays would be expected at the bridge? Would there be any
emergency vehicle (fire, sheriff, ambulance) delays?
(7) What will be the-aesthetic impact of the facilities on adjoining
non-port property during construction? During operation? What measures
can be taken to reduce the visual impact of the storage.silos? What
will be the compatibility of the scale, texture, and color of'the
proposed facilities with the port area and with the surrounding
community (including both existing and proposed development)?
(8) What renewable living resources will be disturbed or destroyed by
dredging around Marsh Island? By spoil disposal?
(9) Will the silos or other structures create a hazard for aircraft
using the Beaufort-Morehead City airport?
(10) What are the water quality impacts of construction and operation?
(11) A socio-economic benefit analysis must be included as part of
your environmental report. Among other things, it must specifically
address tax revenues, costs to. units of government, downtown revitalization,
and tourism..
(12) What alternatives have been considered? What advantages and
disadvantages do they offer? Here is a minimal list of types of alter-
natives that your ER should include:
Alternatives on same site
Alternative sites at Morehead City
Alternative sites at other ports
Alternative technologies
Alternative products to ship
Rail alternative
Mr. Rusty Walker
+ October 21, 1983
Page 3
(12) Alternatives (continued):
Slurry pipeline alternative
Shared terminal with TG
No action
I have tried to state these issues clearly but have hit on only the
most critical aspects of each issue. Again, please remember that other
issues, or aspects of the issues listed above, may evolve during the scoping
process.
Please call me whenever you have questions. As soon as you can,
please let me know who from NCPC and your consultants may be contacting
me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
J?
Names F. Smith
Coordinator, Coastal Energy Impact Program
cc:. Bill Flournoy `
Charles Jones
Mike Sewell
Ken Stewart
Forrest Westall
Geoff Willett
George Wood
0?

North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources &Community Development
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Joseph W. Grimsley, Secretary
October 21, 1983
Mr. Rusty Walker
N. C. Phosphate Corporation
P. 0. Box 2247-
Washington, N. C. 27889
Dear Mr. Walker: -
OFFICE OF
COASTALMANAGEMENT
Kenneth D. Stewart
Director
Telephone [phone]
As promised to you in the meeting last week, here is the list of
major issues--including policy issues--which must appear in the environ-
mental report which you'and your consultants will be preparing for
NCPC's proposed facility at Morehead City. Since additional issues
can be expected to be identified in the scoping proces.s.,.y_ou must not
take this list as exhaustive. You can, however, be confident.t.hat work
begun now on these issues will be directly useful to you in the ,
environmental report.
MAJOR ISSUES
(1) Is this-sort of development consistent with state and local polici.es?:;
This question will require-an analysis of legislation-f..'appropriations!, zoning,.
land use plans, the Radio Island plan, local resolutions,._,local:.ordinances•,
and the N. C. Coastal Management Plan, as well as of ._any short-,, tni:d-_,.,and
long-term plans of the Sta.te Port Authority.
(2) What related current activities..and plans are there for phosphate'at
SPA? How would they interact with NCPC's project? What would be the
cumulative transportation, air, and water quality impacts? What is. the
ultimate capacity limit of the loading facility? What would.be...the.,total
impacts at that level of operations?
(3) Regarding air quality:
(a) An ambient modeling analysis that includes the proposed facility
and all significant sources in the impact area must be done. It -should
include areas where residents live, public docking facilities, and Radio
Island. Modeling should also address emissions during malfunction situations
and fugitive emissions.
(b) Control measures and equipment should be selected and analyzed
using BACT as a guide.
(c) Ambient monitoring of particulates should be conducted before
and after operation.
P. 0. Box 27687 Raleigh; N. C. 27611-7687
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Mr. Rusty Walker
October 21, 1983
• Page 2
(3) Regarding air quality (continued):
(d) Secondary impacts should include effects on visibility,
soils, vegetation, wildlife, endangered species, and possibility of
nutrients being added to surrounding waters.
(4) Will the'NCPC facility or operations (including entire barge route)
interfere with recre tional boating? Will construction interfere?
Cp in rim2 C_/ '091- 04fe-i TAr-Y .
(5) What will'be the long-term dredging schedule? What will be the
spoil disposal sites for the expected life of the facility?
(6) Will increased barge traffic create congestion in the AIWW?
How will it change the frequency of bridge openings on NC 101 at
Core Creek?' (Current values, projected values without NCPC, and
seasonal variation should be included.) What additional vehicular
traffic delays would be expected at the bridge? Would there be any
emergency vehicle (fire, sheriff, ambulance) delays? S'ACh?F * ' ?2P7 '_,
F
(7) What will be the-aesthetic impact of tfe facilities on adjoining
non-port property during construction? During operation?. What.measures
can be taken to reduce the visual impact of the storage silos?:....What
will be the 'compatibility of the scale, texture,. and-? color:=z.o€. the -
proposed.facilities with the-port area and with the surrounding
community (including both existing.and proposed deve-lopment)? --
(8) That renewable-living resources will be disturbed;or-de-stroyed-by
dredging around Marsh Island.? By spoil disposal?
?pE?K?Zt1?S ©? ?^1 i4?E'.SH /SLf?/!/t?
(9) Will the silos or other structures create a hazard for aircraft
using the Beaufort-Morehead City airport?
(10) What are the water quality impacts of construction an.d.operation?
YZJq cT r-.q? s 2L wr ?z/zcv
(11) A. socio-economic benefit analysis must be included as part,of
your environmental report. Among other things, it must specifically
address tax revenues, costs to units of government, do town revitalization,
and tourism. C319L/9 rV OF C© T
(12) What alternatives have been considered? What advantages and
disadvantages do they offer? Here is a minimal list of types of alter-
natives that your ER should include:
Alternatives on same site
Alternative sites at Morehead City
Alternative sites at other ports
Alternative technologies
Alternative products to ship
Rail alternative
Mr. Rusty Walker
October 21, 1983
Page 3
A7Brf.jE .r.tac.rJ
U &or IAjFAG73
(12) Alternatives (continued):
Slurry pipeline alternative
Shared terminal with TG
No action
I have tried to state these issues clearly but have hit on only the
most critical aspects of each issue. Again, please remember that other
issues, or aspects of the issues listed above, may evolve during the scoping
process.
Please call me whenever you have questions. As soon as you can,
please let me know who from NCPC and your consultants may be contacting
me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
ames F. Smith
Coordinator,. Coastal Energy Impact Program
cc:. Bill Flournoy _. ..,?
.Charles Jones
Mike Sewell
Ken Stewart
forrest Westall
Geoff Willett
George Wood
? C

UIl9 A1?l?A,B Z ©sS tg_ S
C.©SS oT'
R/F- i2gP

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, (EIS)
FOR N.C.-PHOSPHATE CORPORATION TERMINAL AT MOREHEAD CITY
November 10, 1983
Purpose of Meeting: To receive from the public questions and com-
ments on issues which should be considered in
the preparation of the EIS for the terminal and
storage facility proposed at Morehead City by
North Carolina Phosphate Corporation.
Lead Agency: N. C. Office of Coastal Management (OCM)
P. 0. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
[phone]
Moderator of Scoping Geoffrey Willett (Chief, Planning, Policy, and
Meeting: Technical Services Section, OCM, Raleigh)
Agenda: 7:00 p.m. - Geoffrey Willett, Statement of Role of OCM and
DNRCD, Purpose of Goals of State EIS, and Pro-
cedures for Scoping Meeting
7:05 p.m. - Ward Grosz (President, North Carolina Phosphate
Corporation), Description of Proposed Develop-
ment
7:20 p.m. - Clint Abernethy (Assistant Secretary,, N. C.
Department of Commerce), Role of State Ports
Authority in Proposed Development and EIS
7:25 p.m. - Public Comments and Questions
10:00 P.M.
Procedures for Speakers: Anyone wishing to speak should fill out a
speaker's card which is available at the back of
the auditorium. Speakers will be recognized in
order of their registration. No time limit will
be set on individual speakers unless more than
30 speakers register. Speakers are requested to
keep their comments concise and to the point.
Since this is a scoping meeting, neither OCM nor
NCPC will attempt in the meeting to answer
questions raised; that is the purpose of the
EIS. The entire meeting will be recorded.
Written Comments: Written scoping comments may be submitted to OCM
after the scoping meeting through November 17,
1983.
Scoping Report: A report summarizing the issues- raised will be
prepared and may be obtained from OCM. It
should be available by December 15, 1983.
For More Information: Contact OCM (Jim Smith_ or- Kathy. Henderson).
-:_,4011?
Step
1. Decision to do EIS
2. Scoping
3. Preparation
4. NRCD Internal Review
5. Revisions
6. Clearinghouse
Review of Draft
7. Secretary's Decision
of Hearing
8. Preparation of FEIS
9. Clearinghouse
Review of Final

NCPC EIS PREPARATION
Timing
ASAP
Variable
45 Days
Variable
30-45 Days
7 Days
Variable
Comments
Completed.
OCM coordinates with NCPC,
public, state and federal
agencies (public meeting
followed by state and federal
agency meeting)
NCPC, supervised by OCM
P&A circulates for 28 day
period - comments to OCM.
OCM decides what revisions
are needed prior to Clear-
inghouse circulation.
NCPC, supervised by OCM.
P&A receives comments -
coordinates with OCM to
determine whether hearing
will be required. (15 days)
Comments are used by
permitting agencies
'300 ?v9 fit + Al c n c,t e-T

E?C.To?? ? /Z ? ? 9g3
` GPC,
SEF F w«? -z-7- L r-? 14 1) c © o m v) ?, , O W-
- A-IF
October 19, 1983
MEMORANDUM
TO: STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES (List Attached)
FROM: JIM SMIT
N. C. OF I E OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: EIS FOR . C. PHOSPATE CORPORATION (NCPC) TERMINAL AT
MOREHEAD CITY
A state EIS will be prepared by OCM for the proposed NCPC phosphate
barge terminal and storage facility at Morehead City. On Thursday,
November 10th, there will be two meetings regarding it in Morehead
City:
(a) state and federal agency meeting to discuss the emphasis
and scope of the EIS, I - 3 p.m. in room 102, UNC Institute
of Marine Sciences, 3407 Arendell St. (next to Marine
Fisheries Building).
(b) public scoping meeting, 7 - 10 p.m. in Joslin Hall,
. Carteret Technical College. (See attached public notice.)
OCM's goal is to produce a concise and sharply focused EIS with a
minimum of unnecessary effort on anyone's part. There is already a
large regulatory record on this project, and I hope that we can use
it to refine the EIS process. You may wish to review your copy of
that record, particularly the environmental questionnaire, prior to
our meeting on November 10th. If you need.further information, please
call me at [phone].
I apologize for scheduling the meetings on the evening before a holiday--
it was the only possible date prior to December 15th.
RECEIVED
OCT 2 093
l''JATER QOIALITY j CTIAnJ
Ae).
_4
STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCY LIST
NCPC EIS
State Agencies
Gerald Kraynak, DLR, Wilmington
Floyd Williams, DLR, Washington
Tom Cassell, DCA, Wilmington
Tom Richter, DCA, Washington
Jerry Ganey, SPA
John Arnold, Health Services, Engineering Planning
Rupert Conyers, SPO, Raleigh
Renee Gledhill-Early, A&H, Raleigh
A. L. Hankins, NCDOT, Div. Highways, Raleigh
Bob Teulings, DEM-WQ, Raleigh
Stuart Critcher, WRC, Raleigh
John Sutherland, OWR, Raleigh
Bob Pelligrini, OWR, Raleigh
Mike Sewell, DEM-AQ, Raleigh
Cecil Madden, DEM, Raleigh
Bill Flournoy, P&A, Raleigh
Gene Abernathey, WRC, Raleigh
Pres Pate, OCM, Morehead City
Charles Jones, OCM, Morehead City
George Wood, OCM, Raleigh
Dan Small, OCM, Raleigh
Geoff Willett, OCM, Raleigh
Federal Agencies
Commander (dlp), USCG, Portsmouth
Commander, Marine Safety Office, USCG, Wilmington
Randy Cheek, NMFS, Beaufort
Brad Nicolajsen, EPA, Atlanta
Cliff Winefordner, COE, Wilmington
Mike Gantt, USF&WS, Raleigh
Col. Wayne A. Hanson, COE, Wilmington
?r / f
PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING SCOPE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR N. C.
PHOSPHATE CORPORATION'S PROPOSED TERMINAL AT
MOREHEAD CITY
The North Carolina Office of Coastal Management would like to hear
from concerned citizens, local governments, and organizations about
issues which should be addressed in the environmental impact statement
(EIS) for the terminal at Morehead City, North Carolina, proposed by N.. C.
Phosphate Corporation (NCPC). A public scoping meeting will be held at
7:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 10, 1983, at Joslyn Hall, Carteret
Technical College, Morehead City, North Carolina, for the purpose of
receiving comments. The Office of Coastal Management is the designated
lead agency for the EIS.
In brief, NCPC proposes to develop a barge unloading and storage
facility for phosphate ore on State Port Authority property north of U.S.
Highway 70 and along the south shore of Calico Creek. The proposal
includes a 1215' wharf, a covered slip, and dredging to widen the Calico
Creek navigational channel between the site and Marsh Island. A barge
marshalling area approximately 500' by 140' would be dredged in the
Newport River on the east side of Marsh Island. Sixteen concrete silos,
each 120' high by 65' diameter, would be built. A new conveyor system
would connect to the State Port Authority's conveyor system.
Written comments received by November 17, 1983, will also be
considered and should be sent to Mr. Kenneth Stewart, Director, Office of
Coastal Management, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, (919)
733-2293.
J `t ED STgTFs
? ? J
o?Q
Z? ?
F `t0
?rql PRCrjl
JUL 0,5 1983
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET :w• r?Y ,.+4?
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30385
4PM-EA/BN
Colonel Wayne A. Hanson
District Engineer
U.S. Corps of Engineers
P.O. BOX 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402
JUL 1,9
4';TER QUALITY
OPERA I IUIVS BRANCt(
SUBJECT: North Carolina Phosphate Corporation
CAMA Notice 82N-016-0310
Dear Colonel Hanson:
The sediment test data furnished by the applicant on the activ-
ity proposed in the above referenced public notice satisfies our
concerns regarding water quality. Therefore, we have no objection
to issuance of the permit so long as the west bank is riprapped
and an additional acre of marsh is created on Marsh Island.
S' cerely yours„
Sheppard N. Moore, ief
Environmental Review Section
Environmental Assessment Branch
CC: See attached

y
cc: Ms. Mike Gantt, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh, North Carolina
Mr. Robert F. Helms, Director
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Mr. Preston Pate, Chief, Field Services
North Carolina Office of Coastal Management
Mr. Stuart.Critcher
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. John Parker, Permits Coordinator
North Carolina Office of Coastal Management
Mr. Randy Cheek, Area Supervisor
National Marine Fisheries Service
Beaufort, North Carolina
Mr. J. T. Brawner, Regional Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
St. Petersburg, Florida
w

40
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
January 25, 1983
M E M O R A N D U .M
TO: John Parker
Office of Coastal Management
FROM: Forrest R. Westall, Head
O
Operations Branch ri ?n?# Signed
FORREST R. Y
SUBJECT: Dredge and Fill Application wtS7A?L
N.C. Phosphate Corporation
Morehead City
Carteret County
Members of the staff of the Wilmington Regional Office have reviewed the
application for the subject project. The applicant proposes to develop a
phosphate unloading and storage facility along the shoreline of Calico Creek.
The channel of Calico Creek is to be maintenance dredged, the southern shoreline
is to be bulkheaded and extended waterward, and the northern shoreline is to be
excavated and stabilized with riprap. This enlarges the channel and shifts it
in a northerly direction.
A warf area of 1,215 linear feet is to be constructed along the southern
shoreline. A bulkhead structure 750 feet in length is to adjoin the existing
Texasgulf wharf area. The bulkhead is to be located about at the MHW line at
the eastern end and about 20 feet waterward of the MHW line at the western end.
The proposed method of construction is to involve installation of batter piles.
The applicants have stated that bulkhead construction must be extended waterward
in the proposed alignment to avoid causing damage to an existing structure
during the installation of batter piles.
The existing channel is to be maintained to a minimum depth of -12 feet MLW.
The shoreline of Marsh Island along Calico Creek is to be excavated landward
from 0' to 125' and 1300' long to a depth of about -12' MLW. Riprap material
which is presently on the south shoreline is to be placed on a portion of this
new shoreline. The maintenance and new excavation work is to involve removal of
about 154,000 cubic yards of sand and silt material by hydraulic dredge. About
10,000 cu. yds. of this material is to be placed within a diked disposal area
located on high ground along the southern side of Calico Creek, and is to be used
as backfill material. The remaining 144,000 cu. yds. are to be placed within
two diked disposal areas on Marsh Island. Effluent from the disposal areas is
to be discharged back into Calico Creek.
The applicants also propose to excavate and construct a barge marshalling
area in the Newport River east of Marsh Island and just west of the AIWW. Exca-
vation is to be performed in an area 500' long by 0-275' wide to -12' MLW deep
and a series of large breasting dolphins are to be constructed. About 16,000
cu. yds. of sand and silt material are to be excavated by hydraulic dredge and
placed within the disposal areas on Marsh Island.
Page 2
The diked disposal areas appear to meet the conditions of the General
Certification for Discharge from Diked Disposal Areas. The bulkhead project,
however, involves the placement of fill material of a larger quantity than that
specified in the general certification, therefore, requiring a separate 401
Certification. Since the channel is actually being shifted and enlarged and
since the project is not expected to have an adverse impact on water quality in
this area, which is part of the N.C. State Port Authority, our field staff
has recommended that a Certification be issued containing a turbidity limit
of 25 NTU.
The Air Quality staff of the Wilmington Regional Office is presently
working with the company to ensure that proper Air Quality permits are
obtained.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact Mr.
Robert Teulings in this office.
FRW/ j f
cc: Wilmington Regional Office

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
January 6, 1983
MEMORANDUM
To: Reggie Baird
Permits and Engineering
From: A. Preston Howard, Jr.
Environmental Engineer 70
Subject: Dredge and Fill Application
N.C. Phosphate Corp.
Morehead City
Carteret County
RECEIVED

IWATEP. 017ALI -v SECTICr
Members of the staff of the Wilmington Regional Office have reviewed the
application for the subject project. The applicant proposes to develop a
phosphate unloading and storage facility along the shoreline of Calico Creek.
The channel of Calico Creek is to be maintenance dredged, the southern shoreline
is to be bulkheaded and extended waterward, and the northern shoreline is to be
excavated and stabilized with riprap. This enlarges the channel and shifts it
in a northerly direction.
A warf area of 1,215 linear feet is to be constructed along the southern
shoreline. A bulkhead structure 750 feet in length is to adjoin the existing
Texasgulf warf area. The bulkhead is to be located about at the MHW line at
the eastern end and about 20 feet waterward of the MHW line at the western end.
The proposed method of construction is to involve installation of batter piles.
The applicants have stated that bulkhead construction must be extended waterward
in the proposed alignment to avoid causing damage to an existing structure
during the installation of batter piles.
The existing channel is to be maintained to a minimum depth of -12 feet MLW.
The shoreline of Marsh Island along Calico Creek is to be excavated landward
from 0' to 125' and 1300' long to a depth of about -12' MLW. Riprap material
which is presently on the south shoreline is to be placed on a portion of this
new shoreline. The maintenance and new excavation work is to involve removal of
about 154,000 cubic yards of sand and silt material by hydraulic dredge. About
10,000 cu. yds. of this material are to be placed within a diked disposal area
located on high ground along the southern side of Calico Creek, and is to be used
as backfill material The remaining 144,000 cu.yds. are to be placed within
two diked disposal areas on Marsh Island. Effluent from the disposal areas is
to be discharged back into Calico Creek.
The applicants also propose to excavate and construct a barge marshalling
area in the Newport River east of Marsh Island and just west of the AIWW. Excavation
is to be performed in an area 500' long by 0-275' wide to -12' MLW deep and a
series of large breasting dolphins are to be constructed. About 16,000 cu. yds.
of sand and silt material are to be excavated by hydraulic dredge and placed
within the disposal areas on Marsh Island.
Memo to Reggie Baird
January 6, 1983
Page 2 .
The diked disposal areas appear to meet the conditions of the General
Certification for Discharge from Diked Disposal Areas. The bulkhead project,
however, involves the placement of fill material of a larger quantity than that
specified in the general certification, therefore, requiring a separate 401
Certification. Since the channel is actually being shifted and enlarged and
since the project is not expected to have an adverse impact on water quality in
this area which is part of the N.C. State Port Authority, it is recommended
that a Certification be issued containing a turbidity limit of 25 NTU.
The Air Quality staff of the Wilmington Regional Office are presently working
with the company to ensure that proper Air Quality permits are obtained.
If you have any questions, please so advise.
APH/EB/sf
cc: Charles Jones
Wilmington Regional Office
Ah,
V4V

J
December 8, 1982
OFFICE OF
North Carolina Department of Natural COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Kenneth D. Stewart
Resources &Community Development Director
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Joseph W. Grims1ey, Secretary Telephone [phone]
WILMINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE
DENS
Mr. Robert F. Helms, Director 1!! lac
Water Quality Section OFFICE
Division of Environmental Management
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 W"I.NGT04 qq??
n EM„
DEC i o 1982 f
Dear Mr. Helms:
The attached copy of an application submitted by:
N C Phosphate Corp (NCPC)
Applicant's Name
Morehead City
Carteret
Location of Project County
X for a State permit to perform excavation and/or fill work in
coastal North Carolina and for a CAMA major development
permit...
for a CAMA major development permit (only) ...
... is being circulated to State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction
over the subject matter which might be affected by the project.
Please indicate on the reverse side of this form your viewpoint on
the proposed work and return it to me not later than
Dec. 28, 1982
JRP:ap:951
4jincerely,
Parker, Jr.
Permit Coordinator
P. 0. Box 27687 Raleigh, N. C. 27611-7687
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
OFFICE OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT [1?? . r lq$?
+ FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
OFFICE Oruj1a AL MGT.
.
1. Applicar .'s name N: C. Phos hate' Cor (NCPC1
l'yU
2. Location of project site North side of us H .70 on State Ports Aut orit ropert
adjacent to Calico Creek Newport .River, own o Morehead city, NC
3. Investigation type: Dredge & Fill' d X CAMA - X
Investigative procedure: (A) Dates of site visit 5-3-82 7-16-82 '
(B) Was applicant present yes yes
Nov. 18, 1982 Office Morehead City
5. Processing procedure: Application received
6. Site description: (A) Local Land Use Plan Morehead City
Land classification from LUP Developed and onservati.on
Development. constraints identified in LUP none i enti ie
The land use plan specifically addresses Marsh Island as Conservation an recommends
na is areashould con roue o e use -as a spoi isposa area.
(B) AEC(s) involved: Ocean Hazard Estuarine shoreline X
Coastal wetlands Public trust waters
Estuarine waters Other
(C) Water dependent: Yes X No X Other_
Private Commercial X
(D) Intended use: Public
(E) Type of waste water treatment:.. Existing State Ports Authority sewer--system
,
Planned
(E) Type of structures: Existing.
Planned. concrete silos,.conveyor system, covered barge slip area, dolphins, bulkhead.,.
_(G) Estimated annual rate of erosion - Source
7. :Habitat description: AREA
.(A) Vegetated wetlands: Dredged Filled Other

(B) Non-vegetated wetlands
-Maintenance & deepening Calico Crk. 6 acres
Mooring area, Newport River 2 acres
Bottom area filled with bulkhead 7,500 sq.ft.
Bottom 3,000,sq.ft.
(C) Other:
Excavation of highground on Marsh Isl./
Disposal area on Marsh island 12 acres.
(D) Total area disturbed:
$. Project summary NCPC is proposing to develop a phosphate unloading and storage facility
in Morehead City, Carteret County.
9.Narrative description
N. C. Phosphate Corp (NCPC) is requesting permits which would allow the construction
of a phosphate storage facility on lands which are owned by the N. C. State. Ports Au-
.thority located in Morehead City. NCPC plans to ship phosphate via barge from their
r mine at. Aurora, unload and store briefly at the proposed facility site, and then
transfer the phosphate to the State Ports' conveyor system for ship loading.
The project site is located on the north side of US Hwy. 70 and along the southern
shoreline of Calico Creek. The shoreline-of this area is separated from Marsh Is-
land by an approximately 150' to 200' wide by -12' MLW deep channel. Existing struc-
tures located along the general project area include an existing bulkheaded water .
area used for phosphate unloading-by Texasgulf;_. Atlantic Shippers Fish Meal ware
house; railroad tracks;, and_a trailer/dock and boat ramp area used by the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The shoreline along the specific project area has pre-
viously been stabilized with riprap material and now supports a fairly uniform popu-
lation of "coon" oysters. The highground portion of this property is about 8' above
-mean'se4 level and has previously been used as a spoil area. ,
The applicants are requesting permits to construct an approximately 1,215' wharf area
which will run parallel to the shoreline. A 750' section of this area is proposed
to be bulkheaded and would adjoin at the eastern end with Texasgulf's existing wharf
area. "The bulkhead would be located about at the MHW.line at the eastern end and
would be located approximately 20' beyond the existing MHW line at the westernmost .
end. The applicants have indicated that the location of the existing Atlantic Ship-
°pers' facility controls the layout of the proposed bulkhead, and have submitted in
their application engineering requirements for the bulkhead (see letter from Lockwood
Green to Ward Grosz dated Nov. 8, 1982.). Along this bulkhead section of shoreline
an approximately 105'-wide by 210' long by-87' high.(MLW) covered slip unloading
area is also proposed. The slip will extend over the water for a width of about 70'
with siding provided for the uppermost 17' of the structure. The remaining portion
of the wharf area is to be comprised of breasting dolphins and concrete walkways.
Excavation work proposed includes the maintenance excavation of the existing channel
to ensure a minimum depth of -12' MLW. New work will involve the hydraulic dredging
of an area on Marsh Island about 0-125' wide by.about:1300' long and up to -12' MLW
deep'in order to provide. a widened Calico Creek navigational channel. The area to
-be excavated on Marsh Island is comprised primarily of sand with maritime scrub
thickets-being the dominant vegetation impacted by the excavation (see Calico Creek
assessment).. A portion of the new shoreline.of Marsh Island is proposed to be sta-
bilized by the transferring of existing riprap material from the area on the southern
-shoreline which is proposed to be bulkheaded and filled. It isanticipated thatobout
3000 sq.ft. of area below the MHW line will be impacted by the relocated riprap.
All excavation is proposed to be accomplished by the use of a hydraulic dredge with.
.about 154,000.cu.yds. of sand and. silt material being removed from both the mainte-
-nance and new excavation work. Approximately 10,000 cu.yds. of this material is
proposed to be placed within a diked disposal area located on high ground along the
southern side of Calico Creek, and will be used-as backfill material. The remaining
144,000-cu.yds. is to be placed within two diked disposal areas.located on Marsh Is-
land. These disposal areas encompass approximate 12 acres. Effluent from the pro-
posed-dredging is to be placed.back into Calico Creek which is currently closed by
the Div. of Health Services to the harvesting of shellfish. The applicants have in-
dicated-the widened channel will provide more width than what presently existsfor
boats passing through, particularly when adjacent to the proposed covered slips or
while barges are moored at the wharf.

The applicants are also requesting permission to excavate, and construct a barge
marshalling area which will be located in the Newport River east of Marsh Island
and just west of the AIWW. Plans call for the excavation of an approximately 500'
long by 0-275' wide to -12' MLW deep mooring area and the construction of a series
of large breasting dolphins. Approximately 16,000 cu.yds. of sand and silt ma-
terial is-proposed to be excavated by hydraulic dredge-with the spoils being placed
within the disposal areas„on Marsh Islande
Facilities to be constructed on the highground property include 16 'concrete silos,
each one being about 120' high by 65' in diameter and capable of holding 12,500
tons of phosphate ore. A conveyor system is to be constructed which will trans-
port ore from the covered slip area to the silos: From there_NCPC.'s conveyor. --
system will tie into the State Ports' existing conveyor for ships loading. An
asphalt drive and parking area is also proposed on this site.
10. Anticipated imvacts
The project as proposed will result in the excavation of approximately six acres
of deep to shallow water bottom areas in Calico Creek, and the excavation.of.about
2.6 acres of high ground area on Marsh island. Also to be excavated is approxi-
mately two acres of bottom area in the Newport River which will adjoin the channel
of the AIWW. The vast majority of the approximately 170,000 cu.yds. of sand and
silt materials (which will be excavated by this project) is.proposed to be placed
and confined behind a 12 /affibed disposal area on Marsh Island. About 7,500 sq.ft..
of bottom area below the MHW line is proposed to be bulkheaded and backfilled with
a portion of spoils from-the dredging operation. In the area where the bulkhead
is to be placed, the existing riprap (which are attached by coon oysters) will be
relocated along the new shoreline of Marsh Island and will fill approximately
3,000 sq.ft. of area below the MHW line. The covered slip area along the southern
shoreline will be over about 14,700 sq.ft. of water area and will have open sides
except for the uppermost 17'. The construction of the proposed concrete silos, as-
phalt drive and parking area, and conveyor system, will not increase impermeable
surfaces over 30% of the estuarine shoreline AEC. Storm water runoff is to be di-
rected to the State Ports' existing storm drainage system.

-Submitted by Charles Jones Date Dec. 7, 1982
APPLICATION t1?r 10 198
FOR
OFFICE OF. COASTAL MG]
.
PERMIT TO EXCAVATE AND/Olt FILL WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
WILMINGTON, N. C.
EASEMENT IN LANDS COVERED BY WATER + LAMA PERMIT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
Department of Administration State of North Carolini Department of the Army
(GS 146.12) Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
(GS 113.229,143.2133(a)(1),143.215.3(c),113A-118 (33 CFR 209.320.329)
Please type or print and fill in all blanks. If information is not applicable, so indicate by placing N/A in blank.
L Applicant Information North Carolina Phosphate Corporation
A. Name
Last First Middle
B. Address P. 0. Box 2247 1 Harding Square
Street, P. O. Box or Route
Washington NC 27889 [phone]
City or Town State Zip Code Phone
It. Location of Proposed Project: .
A. County CartPrPt
B. 1. City, town, community or landmark Morehead City
2. Is proposed work within city limits? Yes-2L-No
C. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located or nearest named body of water to project .
Calico Creek
(ll. Description of Project - See Attachment
See Attachment
A. 1. Maintenance of existing project 2. New work
.`•B. Purpose of excavation or fill
1. Access channel Calico Creek length 900'+width225 `-28WJepth -12.0 M.L.W.
2. Boat basin length width depth
3. Fill. area Bulkhead Backfill length Z. W-width_0.20' depth -12-0 X.L.W.
4. Other length width depth
C. 1. 'Bulkhead length 755 Ft . Average distance waterward of MHW` (shoreline) - - - 10 Fppr
2. Type of bulkhead construction (material) Sheetvile with batter viles
D. Excavated material (total for project)
1. Cubic yards 170.000 Cu.YdG. _ _2. Typeofmaterial Silty fine to medium sand and
E. Fill material. to be placed below MHW (see also V1. A) some organic clayey silt.
1. Cubic yards 3500 _C+, • Ids _ 2. Type of material Silty fine to`medium sand.
1V. Land Type, Disposal Area, and Construction Equipment:
A. Does the area to be excavated include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes No X
B. Does the disposal area include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes No X
C. -Disposal Area
1. Location See Attachment
2. Do you claim title to disposal areal No. See Attachment
0. Fill material source if fill is to be trucked in N/A
E. How will excavated material be entrapped and erosion controlled? Earth Berms with vnotective liners,
F. Typc. of equipment to be used - Hydraulic Dredge
G. Will marshland be crossed in transporting equipment to project site? If yes, explain
D& F•81
Rev. 10178 •
Y Intended Use of Project Ami (Describe)
1. Private
Commercial Phosphate Ore' Storage and Loading Facility
2 3.. Housing Development or Industrial
4. Other
B. I. Lot size(s) + 11.0 Acres
+ 10.0 M.L.W.
Z.. Flavadon-of lot(s) above mean high water
3. Soil type and fracture Firm to dense. sand, silty sands and silt-clay layers
4. Type of building facilities or structures Concrete silos with concrete pile foundations.
S. Sewage disposal and/or waste water treatment A. Existing X Planned
L Describe North Carolina State Port Sewer System
6. 'Lind Classification (circle one) DEVELOPED TRANSITIONAL COMMUNITY RURAL {
CONSERVATION OTHER (See CAMA Local Land. Use Plan Synopsis)
V1. Pertaining to Fill and Water Quality:
A. Does the proposed project involve the placement of fill materials below mean high water? Yes-No
IL 1. Will any runoff or discharge enter adjacent waters as a result of project activity or planned use of the
area following project completion? Yes_.S._No
2. Type of discharge Storm Drainage Sewer and Effluent from Dredge Operations
3. Location of discharge Calico Creek
V11. Present rate of shoreline erosion (if known): N/A..
III. List permit numbers and issue dates of previous Department of Army Corps of Engineers or State permits for
work in project area, if applicable: N/A.
IX. Length of time required to complete project: 22 months
X. In addition to the completed application form, the following items must be provided:
A. Attach. a copy of the deed (with State application only) or other instrument under which applicant
claims title to the affected property. OR if applicant is not claiming to be the owner of said property,
then forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under which the owner claims title plus written ip
' ' . permission from the owner to carry out the project on his land.
S. Attach an accurate work plat drawn to scale on 8% X 11" white _paper . (see instruction booklet for
details). Note: Original drawings preferred - only high quality copies accepted.
C. A copy of the application and plat must be served upon adjacent riparian landowners by registered or
certified mail or by publication (G.S.113-229 (d))Enter date served unvamhPr 198?
D. List names and complete addresses of the riparian landowners with property adjoining applicant's.
Such owners have 30 days in which to submit comments to agencies listed below.
North Carolina State Ports Authority
U. S. Corps of Engineers
XI. Certification requirement: I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed activity complies
with the State of North.Carolinals approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a
manner consistent with such program.
XI1. Any permit issued pursuant to this application will allow only the development described in this appli-
cation and plat. Applicants should therefore describe in the application and plat all-anticipated devel-
opment activities, including construction, excavation, filling, and land clearing.
DATE U Z
Applicant's S' ature
I
D&F-e2 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR MAILING INSTRUCTIONS
Rev. 10/78
j
APPLICATION ATTACHMENT
Section III. Description of Project: °
A. The existing Calico Creek navigational channel will be
maintenance dredged to insure a minimum depth of -12.0
M.L.W. New work will involve the hydraulic dredging of
an area on Marsh Island approximately 0-125 feet wide
and 1900`feet in length to provide a widened Calico Creek
navigational channel. The widened channel will provide
more width than presently exists for boats passing through
even adjacent to the covered slip or while barges are
spotted at the wharf. _
Section IV. Land Type, Disposal Area, and Construction Equipment:.
C.1 The hydraulic dredge spoil will be placed on Marsh Island
in Morehead City, North Carolina and the proposed facility
site. The dredged material placed on-the facility site
will be used as fill material behind the proposed bulkhead.
C.2 Marsh Island and the proposed facility site is owned by
the North Carolina State Ports Authority. Reference the
attached letter from the North Carolina State Port Authority
to the North Carolina Phosphate Corporation giving permission
to place dredge spoil material on Marsh Island. Also, attached
is a copy of the lease agreement for,the proposed facility
site.
Please direct all questions concerning preparation of this permit application
to:
Mr. Ted S. McIntyre
Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc.
Post Office Box 491
Spartanburg, South Carolina 29304
Telephone: [phone]

a
nrr+ ? 198?
iLI'd u U N.
C?
z .e -
?, ti ?RED6E SPOIL
oiSr?sAC, 9'?E9
/?EW?RT
1 RIVER
4 OL/to GREEK ??•
a
Al C.6.)O
LAT.
'
34
(f ! Mt-apiJcAn ei rr 45

OleA7AhDr
WAw *A"
o /ntv znev
SGqLE /A/ FEET
N
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
- COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHAT= CORP
viciWITY MAP SHEET OF 12 DATE. NOV. 1982

G.r , ? ??? t ?? 198?
?e?ET 2 ,oP ! ! 5ffC?T "3 A?'!t
7EX4S I I
941cF t
14EW-? - ; _ - ??, I I
[Wl KEY PLAN
t-VFCrET,A7101J-??
_ w.4rER DCP171s
C L .?2,0 G6. p
NIP
IZ
C21C C-kc// i"s
TRA/Csll j, %r Pwp4
tack 494 IV h'cMAA
??X?5j ti?HIGH
WATV s,VOWUvE
CAS
TUaI ?M
.
F?cr?rrr
? lN1LMl??C,T(??! n? -
. 4 . !Z S N . N
R/f'R,4P I
J . 7r? ELr Y.

w
w
W, F M97 A0.41AW41,6MAWAr
. P-16? ALE
!t -- a- /.../ 40,.,
SEW 9U1C01AJQr
EX/ST. ABC//C/J/A,/c
,VC-•W ASOMA[.7- P4 VIWr
EXi5T. A5PHA47 RAVIA)q
NEW ,oREGYre SLOpr--
. A/SA/ coVcRLWTE
? 1:arour ,?cau-S//EET 1
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, ,*N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N. C.
APPLICATION BY: NORTH. CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
SHEET 2` OF 12 DATE: NOV. 1982
tZtS' No
v
L __J

sNECT 2 oc--tl , . SWEET UFt i ; ..'Q.c A • .,?o flQ O
IT 0 0,
7E1?a5 ? Q s
lp v
tWOS/ WAV
a?aoac a KEY PLAN ; i boo .80 100 C! i
Ev ; D
? Li
M. ?
Ir,L4 R Q Q ?t4. X
A Al d 1 22 '
b, .b ° CAF
TOP ELE?.e
*MRSHAL L /tip , b
y
. a &toev -I •o M., , g c i D 7o i
_ E
Zoe ?
mono
' - - s AD CE,vr 4,&4) OWNER
- - - - - - - - - - - - --I i ,4L \ A71A41r1c SN/PpExs CO-
- U S. coeps OF EWIIVEERS
co?rvEyc PROPOSED PORT
--- --- - --- ,, ,,? . FACILITY
?S HWY._ IN CALICO CREEK •
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N. C.
EX/sT• Hi?H COUNTY OF CARTERET, STATE N.. C.
c,EYEC PWlO rE APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE -CORP.
LAMUT /0(,Q1,/' %65r 2 SHEET 3 OF 12 -DATE: NOV. 1982
?^a pt
l
A4 lAeH
0
cqL/co . c,?EE/c cr?G?E wl?*T.
PrRtx.. 10000 6d. fO6,
. A ?H?l°FE?S I
n?Crx„E
? . -, niSPO?a?•? I
EX/5T
x/sr 4RgoE o 2?n 4?n
?aG?L E / FE,?l'
/d WAJ6 k414 rlOAJ 0 0/465
oilzE, cre sF-il L pz.A/V
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY; N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
SHEET 4 OF 12 DATE: NOV. 1982

r..
N .

3 0 ? ?
Q
O! 4L (
11
o a??
Iti
tAl

IL
T
Y?

?Z

? v3 W Q
? Q o
Q? J
W W
?
o
Q95" Q
.? 4 3 }
3
_ I
? v ?u
o z ? w
V U
4j

a
W
c
w o w
?

E N tin a ku
p p N
G .
3r
4
1
,o

W'

1
1 v
WY W
?

i
W
/
j xQ

.
t
1 ?
1
w >n

i
G ~
-sit V VJ
? j y N n ??
O ?N
91
40, ? ,.i W ? j t j IIh '??C
Oa ? ? 1L ? n1
PROPOSED PORT
FAC i L I T Y
1 J ?? IN CALICO CREEK 'AT MOREHEAD CITY N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
3 x? APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
wI; W PHOSPHATE CORP
?(/fIJC. ?ETi?IG.cJ Y Sc.-C?"lC?i?/S SHEET 5 OF 12 DATE=NOV. 1982
J

77
iw7
IZ 7 3
ntrs .
0
M.S.L.. t. INA t_.L.I
jet. ao(v1c1u)
?I/?T. G,PAGIE
A -7
22 1
2/P29P 71? GLhCSb I PE2 77.E NGOTy
,¢oc/aN?¢DDqq DEPT. Of .TPyN3FOer9Tcr/
/'o'L!!EPQ/PQyP y?p l/C7GQE?GyTKA.S RAP .PVIVIC
SEG?/0?1/ 7
N.T• 1
. ToP ELEV.
I ? f 14.O f ML, `til
STONE
RIPR,?V° -?g??.\
FILTER AABRIC
f3Ei-'DINC STONE
BLANKS r
2
4ETA/?. C 5
Nrs
MISC. DETAIL S A4 SECTION
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
N CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY,` N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP
SHEET 70F 12 DATE--NOV. 1982
j S.oM L.W ,?

fat ? _ _
E 3ECt/RED 76 iA
Ai6m
m
E
__ __ 7y?q?D !Na txi2a
aaCYEO m AX&6 (3 S4a!)

•
• -- 7pEgTED !OR ?x6
MAO,
roripego, P/PE
70.

A4 7.. 5.
&A= &)X ffv f x-m a =evsms
DREWS F/GG /AgMeAfe
DEPi:7 OVEQ 0/PE rotes ^o
2 1il't ;Q?
{.." 17PE?Ar4
V J l J
SECTION E
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTER ET STATE N.C_
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP
MISC, OE:"W I A?40 SECTIUtJ SHEET 6 OF 12 DATE. NOV. 1982

J '

.. t .. T1

0-
4-1A n ?n ??
r? R5H 16LASCI1D
;` ToTa? ?2! o?. ; s,POIL A4.)fl-M
??J ., VI5Pl?5A? ?4EA ?/= 1
Ky? _ r
?w y
SPOIL AR4FA Vo 0 i
t 16; Poo G. r
177
Z=166 aloe
?t/nrE _ l?E?`ER Tn 0 2
FG?/F' Gr E,?/? /eAL_ At T EG
A411D 4-earENtm
DRELY4E 510010. AgEA l,CA1,1
I?
y
45, ono
G.Y
a
NEI.J D?E?Ys E ?C.c?/°E
Ex/ NheE
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
N CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY,. N.C.
COUNTY. OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
.SHEET -8 OF 12. DATE: NOV. 1,982

y..__..? f.._ . .? 1 _.._.]
E._ ...l t
ELEVATI ONE SI LOS LOOKING WEST
0' 40? ad
• GRAPHIC SCALE
?l.E?rATin? of ?,sLnS
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
N CALICO CREEK
R
AT MOREHEAD CITY I N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
SHEET 9 OF 12 DATE: NOV. 1982

35• 0 70?- 0
I ,
5101VCr AWVE
Low RooF 014w
i
r/RICH ?eOOF ? L,P
EL, 67.0 ,v1 Z, W,
NO/5T e
C/RDE?
Ex/Sr AriAw77c
5N1pps0 fQcWTr
F.W, 97-75'14-4-W,7
P/cEs
' i?l?' I' III ? li ,I
?/Low ROOF @ L. P,
EL. 60.0 A4 ,4.w
H015r FOX )5ARCrC-
COVER RENOYAL
=?" ro cu a 16, moil
c_
T
,> .
WY 1.41 P5AR C( E
NI.bW. _ _ ?
SHEETin/LC ?3G/LKHE1-1© ? ??
Oie/e'_/N?tL
CrRAI?E ? ?' ??
TYPICAL SECTION-
e7l ?0' 40' Go' PROPOSED PORT
6,m= 6"wu
ejwwl? ? iE FACILITY
IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET, 57ATE N. C,
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
GDYEf?Eh ?L?I° IJ?Ln .pt?? -SHEET 10 O 12 DATE= NOV 1582,
f
.
52'-G" 52' G° 50 MARSHALLING
I YARD
BREASTI N G --?
DOLPHIN
_ I
D lL_J l
EL. 17. 5 M.LXV- ? i
D ;. Ej I w TREATED
I z TIMBER

Q ? I PILE
i o--%EL. 0.0 M.L W, i.
cl:
IW
i
i D
. ? I w
H
151 x 22'
CONC,
FILE-
EXIST?
i LJI..j
GRADE
MCC
IW
z -7
Ian /
=a
CAST
STL, LOW
DBL,BIT
?wwr I
i TYP. SECTION
BREASTING I THRU BREASTING DOLPHIN
DOLPHINS . (al 1 . 101 _o'
PL
0' 100' 200
GRAPHIC SCALE
Mp,QSNALLt ?? rQ?I? p
M=m= 0,111
GRAPHIC SCALE
PROPOSED PORT
FACILITY
-IN CALICO CREEK
AT MOREHEAD CITY`, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE OF N.C.
APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
PHOSPHATE CORP.
SH EET I I OF 12 DATE= NOV 1982
J .
i a

?a6o?5?TIC nnL?Ni? 40
?
MC.gIZ1LIG t?nL.?NI?? c??Jc. co G?J, IGO aftrK -4

v
="?' ??
(? OP GNt?IJ1?EL?

? k-noT K: low
cod. nri? _
! 2 0' ?o' q
' D?A 1 9T

,
1

1 R 1

W ?,0 '
i ? 1
•
' PROPOSED PORT
c q0 ;
FACILITY
H 1?
IN CALICO CREEK
h '
?s AT MOREHEAD CITY,, N.C.
COUNTY OF CARTERET STATE N.C.
h'(ATGN T E~6?? ?bNEk'f'? 3 APPLICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA
q PHOSPHATE CORP.
reJT66. MTAIL SHEET 12 OF 12 DATE: NOV. 1982
4

. J . _.. J _ ..3
North Carolina State Ports Authority
o
18 May 1982
Maurice F. Canady, Jr., P.E.
Director of Engineering and Developmem
P.O. Box 3248
Wilmington, N.C. 28406
Mr. Waino Waisanen
Port Project Manager
North Carolina Phosphate Company
P.O. Box 398
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
SUBJECT: N.C.P.C. Facility
Morehead City Terminal
Dear Waino:-
In response to a request from the Port Manager, Morehead City Terminal,
this letter is to explain the present situation between NCPC and the NCSPA
in regards to the procurement of environmental permits..
The "Preliminary Agreement", between NCPC and NCSPA, dated 31 October 1980
states that the NCSPA will secure the necessary environmental permits. How-'
ever, to do that the NCSPA would have had to select an environmental consultant,
involving the cumbersome selection procedures of the State Department of.
Administration and Capital Building Authority, with no provision for input
from NCPC. Therefore, at a meeting. on 27 March 1981 here in my offi_e, Chuck
Johnson and Rusty Walker agreed that it would be better for NCPC to have some
control over selection of the environmental consultant. This was not only to
insure that NCPC got the consultant of its choice but also to maintain the
flexibility of engaging a multi-disciplined engineering consultant to do the
design of the port facility and the environmental permitting. For best results
it is always best to initiate environmental..permitting and design together at
the earliest possible.time.
Thus, the present situation is that NCPC is proceeding with its own consultants
in connection with environmental permit procurement. This course of action is
at the request of NCPC, and the NCSPA has no objection to'proceeding in this
manner. The NCSPA stands ready to assist NCPC as necessary to expedite the
:processing of the environmental permits.
Very truly yours,
NORTH CAROLINA STATE PORTS AUTHORI Y
Maurice F. Canady, Jr., P. E.
MFCJr:jgh
cc: Executive Director
Manager, Port of Morehead City
Counsel

a
?
I
•
a `' ` North Carolina State Ports Authority
-
10 June 1982 Maurice F. Canady, Jr.. P.E.
Director of Engineering and Development
P.O. Box 3248
Wilmington, N.C. 28406
Mr. Waino Waisanen
Port Project Manager
North Carolina Phosphate Company
P.O. Box 398
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
SUBJECT: NCPC Port Facility
Morehead City Terminal
Dear Waino:
This is to confirm that the North Carolina State. Port s Authority has
agreed to allow NCPC to spoil approximately 170,000 cubic yards of dredged
material, within properly constructed and maintained dikes on Marsh Island,
in connection with the proposed NCPC barge unloading facility and -the required
` deepening and realignment of Calico Creek.
Very truly yours,
NORTH CAROLINA STATE PORTS AUTHORITY

Maurice F. Canady, Jr., PE
MFCJr:jgh
cc: Executive Director
Counsel
Manager, Port of Morehead City
Mr. Jim Rutherford, Lockwood Greene ?

f
A
L.OCKWOOD GREENE
A R C , N I T, E C T S • E N G I N E E R S.
LOCKWOOD GREENE ENGINEERS, INC. P.O. BOX 491 • SPARTANBURG. SOUTH CAROLINA 29304-0491 [phone] • TELEX: 809.436
November 8, 1982
82126.01 - North Carolina Phosphate Corporation TSM/L-54
File 8
Mr. Ward Grosz
North Carolina Phosphate Corporation
Post Office Box 2247
1 Harding Square
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Subject: Proposed Wharf Layout - Port Unloading Facility
Morehead City, North Carolina
Dear Ward:
The NCPC wharf will abut and be in approximate alignment with the
existing Texasgulf Wharf and will extend westward for a distance of 1215
feet. The existing south shoreline of Calico Creek is presently located
approximately 10-12 feet from the northwest corner of the Atlantic
Shippers Facility. The new bulkhead will be.located approximately 52
feet north of the facility. Following Is. the engineering requirement:
-which dictates.this location:
• The results of the soils subsurface investigation program on the
-proposed site by Law Engineering Testing Company in Raleigh,
_North Carolina indicates a firm to dense sand in the eastern part
of the site. In the western section, an inter-layered soft clay,
silt and firm sand underlays a layer of sand fill. Lockwood Greene
has evaluated several conventional means of anchoring the proposed
sheetpile bulkheads using the information provided in this report.
The most economical and workable means is a system of concrete
.:batter piles. Adequate clearance from the Atlantic Shippers
Facility to permit placement of the batter piles is required. The
straight alignment of the wharf with the Texasgulf Wharf provides
-th;,s clearance.
Of DF,3IGN NEW YORK • SPARTANBURG • ATLANTA • DALLAS
J
This layout will provide an adequate distance from the Atlantic
Shippers Facility allowing the operational and foundation requirements
to be obtained. It will also maintain a straight wharf.
Should you have any questions concerning this subject, please
contact the writer.
Very truly yours,
LOCKWOOD GREENE ENGINEERS, Inc.
T. S. McIntyre
TSM:cg
cc: Mr. Lacy Wester
Mr. Frank Foreback
Mr. Rusty Walker
Mr. Jim Rutherford
Mr. Randy Hurteau
Mr. Paul Duralia
a
41
AN AGRICO MINING COMPANY
R. W. GROSZ
President
e ,
e
July 9, 1982
Mr. Ken Stewart
N. C. Office of Coastal Management
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Stewart:
NCPC is applying for permits involving excavate and fill work at the State
Port in Morehead City. In a June application review meeting with Bob Johnson
of the Corps and State OCM representatives, NCPC was asked to explain any
alternatives NCPC had looked at in selecting the specific location at the State
Terminal in Morehead City as it shows in the application.
In a letter enclosed with the permit application, the State Ports Authority
speaks to the reasons why the specific location NCPC has chosen is the best loca-
tion available within the State Ports property. I will briefly address alternatives
NCPC has evaluated beyond the specific site at the State Port.
Any alternative has to be viewed in the following context. Since phosphate
was discovered and first developed in North Carolina, the State Port at Morehead
City has geared itself to serve the industry. The bulk handling facilities at the
Port were designed and built specifically for phosphate receiving and shipping.
NCPC's ability to tie into existing facilities at the Port give Morehead a substan-
tial cost advantage on top of the Port's basic geographic advantage in being the
closest Port to the phosphate deposits.
We did, however, investigate several alternatives to Morehead and those are
summarized below :
Wilmington, N.C. and Norfolk, Va. NCPC commissioned Rust Engineering
of Birmingham, Alabama, to look at both the State Port facilities and private facilities
at Wilmington, N. C. and Norfolk, Va. in 1975. There was property available for
NCPC to locate in either Port and both State and private representatives expressed
interest in working with NCPC. But the barge distance is much greater to Wilmington
and Norfolk. This increases the number of barges needed to maintain the same ship-
ment tonnage and the cost of fuel would be prohibitive. Also, since there are no
existing facilities which could handle NCPC's 3.7 million tons of phosphate rock annu-
ally, the new facilities NCPC would have to construct at Wilmington"or Norfolk would
be greater and more costly.
/ NORTH- CAROLINA PHOSPHATE CORPORATION
?I P. 0. Box 2247 • 1 Harding Square • Washington, North Carolina 27889 • 9191946-4181
1c\.
Wr Ken Stewart
July 9, 1982
Page 2

n
Radio Island - Located in the Morehead City area, this was NCPC's best
alternative. It, like the State Port, was closest to the deposits. Both the State
Ports Authority aU# private interests own property on Radio Island suitable for
expansion for NCPL. But neither have the existing facilities to tie into. NCPC
received an offer from Gulf Instate Corporation, one of the private land owners
on Radio Island, to construct facilities and receive and ship NCPC phosphate. The
offer was not competitive with the State Port at the chosen site.
NCPC's evaluation was confirmed by a recent study of the Port area done for
the Office of Coastal Management, NCDNRCD by Roberts and Eichler Associates, Inc.,
dated June, 1982, CEIP Report No. 34, "Area Development Plan for Radio Island".
This report, concludes on page 58, that: "concerning the future use of the SPA
Terminal . . . . The area north of U. S. 70 should be reserved exclusively for
phosphate handling and storage". The report also recognizes the mutual value of
the area in the future to the SPA. It states that the "best potential use (Marsh
Island) is as a site for handling bulk cargoes that are brought to Morehead City by
barge". in context, this clearly implies phosphate.
I -hope this letter sufficiently addresses why NCPC chose the State Port site
as shown in the permit application after due consideration of all alternatives.
Sincerely,
R. W. Grosz
RWG : gm
cc: Adm. William A. Greene
Executive Director
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Wilmington, North Carolina
Mr. J. S. Rutherford, PE
Lockwood-Greene Engineers, Inc.
Spartanburg, South Carolina

CALICO CREEK ASSESSMENT
North Carolina Phosphate Corporation (NCPC) is proposing to construct
a phosphate storage and shipping facility immediately- adjacent to the similar
Texasgulf Inc. operation at the port of Morehead City, North Carolina. In
order to construct the load-out.wharf and maintain a channel wide enough to
accommodate barge traffic, a portion of this section of Calico Creek must be
filled, and a corresponding area on the opposite shore cut away. An assess-
ment of the various areas to be directly impacted has been completed and the
results are given below.
Terrestrial - As can be seen in the accompanying figure, "Calico Creek
Assessment," the dominant upland vegetation in the impact area is maritime
shrub thicket on the northern shore. The canopy of the thicket is dominated
by Live oak from inland to within 10 meters (m.) from shore. The Live oak
community maximum height is about 5 meters. It also'contains scattered red
cedar-trees at about the same height. The shrub thicket averages about 2 m.
in height, with dense wild grape and green brier vine growth predominating.
Moving south toward the shoreline, a band approximately 10 m. wide contains
prostrate shrub growth (Silverling and Yaupon).as well as the vine growth.
The upland vegetation ends abruptly with 1 to 2 m. scarp down to the
shoreline and intertidal zone. Along the shoreline, just above the tidal limit,
are very small patches of dune and beach vegetation characterized by running
beachgrass and small (1-5 plants) disjunct patches of salt meadow cordgrass.
In close. proximity, but out of the area of direct impact, are two areas of
smooth cordgrass which also contain scattered stands of beachgras§ and salt
marsh aster. One of these areas is located at the western edge of the north
shore.and the other is on the far western edge of the south shore, well out
• W z
cr.

h- Q W
U
W Y
C)

Z N W
®
W W Z F- m Q Y
O r
cr.
Q W
O •

U
Q
=
N W
' ? ?+- F
-- O
, Q
N N N O cr-
O O
U
Z 0 U U
Z M
Q o o x W
N O Z
O N cr-
x W om LLJ o
a n
. m
W 3:
11
?
7 ??
I' , . • _
0
O)
N
tP
1
7
0)
O
ti
Ul)
1 D
N
u
w
J
Q
U
Cf)
U
a ww
Z cn
N J
w
ct
I Is I T{"crC`.fn t.? fi r;,.€f1• ? ,, I', ? I ? , , .
c •,r t• , i? l;? 1 l? ;. i
If?.M l l l l ' yr. ?F7'e.f:cf?re +c?{* r „? • ,'? i I ?: a'•• .I :; ;
II141; 11 ? l ?'•cahi•c ,l,?tto4,rl??f"Y ;'ill;?il?ll???:I='?f•? ari. 1 I I;
j?!?I II ?l?'•ai Y ?rTi??c?`"`r?f??i!?t i11;??91??,i II; ?:
,i 'i41 I$ , d 1 ; ,?t'',??,? t•?"•i•?;F'?rr r`rFC' tti ";? , 1 ; ? •:
' ?, t ;f'! i ,i„ I' •NI I • 1'? ; :?..+, `?{^tCrI ('wi??'C ,?1t 4;?. rfb.ti=t^=?'K`'c• %?'1 y :?;:•
ft^ r?* r t ?ci yft ?r i'" C{?7 `/
;,I 13 11'; t'1Lw rr'? C•'?/( ?'tifr ;f,'Y`v`i... C,(.Ct(' 'rot
d I ? ? I ?' t?: i,?• ? c .r? gyn.,,., t'•'' ?1 M"?•r. ?'
I???It I; ? ?•.:t±'t`rF'r^.<r` ?,...Fr Cis' ??• .
ICI Y! 1;,+?_'I ;i { :' i1i11? .C c?? ?????'?'?`f ??v ?.?`r?r+.???r ' {i •

N

'

W
W

z

1 1 v
?
O
e`
m c9 0 LO
I- Q W
U
W
m
V
W
it fn

z
ccn
w
z o x
a
° (D _
3
-? w Z
z z m m
a ® Y

J
a
o Q >
m >-
W
G
W
0. ?- a
? - a
)
v =

a
0 N 0 0 w 0
a ~ ck: W
0

Z o
Z W

N W

fn U

m W

2 g 1 v
a o o =
w - 0-
0
3z 1-
w o

a o

te z Cl)

o

Q m
1

w
3
a
.
m
ii 1

®
? t•4
0 1
D
0
0
N
-n
W
J
Q
U
- 1 v- 1
J t ~
z
a 1 w
v 1 ?
Cf)
® 1
u, 1 cn
cr.
'• w
41W (Nj
:?''M?'? t"ft^`J ???Zs ? f?' - ??P•?+wfn (t? f rj"',?. t`?,'± <'•Z' j-•, ® ,'.?
•'t:. fy.?Lwr?•?el«•?./':?` ti!`,."Sr.L?j ?-e? `'. ••. _'''f.e
>a 1 I=? F?Y?t fQ..F".?1,Sc ; .{rr`.c• If s ;, I
i i,jt : ?r{+r nCc f r.?f
h t;
4K ,

of the area to be impacted. The only vegetation which will be affected on
the southern shore is the upland bank which is mostly covered by grass,
but also contains occasional single shrubs such as wax-myrtle.
Although intensive wildlife -monitoring was not conducted, the vegetation
on the island seemed to"offer poor habitat value for all but small mammals and
reptiles, though none were seen. A lack of larger wildlife signs were noted
and the few birds seen were waders and shorebirds. No nests were observed.
Intertidal - On the north shore, and to the west of the proposed cut-
away area, a population of oysters (Crassostrea sp.) exists which may be in-
directly impacted by the activity. The living oysters are fairly uniform in
size (8-10 mm) and are concentrated at about 50 - 100 individuals per square
meter. Along the exposed sand length of the north shore, the only visible
animal life was a limited population of fiddler crabs (Ucasp.) at a burrow
entrance rate of approximately 3-4 holes per square meter.
The southern side of this portion of Calico Creek is sloped at about 2:1
and covered entirely with rip-rap stone of 30-45 cm. size. This rock supports
an extremely uniform size population of oysters (8-10 cm. length) at a con-
centration of about 100 individuals per square meter. This population is situated
as a 1 m. wide band along the length of the southern shore. The explanation
for this uniformity in size may be either that the hard freezes of the last few
years have killed all but a particular year class set, or that some factor within
-this canal is acting as _a growth limiter, such as exposure period or nutritional
limitation. The rip-rap supporting this population will be transferred to the
opposite shore during the project, therefore the population will be preserved
intact to the maximum extent practicable.

'J IL 'I L--J
Benthic - The bottom sediment is composed primarily of coarse sands and
I shell fragments. On June 3, 1982, benthic samples were obtained using a
275 cm2 "petite ponar" grab from stations as indicated in the accompanying
figure. The results of the benthic analysis of samples from Stations 1 through
6, and water quality data taken in conjunction with the benthic samples, are
tabulated below.

0
4
I

VEGETATION SPECIES LIST: CALICO CREEK
. o
Maritime Shrub Thicket
Scientific Name Comm N

Ilex vomitoria
• Juniperus virginiana
Myrica cerifera
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Rhus toxicodendron
Vitis spp
Smilax spp
Quercus vir_ iniana
Carpinus caroliniana
Baccharis halimifolia
Marsh Area
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina patens
Punicum amurum
Ammophila brevili ulata
Aster tenuifolius
Panicum amarulum
Andropo on spp.
on atilt:
Yaupon
Red Cedar
Wax Myrtle _
Virginia Creeper
Poison I vy
Wild Grape
Green Briers
Live Oak
Hornbeam
Siiverling
Smooth Cordgrass
Salt Meadow Cordgrass
Running Beachgrass
American Beachgrass
Salt Marsh Aster
Silver. Benchgrass
Broomsedges

J

VOW
SURFACE
BOTTOM
Station Depth Temp Sal 02
(ft) (C) (tpt) (m
/1) pH Turb
NTU Temp Sal 02 PH Turb
g
NTU
1 12."5 30 29 6.2 8.1 4.0 28 29 6.3 8.1 4.8
2 10.0 29 29 6.2 9.1 4.0 28 29 5.9 8.1 4.9
3 10.5 29 29 6.3 8.1 4.2 28 29 6.0 8.1 4.5
4 6.5 29 29 6.2 8.1 4.0 28 29 6.0 8.1 4.0
S 11.0 29 28 6.2 8.1 4.5
28
28
5.9
8.1
4.3
h.
6
10.0
29 28 6.2
8.1
4.3

28

28

6.1

8.1

4.5
7 11.0 28 28 6.3 8.1 4.0 26 29 6.0 8.1 4.2
Date: 6/3/82

Time: 11:30 - 13.:30 (Low Sla ck - 12:30) °
Location : Calico Creek
0

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402
IN REPLY REFER TO

7
1 Incl.
As stated
Copy Furnished w/Incl:
,?a'ater Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
N.C. Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Office of Coastal Management
N.C. Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
PO Box 769
Morehead City, NC 28557
SAWCO82 N-016-0310
Mr. John Parker
N.C. Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Parker:
14 January 1983
Reference the application of North Carolina Phosphate Corporation for a
Department of the Army permit to construct a phosphate ore storage and loading
facility on Calico Creek at the N.C. State Ports Terminal, Morehead City,
Carteret County, North Carolina.
By letter of 28 December 1982 (copy inclosed), the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency asked for additional information upon which to base their response. We
concur that sediment testing and evaluation is necessary for an adequate
examination of probable impacts. Therefore, we request that you instruct the
applicant to obtain the requested data so that it can be made available to State
and Federal review agencies.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Bob Johnson, telephone (919)
343-4641.
Sincerely,
CHARLES W. HOLLIS
Chief, Regulatory Branch
WATER QUALITY
OPERATIONS BRANCH
National Marine-Fisheries Service
NOAA
PO Box 570
Beaufort, NC 28516
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ecological Review Branch
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27601
W. I
?dEOar,?r
s
z
JAN 0 5 1983
Q UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
s???r? vno<E°1`? REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
DEC 2 8 1982
4PM-EA/BRN
Colonel Robert K. Hughes
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
SUBJECT: North Carolina Phosphate Corporation
(LAMA Notice 82-N-016-0310)
Dear Colonel Hughes:

This is in response to the above-referenced public notice regarding
construction of a phosphate unloading and storage facility at the
State Ports Authority property in Morehead City, North Carolina.. :The
project as proposed would involve both widening and deepening Calico
Creek and dredging a barge mooring area in the Newport River. Some
170,000 cubic yards of material would be placed in an existing 12-
acre spoil area on Marsh Island.
In our opinion, the removal of riprap along the east side of Calico
Creek, which now supports a viable community of cluster oysters, and
the loss of several small marsh areas can be mitigated by placing
riprap on the west bank (Marsh Island) of Calico Creek and by creating
an additional acre of marsh on Marsh Island. However, we perceive a
potentially more serious problem if the sediments in Calico Creek
contain contaminants which could adversely affect the water column
and/or communities of aquatic organisms. There seemed to be some
evidence of this in the assessment written for the Calico Creek Harbor
of Refuge project. Therefore, we believe it appropriate that the
recommendations contained in 40 CFR 230, Evaluation and Testing (230.60,
230.61) be followed in this case and any information developed be
furnished to the review agencies for comment prior to permit issuance.
Si ce el y urs,
C arles R titer
Regional Administrator
cc: See Attached
cc: Ms. Mike Gantt, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh, North Carolina
Mr. Robert F. Helms, Director
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Mr. Preston Pate, Chief, Field Services
North Carolina Office of Coastal Management
Mr. Stuart Critcher
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. John Parker, Permits Coordinator
North Carolina Office of Coastal Management
Mr. Randy Cheek, Area Supervisor
National Marine Fisheries Service
Beaufort, North Carolina
Mr. J. T. Brawner, Regional Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
St. Petersburg, Florida
r r
r4j, .
f
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
?PW960 1 REGION IV'
i
OEC _2 8 1982.
4PM-EA/BRN.
340 GOURTLANO STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30360%
Colonel Robert K. Hughes.
District. Engineer
U.S".. Army Corpa of Engineers,.- Wilmington
P.O.. Box 1890
Wilmington,, North Carolina 28402.
SUBJECT: North Carolina Phosphate Corporation
(CAMA Notice 82-N-016-0310)
Dear Colonel Hughes:
fin..
13 1983
WATER QUALITY,
OPERATIONS ORANat
This is in response to thw,above-referenced public notice regarding
constractiom:o£ a phosphate: unloading and storage facility at the
State Ports Authority-property in Morehead City North.. Carolina.. The
project as=proposed would involve both widening and deepening Calico
Creek and. dredging &- barge mooring area in the Newport River.. Some
170,000 cubic yards-.of-material-would be placed in an existing 12
acre spoil area on.Marsh Island.
In our opinion, the removal of riprap along the east. side of Calico.
Creek, which: nowt supports.a viable community' of cluster oysters,. and
the loss of several small marsh areas-can be mitigated by placing
riprap our: the west bank (Marsh island) of Calico_ Creek and by creating
as additional acre of marsh on Marsh island. However, we perceive a
potentially more serious problem, if the sediments in Calico Creek
contain contaminants which could adversely affect the water column
and/or communities of aquatic organisms.. There seemed to be some
evidence of this in the assessment written for the Calico Creek Harbor
of Refuge project. Therefore, we, believe it appropriate that the
recommendations contained in 40 CPR 230, Evaluation and Testing (230.60,
230.61) be followed in this case and any-information developed be
furnished.to the review agencies for comment prior to permit issuance.
S' ce.e y urs,
C axles= R . eter
Regional Administrator

cc: See Attached
cc: Ms. Mike Gantt, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh, North Carolina
Mr. Robert F. Helms, Director
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Mr. Preston Pate, Chief, Field Services
North Carolina Office of Coastal Management
Mr. Stuart Critcher
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. John Parker, Permits Coordinator
North Carolina Office of Coastal Management
Mr. Randy Cheek, Area Supervisor
National Marine Fisheries Service
Beaufort, North Carolina
Mr. J. T. Brawner, Regional Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
St. Petersburg, Florida
r
.�
I
�':
!I

,.1
P. O. Box 155 Beaufort, N. C. 28516
January 7, 1983.
Mr. Russell Talley, Jr.,
Division of Environment Management,
P. 0. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N. C., 27611.
Dear Mr. Talley,.
We wish to comment upon the North Carolina Phosphate Company's
request for a 11dredge and/or fill' permit for a phosphate ter-
minal as advertised on December 10, 1982.
We are somewhat confused by the call for water quality concerns
that was extended to January 10, 1983.
We have a copy of North Carolina Phosphate Company's request
as submitted on November 1, 1982 by Lockwood Greene Kngineers Inc.
and serious study of this document discloses information address-
ing water quality concerns.
Even the casual observation of existing phosphate operations
makes it clear that the particle emissions, while handling the
product, is almost the only source effecting water quality.
Lockwood Greene agrees and intends to submit such data after
January 25, 1983. We will have further comment at that time.
Meanwhile, we ask again that you share our concern about the
emission problems that now exist in the Texas Gulf operations.
Emissions have visibly increased in recent years.
Finally, we firmly believe that the law requires a detailed
State Environmental Impact Study on North Carolina Phosphate
Company's project. Further, any permit granting should be de-
layed until such thorough review is conducted.
Please advise us of your position on these matters. If we can
be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to con-
tact us. `
Sincerely,
Ann Hooper, Pr sident (phone [phone])
.-Z? h'`
Geo. Hammond, Engineer Consultant
(phone [phone]
IAN 1 Q 198
PERMITS & ENGINEERING
GH/AH/dhi

MASON AND PHILLIPS, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1210 ARENDELL STREET
MOREHEAD CITY, NORTH CAROLINA 28557
POST OFFICE DRAWER 126
L. MASON
JOHNTH. PHILLIPS December 22, 1982 [phone]
Mr. Kenneth D. Stewart
Director
Office of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Russell L. Talley,'Jr.
Division of Environmental Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Re: Application of N. C. Phosphate for Dredge
and CAMA Permit - Calico Creek Area, Car-
teret County, North Carolina
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that I represent Paul Kerwin and his
corporation, Kerwin, Inc., who are the owners of the Morehead
City Yacht Basin. This business is located west of the area
which N. C. Phosphate proposes to dredge and fill for installa-
tion of a phosphate handling facility.
The Morehead City Yacht Basin is a marina which primarily
services permanently moored yachts and large transient yachts.
This facility provides docking, fuel and other associated
services for the yachting public. Access to this marina is
through the channel leading from Calico Creek to the Newport
River basin. There is only one method of access to the marina
facility and that is directly through the area intended to be
dredged and filled by N. C. Phosphate.
Mr. Kerwin and his corporation do not oppose the application
submitted by N. C. Phosphate, but feel there are several areas
which must be addressed. First, it is absolutely essential to the
economic success of the Morehead City Yacht Basin that the
channel from the Newport River basin area to its facility remain
open and accessible at all times. There is no mention in the
application by N. C. Phosphate of what means will be undertaken
to maintian the Calico Creek channel open at all times during
construction.
Additionally, there is no mention made of how docking of
phosphate barges will affect the ability of other boating traffic
to use the channel. R C C E I V E

'PATER QUALITY SECTION
OPER/1710 IS ,3RANCH

Mr. Kenneth D. Stewart
Mr. Russell L. Talley, Jr.
December 22, 1982
Page 2
Both of these areas of concern should be addressed and
specific requirements made of N. C. Phosphate to keep this
channel open during construction as well as after the phosphate
facility begins operation.
Secondly, the plans envision dredging of Marsh Island.
Additionally, there is no mention made.of the affect of prop
wash and wave action may have on this exposed bank after the
dredging is completed. Of particular concern would be the prop
wash effect of tugs docking barges in this area. If erosion
is allowed to occur, the filling in of Morehead City Yacht
Basin's facility as well as the entrance channel is likely to
occur. Also within this same concern is the fact that the plans
envision changing the course of Calico Creek by cutting away part
of Marsh Island. Changing the flow of the creek may cause incoming
tides to cut away at the concave portion of the new channel and
create a circular motion of the water which would carry the
silted material in a southerly direction, creating a bar across
Calico Creek.
Finally, the third area of concern relates to methods to
keep phosphate dust from blowing and escaping into the atmosphere.
Other facilities located at the port have stored raw phosphate
outside of buildings causing phosphate dust to blow in all
directions, depending upon the wind.. Also, the unloading of
phosphate from barges has allowed phosphate dust to escape into
the air. With Morehead City Yacht Basin's close proximity to
this facility, blowing phosphate dust will settle on the surrounding
boats, water and vegatation. The adverse effects of this material
is that it acts as an abrasive, causing scratches in fiberglass
and wood boats. Such dust would increase the necessity of frequent
cleanings of boats and make Morehead City Yacht Basin's facility
less than desirable to boat owners. The environmental effect
of phosphate being distributed into the air and settling in the
water is obvious.
In behalf of my clients, I am requesting that North Carolina
Phosphate's permit be contingent and conditioned upon the company's
establishment of adequate safeguards to insure containment of
phosphate dust at its facility and unloading docks, also that
adequate plans be established to insure that Calico Creek will
remain open and navigable to large ocean-going yachts at all times
both during construction and after the facility is completed.

Mr. Kenneth D. Stewart
Mr. Russell L.'Talley, Jr.
December 22, 1982
Page 3
Any questions or comments concerning this letter should
be directed to Mr. Paul Kerwin at the Morehead City Yatch Basin,
Post Office Drawer "A", Morehead City, NC 28557. [phone].
Sincerely,
MASON AND PH PS, A.
L. Patten Mason
LPM/dm
cc: Mr. Paul C. Kerwin
40001r,
DEPti ,12MENT OF' THE ARMY
824TH TRANSPORTkfIUN COMP.,P,Y (H1;j VY BUAT)
405.Fisher Street
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
27 December 1982
SUhJECT: Comments Regarding the Application Submitted on Behalf of
North Carolina Phosphate Corporation to Excavate Fill and
Construct a Phsophate Handling facility on North Carolina State
Ports Authority Property at Morehead City, North Carolina
I•:r. Kenneth Stewart
IJ C Office of Coastal M anEgement elm
P. 6. Box 27687 DEC 28 W2
Raleigh, NC 27611
Lear Mr. Stewart: WATER QUALITY
OPERATIONS BRAWH
1. This installation recently became aware of the Application for a Permit
to construct a Phosphate Facility at North Carolina State Port on Calico
Creek - Morehead jity, North Carolina.
2. This activity being within 200 yards of the selected site is interested
in the proposed construction because of possible adverse effects. The
following are comments submitted for your consideration prior to recommending
approval of the project in it's present form:
a. The construction of the hooring-Breasting dolphins z:nd Phosphate
Unloader adjacent to the proposed widened channel creates a navigation hazard
for the Army landing crafts that periodically transit the Calico Creek channel.
'This hazard will be even more serious when phosphate barges are moored on the
north side of the breasting dolphins Gnd extend into the channel.
b. The safe navigation problem compounds even further with the proposed
zltering of the Calico Creek channel from the existing straightaway from
Piewport River. The problems outlined below are the most obviously serious
in this regard.
(1) Incoming vessels grounding on the stone riprap at the western
end of the widened portion of the Calico Creek channel where it narrows and
turns to resume the existing channel.
(2) Incoming vessels colliding with moored barges or breasting dolphins
z.t the western end of the berthing dolphins where vesselF must maneuver from the
proposed widened channel to the unchanged ,.nd uni.,idened existing channel.
(3) Incoming; vessels colliding with the existinL U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers cock or with U.,S. i,rrny Corp;- of tng;ineere; vessels moored outboErd
rif the dock. I,ote: The proposed chsnge in the charnel and installation of
riprap at the western end of the widened channel will necessitate a"zig zag;"
J00'r
27 December 1982
SUBJECT: Comments Regarding the Application Submitted on Belelf of North
Carolina Phosphate Corporation to Excavate Fill and Construct a
Phosphate handling lacility on North Carolina State Ports Authority
Property at Morehead City, North Carolina
type maneuver to clear the Corps of itngineers facility where now only a
straightaway exists. This will present the most serious hazard to safe
navigation to the landing crafts that will transit Calico Creek.
(4) Outgoing vessels colliding with phosphate barges moored outboard
of the berthing dolphins. This is particularly serious when barges are
moored at the western end of the berthing dolphins and the tide is at an
ebb state.
c. Another concern is the possibility of shoal buildup around existing
Army Reserve docks and quays due to tugs eroding; the north and south banks of
the widened Calico Creek channel (particularly opposite the berthing breasting
dolphins and the covered unloading slip). On occassions when the tide is at
flooding state the eroded silt would be carried to the east quay and tend to
settle on the creek bottom as the movement of the water slows. It was noted
on sheet 7 of exibit one of the permit application that the riprap extends only.
2 feet below mean low water wherees the proposed dredged mean depth of the creek
channel at mean low water is to be 12 feet. (Reference sheets 5 and 10 of exibit
one to the permit application)
d. The application for the permit submitted by the Engineering firm in
behalf of the north Carolina Phosphate Corporation to construct the phosphate
handling facility (sheet 10 of 12 sheets of exhibit one) shows a "clamshell"
type unloader will be utilized to remove the phosphate products from a moored
barge F.nd drop the product in a hopper where it is funneled and dropped onto a
conveyer. The concern with this method is that no provision for dust control
seems to be employed. The prevailing southwest wind would carry the phosphate
dust in a northerly direction and deposit some of the fallout into Calico Creek.
The tide when in flooding stage will carry phosphate-fallout suspended in creek
water to the same area noted in c above end the same adverse action can be expected
to occur. There is another factor that it is felt should be addressed. This
being that mercury was found in July 1980 and January 1981 to be present in bottom
sediments and shellfish located in calico creek. This information was subsequently
published in the Carteret County hews Times.
3. Recommendations regarding the proposed construction and excavation are:
a. That the changes required in the construction of the phosphate handling
facility to be utilized by North Carolina Phosphate Corporation be not made
in Calico Creek so as to impair safe navigation by vessels transiting the
creek channel.
r
b. That riprap retaining; creek bank materials be constructed so that erosion
will not occur from the banks of Calico Creek and cause shoaling of adjacent vesFel
berthing areas and silt buildup.
2
** 4F
.27 December 1982
SUBJECT: Comments Regarding the Application Submitted on Behalf of North
Carolina Phosphate Corporation to Excavate Fill and Construct a
Phosphate handling Facility on North Carolina State Ports Authority
Property at Morehead City, North Carolina
c. That measures be taken to prevent phosphate dust from becoming wind
borne from unloading and conveyer equipment.
4. Request that this activity be notified of hearings regarding the proposed
construction of the North Carolina Phosphate Corporation facility, in advance,
so that input can be submitted relative to items that would affect our operation.
Point of contact is Mr. Robert Newton, US Army Reserve Center, 405 Fisher St.
Morehead City, NC 28557 Tel: AC 919 726-5887.
FOR THE COIF Mi I4 DER :
ROBERT B. NEWT N JR
USAR Center Manager
` Copy furnished:
commander
120th ARCOM
ATTN: MAJ Schumpert
Ft. Jackson, SC 29207
District Engineer
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
ATTN: Regulatory Functions Branch
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28401
,Mr. Russell L. Talley Jr
Division of Environmental Management
P. U. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Carteret County Crossroads
P. O. Box 155
Beaufort, NC 28516
3
Vic
JAN 3 ??
PERMITS & ENGINURING
r;-?
Gov. James B. Hunt,
Office of the Governor,
Raleigh, N. C., 27611.
Dear Gov. Hunt,
Route 3, Box 4,
Beaufort, N. C.,
December 29, 1982.
In the practice of my profession there was one thing I
learned. Namely, if you have a complaint it is best to go
straight to the Ithorse's mouth". So that is just what I am doing.
Enclosed, you will find an article which appeared in the lo-
cal newspaper. This causes me much concern, since our area is
already being pelted with airborne phosphate and coal dust par-
ticles. I have written to Mr. Mike Sewell. The letter was dated
March 8, 1982. You received a photoscopic copy of this letter.
All of the ensuing written communications had absolutely no
results. The polution suppressant mechanism is not being used.
I called your office on a recent Saturday (I believe December 4)
and on the following Monday your office returned the call. Once
again, I made my position known, this time verbally. On the
following Tuesday, a second ship being loaded with phosphate put
another "ton" of dust in the air.
Now insult is added to injury. A second facility is being con-
sidered. Please answer my questions. Will the proper extensive
environmental studies be made? And should the permits be grante4
can we be assured that we will not be made to suffer further
polution? Our area is being desecrated by big noxious industry.
Enough is enough.
Sincerely,
Dorothy H. Ipock, R. N.
Copies: Mr. Kenneth Stewart '
Mr. Russell L. Talley, Jr.
E/ V e
.11;1- D F*P WATER
04,4141 I;rys?cri
AVIAdWL
P..O. Box 204
Beaufort, N.C. 28516
December 28, 1982
Mr. Russel L. Talley Jr.
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Dear Sir,
Concerning the application by N.C, Phosphate Corp.
for permits for their proposed Morehead City terminal, I
have the following comments. The application should not
even be considered until after an E.I.S. has been completed
and reviewed.
I am a shellfish lease-holder of ten acres in the
Newport Riverand I am concerned about the effects of
barge traffic on the productivity of my lease.
As avoting, taxpaying citizen of Carteret County
I am concerned about air and water pollution from
phosphate dust.
I am employed in the tourism industry on Front Street
in Beaufort also and I worry about the aesthetic effects.
Sixteen silos rumored to be 150 feet high are to be built.
The high bridge is only 65 feet above mean low water.
I am concerned about the future of the area and I feel
that an environmental impact study is necessary.
Sincerely,
T:ed Uhlman
c.c. Ken Stewart
Chrys Baggett
Quentin Lindsey
Governor Jim Hunt
R?cc
V
o,T? 1y?3

", WaoA -- COCA4lL- I -?3 L
40/ ce."41
2, / o t u.r A v ?, C-aaid
g. , A ffv Al r
?:
? .-
I-
a
r' .
P
Dear Mr. Stewart,
7

'fie are pleased to respond to your letter of January 24, 1983, con-
cerning our views about SEPA. At the risk of being repetitious,
our concerns revolve around the Newnort River estuary and the way
of life created in coastal Carteret County, which is at great risk.
The estuary is one of the last of the unspoiled systems in East-
ern Carolina and supports directly a large shell and fin fish
industry, a::d indirectly, a huge sportfishing and tourist ind-
ustry that can only be damaged by building environmentally pol-
luting systems along its shores.
Although we are deeply concerned about compliance with the SEPA
concerns and GS 143 B 437, we simply do not see any legal way to
avoid compliance despite third party concerns. Our attorney,
Thomas S. Frwin will be advising you of our legal position.
Our interests, which are real, goes further into the system as
follows:
A. Each judgment for or against an EIS acts as though the
effects of each industry were isolated and has no inter-
fingerings with those that are now in place or are
planned for the future.
B. Case in point, the projected installation of an ammonia
trans-shipment terminal on Radio Island will be impacted
by the greatly increased barge traffic of the NCPC
installation at the SPA.
C. The phosphate dust emissions of NCPC will be additive
to those now created by the existing terminals.
",'e therefore recommend that each project be considered not as a
separate entity, but as part of t=nose in place or planned.
Specifically, the traffic in the Core Creek cut must be con-
sidered. At present, the Core Creek bridge, built and maintained
by the Corps of Engineers, opens and closes over ?000 times an-
nually for all traffic, i.e. yachts, fishing and commercial vessels.
NCPC has been projected to require over 2400 barge trips for trans-
port which, of course, adds 2400 (round trips) barges to the ex-
isting traffic. Intermixed with t_-ese will be 180- barges filled
with 1000 tons each of anhydrous ammonia in cryogenic mode.
;',hat studies have been done in regard to public safety on this dan-
gerous traffic overload?
Count Crossroads
yJ ~-F "7W GwP /k to ..-1
Mr. Kenneth D. Stewart, Director, ??e3
WATT UAL14
Office of Coastal Management,
T'. C. Dept. of Natural Resources and Community Development; -TIONS:
P. 0. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N. C., 27611-7687.

Page 2
Following are our concerns about dust emissions:
1. The present dust in the atmosphere caused by off-loading
of barges and loading of s' ^s by the existing phosphate
operation has become a ser 5us_ roblem. Although NCPC
has talked about reducing such emissions, they will be
using the same conveyor system and a "clamshell'T unloader.
We fail to see any possible improvement. Because their
projected output is nearly seven times greater than the
present operation, we see emissions at a greatly increased
level.
2. Although the coal exporting terminal is at an extreme low
level of shipment, they can be expected to contribute
additional emissions when it is reactivated. Neither fed-
eral or state agencies have base data levels obtained
from monitors on which to base any emissions judgments.
Air quality permits then are useless as a form of con-
trol.
If the state cannot perform monitor functions because of money
problems, which even we can understand, let those responsible pay
the costs as cart of the cost of doing business.
We are further concerned about the admixture at the mouth of the
estuary of the three fertilizer elements both from a short and
long time basis.
Is there no end to such commercial irresponsible activity that has
destroyed_so much of our coastal water to support large corporate
profits and all in the name of "jobs'> A benefit we have not het
seen. All proposals in the past three years are capital instal-
lations employing only a few workers.
In summary, these concerns for our environment should be addressed:
1. Impact of increased barge traffic.
a. Collision potential in Core Creek cut.
b. Core Creek bridge (replacement required?)
c. Public Safety (NH3 barge collision.).
d. Interplay of cryogenic - ammonia transport.
e. Traffic (marine) at site.
2. Air quality.
a. Emissions.
b. Fffect on Public Health.
c. Monitoring systems.
d. Additive to existing emissions.
e. Water c_uality effecting waterfowl.
3. Dredging.
a. Effect on Morehead City Yacht Basin.
b. Fffect on USAR Center.
c. Effect on Morehead City Machine Shop and other marine
related businesses and residents on Calico Creek.
d. Spoils Disposal
e. Effect on marshes on Calico Creek and Marsh Island.
f. Who antes up the money to pay costs?
g. Effects on wildlife and shel_fis_ing.

Page 3

4. EIS
a. Should be based on exi- n and planned installations
and not isolated, eachpthe other.
5. Future state expenditures,
a. Will new nort berths be required ?
b. Will nem conveyors be rewired?
c. I''Vil1 present system sur_rcrt .7 million additional
tons?
6. Aesthetics.
a. Effect of 16 120 ft. high silos.
b. Effect on new luxury conaomir_ium s directly south (500
yards).
c. Effect on plans for develo7ment of condominiums (up
to 600 units) 1500 yards north of site.
d. Effect on plans for rere-ral of waterfront in More-
head City.
Further, because of time constraints, it is to be expected that
further concerns will be forthcoming.
Ve have enumerated our concerns at the present time. Although we
are expressing them, they represent the concerns of a. large majority
of our local citizens and should not be dealt with lightly.
le thank you for the opportunity to acquaint you with our views
and if we can be of any further assistance, please do not hes-
itate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Ann Hooper, Pre,ident
GHammond, Consulting Engineer
Photo Copies:
Gov. James B. Hunt, Jr.
Carteret Co. Comm.
Attorney Thomas S. Erwin
Rep. Bruce Ethridge
Rep. Malcolm Fulcher
Joseph W. Grimsley
Rep. A. D. Guy
U.S. Rep. (alter B. Jones
Mr. Preston D. Riddell
Mr. Jbht Runkle
Ms. Ann Taylor
Sen Joseph F. Thomas
Mr. Russell Train
Carteret
^astern
New Bern
Morehead
Morehead
U.S.A.R.
County Neiars-Times
Neekly
Sun-Journal
City Yacht Basin
City Machine Shop
Robt. B. Newton,Jr.
IMPORTANT

CALLED TO' SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Message
Signed
N. C. Dept., of Natural Resources and Community Development

SCOPING REPORT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
FOR NORTH CAROLINA PHOSPHATE CORPORATION'S
PROPOSED TERMINAL AT MOREHEAD CITY
Prepared by and Copies Available from:
Office of Coastal Management
N. C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
P. 0 Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
RECEIVED
c 0 q 1933
December 1, 1983
UVUL'! g1Y oti;T901V
Cr=-ER[,T C%!S PRA`aCH
.Y

Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction 1
a. Purpose of EIS 1
b. Process of Preparing the EIS 1
C. Nature of Scoping Report 3
2. Brief Description of Proposed Development 3
3. Issues Raised in Scoping Process 4
a. General 4
b. Port Development 5
C. Existing Phosphate Operations 6
d. Air Quality 6
e. Water Quality 9
f. Living Resources 12
g. Dredging 14
h. Transportation 16
i. Aesthetics 18
j. Socio-economics 19
k. Health and Safety 23
1. Soil 25
M. Alternatives 25
n. Unavoidable Losses 26
o. Mitigation 26
4. Table of Contents for EIS 28
5. Lists of Participants in Scoping Process 31
a. Attendees at Public Scoping Meeting 31
b. State and Federal Agencies Commenting 32
C. Contributors of Written Comments 33
At?
Ir'
1. Introduction
a. Purpose of EIS. The primary purpose of an environmental impact
statement (EIS is to serve as a decision-making tool to ensure that
agencies of the state consider and report upon environmentAi aspects
and. consequences of their actions involving the expenditure of
public moneys. It shall provide full and fair discusdioft of
significant environmental impacts and shall inform decisidiiindkers
.,and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would Avoid or
minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the htithan
environment. An EIS is more than a disclosure document. It §hdll be
used by state officials in conjunction with other materiaig fd plan
and make decisions on permits and programs.
This EIS may ultimately be used to make decisions on seven P8rtdits or
approvals:
CAMA Major Development Permit (state)
Dredge and Fill Permit (state)
Section 404 Permit (federal)
Section 10 Permit (federal)
Section 401 Water Quality Certification (state)
Air Quality Permit (state)
Easement for Submerged Lands (state)
State Ports Authority Lease to NCPC (state)
b. Process. of Preparing the EIS. This is the first EIS which has
been prepared under the authority of the State Environmental Policy
Act of 1971 for a private corporation's development. Therefore, the
procedures used will be precedent-setting. Existing state
regulations will be followed whenever available, and federal EIS
procedures will be followed or adapted when state guidance is
inadequate.
The Office of Coastal Management (OCM) is the designated lead agency
for this EIS. OCM is responsible for its scope, objectivity, com-
pleteness, accuracy, and relevancy. The text which will appear as
the draft EIS (DEIS) must have satisfied these tests.
OCM will be assisted throughout the EIS process by the state and
federal agencies which are listed in section 5 below.
North Carolina Phosphate Corporation (NCPC) and the State Ports
Authority (SPA) will play essential roles in the preparation of the
DEIS. NCPC, which is the primary sponsor of the project, is
preparing an environmental report (ER) which must address the issues
in this scoping report. OCM will supervise NCPC's work. Once the ER
is complete, OCM will review, revise, and supplement it as necessary
to convert it into a DEIS which satisfies the standards of.
objectivity, completeness, accuracy, and relevancy. SPA may have to
prepare portions of the ER which deal with existing conditions and
operations or with future plans for the port.
t
4'1
TABLE I.
NCPC EIS PREPARATION
Step Timing Comments
1. Decision to do EIS Completed.
2. Scoping Nov. 10, 1983 OCM coordinates
with NCPC, public,
state and federal
agencies (public
meeting and state
and federal
agency meeting)
3. Scoping Report Dec. 15, 1983 OCM
4. Preparation of Draft EIS 60 days (NCPC eat.
to write environmental
report)-
+ 30 days (OCM est.
to complete DEIS) NCPC (supervised
by OCM) prepares
environmental
report which OCM
uses to prepare
DEIS
5. DNRCD Internal Review 7-15 days (est.) Draft circulates,
and comments to
OCM. OCM decides
what revisions
are needed prior
to Clearinghouse
circulation.
6. Revisions 7 days (est.) OCM.
7. Clearinghouse Review of
Draft and Public
Review 30 days P&A receives
comments -coordinates
with OCM to
determine whether
public meeting should
be held.
8. Secretary's Decision
on Public Meeting 7 days-- Secretary, DNRCD
9. Preparation of HIS 30 days (est.) OCM
10. Clearinghouse Review and
Public Release of FEIS 15-30 days Comments are used
by permitting
agencies
*Assuming that State Ports Authority and DEM reach agreement on air
quality by day 30 of preparation period.
-If held, the meeting on the DEIS would add 21-30 days to process.
2
41-
d`
These efforts all belong in step 4 of Table I which summarizes the
entire EIS process for NCPC. The total process could require up to
300 days. The triple review processes should be noted:
Step 5. DNRCD Internal Review
Step 7. Clearinghouse Review and Public Review of
DEIS (local governments) and other state
agencies)
Step 10. Clearinghouse Review and Public Review of
Final EIS (FEIS).
This triple review will ensure the absolute quality of the DEIS
prepared by OCM partially from materials prepared by NCPC and SPA.
C. Nature of Scoping Report. This scoping report is intended to
list all of the issues and. questions raised by the public and local,
state, and federal agencies about the proposed NCPC terminal at
Morehead City. Section 5 below lists all of the persons and agencies
which contributed comments. OCM will provide the scoping report to
NCPC and SPA so that the issues and questions may be addressed in
their environmental report.
For purposes of the scoping report and the EIS, only issues and
questions pertaining to the effects of the terminal and related
transportation activities have been included. Mining operations
near Aurora, N. C., were the subject of a 1978 EIS, and mitigation
issues associated with the mine have been addressed adequately
before the Mining Commission and the Coastal Resources Commission.
Reviews of NCPC's wetlands creation efforts continue, with DNRCD and
two commissions actively involved. Particular notice is directed to
Section 4 below which is the Table of Contents for the EIS. NCPC's
environmental report and OCM's DEIS will follow its format which
imposes a focus and rigor on the EIS. Its organization is. very
different from this scoping report. In the scoping report the issues
are grouped by general topics to facilitate easy access and
examination for omissions. In the EIS the issues are sorted out to
highlight the most important differences among the alternatives,
considered and to focus on the advantages and disadvantages of the
preferred alternative(s):
2. Brief Description of Proposed Development
NCPC proposes to develop a barge unloading and storage facility for
phosphate ore on State Port Authority property north of U.S. Highway
70 and along the south shore of Calico Creek. The proposal includes
a 1215' wharf, a covered slip, and dredging to widen the Calico Creek
navigational channel between the site and Marsh Island. A barge
marshalling area approximately 500' by 140' would be dredged in the
Newport River on the east side of Marsh Island. Sixteen concrete
silos, each 120' high by 65' diamter, would be built. A new conveyor
system would connect to the State Port Authority's conveyor system.
3

3. Issues Raised in Scoping Process
The questions which follow come from:
(1) public comments at the scoping meeting on November 10,
1983;
i
(2) state and federal agency comments in response to scoping
notice;
(3) letters from public received in response to scoping
notice;
(4) previous public letters received in response to the
Environmental Questionnaire notice and to the CAMA major
development permit process prior to the start of the EIS
process;
(5) previous agency comments; and
(6) OCM staff, for purposes of continuity or clarity.
When several very similar questions were received from different
sources, the most representative one was chosen for this report. In
this report, questions have not been identified by sources; this
information is available from OCM.
a. General.
a-1 Will NCPC be permitted to do the work for the environmental
impact statement (EIS)? It seems more appropriate for the
State to retain this authority and responsibility. If the
State does not have the expertise, it seems more
appropriate for the State to contract the work out to a
company that is neutral and expert in this field. There
must be no conflict of interest, or a suggestion of a
conflict of interest, in order to insure a credible EIS.
Will NCPC be required to reimburse the State for the cost
of the EIS?
a-2 Full disclosure of significant environmental impacts,
including those associated with the various alternatives,
must be included in the draft EIS, and omission of such
relevant information and data often results in delays in
the review and planning process. We, therefore, recommend
that the EIS provide a complete disclosure of all
anticipated impacts, including potential cumulative
impacts.
a-3 What positive impacts does the additional export facility
represent?
a-4 is scope of NCPC project unchanged from 1983 Environmental
Questionnaire?
4
k
a-5 Will Morehead City be a better place to live with or
without the new phosphate terminal?
a-6 What general impacts to the community from a public
nuisance aspect will the project have?
a-7 What mechanism does NCPC offer to ensure good relations
with neighbors?
a-8 Who will ensure the compliance of NCPC with permit
conditions? Who will monitor? How many people will be
required? Who will pay? How much will it cost in public
expenditures to ensure compliance?
a-9 Will NCPC have to meet same criteria for state permits as
the Haystacks project had to meet?
a-10 Are air quality. permits and standards meaningful in the
State of N.C.?
a-11 Have all impacts been quantified to maximum extents?
a-12 Impacts of NCPC must include new equipment and old
equipment in existing installations which will be used as
part of the NCPC operation.
a-13 How much phosphate will be stored at this facility at any
time? What is the maximum amount of time it can be stored?
a-14 Does the N.C. Phosphate Corporation plan to handle
phosphate on a permanent or temporary basis? If
temporary, what other chemicals will be stored in the 16
silos?
a-15 All future and secondary construction, such as railway
lines that may be reasonably anticipated, should be
described, and the expected secondary and cumulative.
impacts should be addressed.
b. Port Development.
b-1 Is. this sort of development consistent with state and
local policies? This question will require an analysis of
legislation, appropriations, zoning, land use plans, the
Radio Island plan, local resolutions, local ordinances,
and the N.C. Coastal Management Plan, as well as of any
short-, mid-, and long-term plans of the State Ports
Authority.
b-2 How will NCPC lease affect opportunities for other
development at SPA?
5
M

b-3 What is term of this lease?
b-4 What is-the extent of NCPC's lease and of other phosphate
leases?
b-5 Will NCPC facility increase possibility of ammonia
facility in the area?
b-6 What is the adequacy of the existing facilities to handle
the increased load due to NCPC?
b-7 Why isn't the State Port living up to the strict standards
that private developers, home owners, and other develop-
ments on the coast or waterways are required to uphold?
b-8 Is there any way of stopping activity at the port until
engineers correct the problems so that we, once again,
will have clean-air and water or are there too many $$$
involved?
b-9 In view of the new permit granted the coal terminal for
phosphate products and the decreased input of coal, will
coal be phased out?
b-10 Is the SPA heading for a berthing problem when NCPC joins
the present bulk shippers? What will be the solution.?
C. Existing Phosphate Operations.
c-1 What related current activities and plans are there for
phosphate at SPA? How would they interact with NCPC'.s
project? What would be the cumulative transportation,
air, and water quality impacts? What is the ultimate
capacity limit of the loading facility? What would be the
total impacts at that level of operations?
c-2 What chemicals pass through or are stored at the SPA?
Which are related to phosphate?
c-3 What improvements will be made to existing phosphate
handling system?
c-4 Can the State give assurance that phosphate dust emissions
will be controlled at the current phosphate facility at
the State Port?
d. Air Quality.
d-1 For Air Quality, is the area attainment or non-attainment?
d-2 With no base-line to measure from, how can it be determined
whether attainment or non-attainment have been reached?
6

Sy,
R
d-3 Identify all pollutants, including trace pollutants, which
. will be released into the atmosphere?
d-4 Will there be an dust escaping from this operation into
the environment? Quantify the amounts during both normal
operations as planned and during equipment or maintenance
failure during:
(a) Off loading from barges
(b) Transport to storage
(c) Storing and storage
(d) Removal from storage
(e) Transport to outgoing vessel
(f) Loading of outgoing vessel
(g) Ground run-off anywhere in the chain
d-5 Regarding air quality:
(a) An ambient modeling analysis that includes the
proposed facility and all significant sources in
the impact area must be done. It should include
areas where residents live, public docking
facilities, and Radio Island. Modeling should
also address emissions during malfunction
situations and fugitive emissions.
(b) Control measures and equipment should be
selected and analyzed using $ACT as a guide.
(c) Ambient monitoring of particulates should be
conducted before and after operation.
(d) Secondary impacts should include effects on
visibility, soils, vegetation, wildlife,
endangered species, and possibility of nutrients
being added to surrounding waters.
d-6 Give a well-documented description of air quality in the
SPA area, Carteret County in particular, indicating upward
or downward trends which may have occurred in the last ten
years and the present day-by-day changes which will occur
for at least one year.
d-7 Do the computer models of the port being contemplated
control the variables in wind velocity and direction?
d-8 A computer model for existing particulate emissions is
inadequate as it must be measured against a calibrating
sampling program. Do you agree?
d-9 What are the existing air quality problems?
d-10 The present coal port and phosphate transfer plant produce
substantial emissions which are visible. Will these be
considered also with the new phosphate emissions?
7
s

d-11 The particulate emissions seems to be increasing yearly.
Does the State have an inspection organization to check
compliance? If so, where is the organization located? How
often are inspections conducted and in what depth? When
notified of the time of arrival of a barge or rail car at
the Morehead City Port, what is the time required for the
inspection team to reach Morehead City from the home
office? Is there a plan to locate an inspection team in
Morehead City?
d-12 Present regulations address compliance with the Ringlemann
Chart which is based upon a single point source such as a
stack. Will modifications be made for light colored (not
black) emissions from an area source or many point
sources?
d-13 How is air quality affected by fugitive phosphate dust?
d-14 What are the levels of phosphate dust emitted by the
existing phosphate port operations?
d-15 How much worse will the problem of air pollution become
when NCPC begins making shipments to and from this port?
d-16 How effective are controls on particulate emissions?
d-17 Will any air quality permit existing facilities preclude
need for NCPC AQ permit?
d-18 We have been assured that the NCPS Air Quality Permit will
not be included under the SPA facility permit now in
progress. Can you officially reassure us that this is
indeed the case?
d-19 What measures will be taken to prevent fugitive phosphate
dust emissions?
d-20 What are the particulate emission rates allowed from each
emission point for each operation in handling the
phosphate at this facility?
d-21 Will an effective monitoring system be established?
Against what baseline?
d-22 What air quality monitoring will be performed? Who will do
the monitoring? How often? In light of the poor
monitoring at the existing phosphate and coal facilities,
what assurances can be given that an additional source
would be properly monitored?
d-23 There is only one satisfactory manner to determine the
volume of particulate emission leaving the property. And
that is high volume sampling by a third party contractor.
NCPC has indicated a willingness to pay for that. Will the
OCM contract for such an operation?
8
s
f
d-24 The Newport River estuary is the place of settlement for
phosphate dust, coal dust, and fertilizer dust. Will the
State conduct phosphate on-site measurements to serve as a
baseline?
'd-25 Will barges be covered? With what?
d-26 Can barges be made dust-proof? What about older equipment
that is damaged by the wind and normal wear and tear?
d-27 When shipped to the facility through Morehead City by rail
cars will there be a problem of phosphate rock dust? If
so, how extensive would the problem be, and what
procedures have been established to eliminate the problem?
d-28 Is the unloading station for rail cars designed to handle
phosphate rock? Is the unloading area enclosed? Will the
best "state of the art" devices for dust control be
utilized in the unloading area? If these controls are
found to be inadequate, will the N.C. Phosphate
Corporation initiate action to devise new and more
effective controls? Will the State require the N.C.
Phosphate Corporation to take this action?
d-29 Are the conveyors covered? What type of material is used
for the covers?
d-30 What effect does this dust have on cars, boats, and homes?
d-31 Will any phosphene be produced by phosphate operations at
Morehead City?
d-32 What effects will transportation associated with the
phosphate port have on air quality? How will highway
traffic, held up by trains, affect air quality?
d-33 A strong secondary source exists on the roadways of the
existing facility, both paved and unpaved. What can and
will be done to correct this?
d-34 A strong hydrocarbon situation exists within the SPA zone
derived from private sources. Has this been sampled? Will
it be? Will it be considered as ambient?
e. Water Quality.
e-1 What are the water quality impacts of construction and
operation?
e-2 What is the thermal range in the Newport River estuary?
9
w

e-3 What is the range of salinity in the Newport River estuary?
e-4 Will there be any impact from heavy metals (including
mercury) entering the water column due to dredging?
e-5 The applicant should determine the physical and chemical
composition of benthic sediments and surrounding waters
and the effects construction and maintenance activities
may have on them. The examination should include: (1) a
determination of the concentration of heavy metals
(including but not limited to mercury, cadmium, copper,
zinc, lead, arsenic and silver) in the subtrate; (2) water
column heavy metal concentrations and redeposition rate
resulting from dredging and disposal site effluent; and,
(3) water column heavy metal concentrations and
redeposition rate resulting from dredging and disposal
site effluent; and, (3) water column heavy metal
concentrations and redeposition rate resulting from
disposal site leaching.
e-6 How much of the phosphates released into the air will go
into the waters?
e-7 What will be the solubility of the phosphate shipped by
NCPC? How much phosphate would enter the Newport estuary
per..year? Is this significant? (If no, skip next 8
questions.)
e-8 What is the present loading rate (concentration x volume)
of dissolved inorganic phosphate (DIP) into the Newport
River estuary system from all sources, specifically:
(a) Continental shelf water.
(b) drainage basin runoff.
(c) sewage treatment systems.
(d) underground septic systems.
(e) the State Port?
e-9 Is productivity in the Newport River estuary system
limited by available nitrogen (N) or phosphorus (P)?
e-10 What are the short-time averaged N:P atom ratios in the
Newport River estuary system?
e-11 What increment in the DIP loading rate will the NCPC permit
allow?
e-12 What other nutrients or toxic materials are present in the
phosphate fertilizer? Specifically, how much nitrogen;
trace metals, and organic matter are contained in those
fertilizers and how might those contaminants affect
productivity and resultant water quality?
10
A
lie
e-13 What is currently done and/or proposed to minimize aerial
phosphate deposition in the Newport River estuary?
(Particularly during loading.)
e-14 How can we be assured that increased phosphorus loading
will not lead to the presence of noxious blue-green algae
blooms currently plaguing the Chowan and Neuse River
estuaries?
e-15 Is there any consideration for the dynamic hydrological
characteristics of the Newport River estuary with respect
to optimal or suboptimal loading periods? In other words,
will the degrees of freshwater throughput make the system
more or less sensitive or susceptible to pollution and
productivity changes from phosphorus inputs?
e-16 How is water quality affected by fugitive phosphate dust?
e-17 What will be the combined effects of current nitrogenous
inputs and new phosphate inputs into the Newport-Calico
ecosystem?
e-18 What effect will NCPC have on potential eutrophication or
nuisance algal growth of Newport River?
e-19 What is NCPC's contingency plan for phosphate ore spills
or fuel oil spills?
e-20 If the loading arm fails when a ship is being unloaded, how
many tons of phosphate per hour would be released into the
water before the flow could be shut off? A'e there
mechanisms in place dockside to catch these spills and
prevent some of the phosphate from entering the water?
What effect will these spills have on swimmers, skiers,
boaters, marine life, wildlife, and plant life?
e-21 Will there be phosphoric acid spills? How many are
expected? What would be their effects?
e-22 What will be total water consumption of project?
e-23 How many gallons of water per day will be required for the
NCPC facility? What quantity of wastewater will be
introduced into the Morehead City sewer system, and what
effect will it have on the system? What additional
chemicals will be required to treat this type wastewater?
Will this wastewater be treated prior to entering the
Town's sewer system?
e-24 How much groundwater will be used by NCPC facility?
11
j

e-25 Will NCPC facility affect groundwater?
e-26 How much can the beautiful river and estuary from Core
Creek to Morehead City tolerate in the way of wastes from
polluting vessels?
e-27 Will the secondary source emissions (now so prevalent)
escape the property through the storm drainage system into
the estuary? How can this be prevented?
f. Living Resources.
f-1 Significant issues which we believe should be addressed in
the draft EIS include discussions of:
- existing fish and wildlife resources of the area;
- potential impacts to fish and wildlife and their
habitat;
potential water quality impacts including those
associated with dredging and dredged material
disposal;
- secondary and cumulative impacts of the proposed
action;
- measures which could be taken to mitigate potential
environmental losses; and,
- endangered and threatened species of the project
area.
f-2 The draft EIS should address the value of the fragile and
productive waters of Calico Creek, the Newport River and
adjacent ocean.
f-3 Will the facility, through chronic or acute pollution,
adversely affect river, sound, or ocean fisheries that
support local fishermen and attract weekend, seasonal, and
trbunament fishermen?
f-4 What renewable living resources will be disturbed or
destroyed by dredging around Marsh Island? By spoil
disposal?
f-5 Would this project have an effect on any endangered or
threatened species?
f-6 What species that are now undergoing overall population
declines and/or are considered to be of special concern
status in North Carolina (Cooper, J.E., S.S. Robinson, and
J.B. Funderburg (Eds.). 1977. Endangered and Threatened
Plants and Animals of North Carolina. N.C. State Museum of
12

Natural History, Raleigh, NC.) will be affected by this
project?
f-7 Will rip-rap rocky substrate be changed?
f-8 Are there any colonial ground-nesting species of
waterbirds on Marsh Island? If so, what effects will the
proposed project have on these?
f-9 Phillips Island and "The Annex" (a dredge island along the
AIWW next to the Newport Marshes) together have one of the
largest nesting populations of colonial wading birds in
North Carolina (Parnell, James F. and Robert F. Scotts,
Jr. 1979. Atlas of Colonial Waterbirds of North Carolina
Estuaries. UNC-SG-78-10.) Would the proposed project
have any effect on these nesting colonies?
f-10 Will dredging affect larval transport in Calico Creek or
Newport River?
f-11 The expanse of marshes that lies to the north of the
proposed project, the Newport Marshes (locally called The
Haystacks), is a very productive shellfish area and is
also an important part of the local recreational fishery.
Would the proposed project have any effect on the ecology
of the Newport Marshes?
f-12 Of course, the proposed project is within a closed
shellfish area. However, it is an area that potentially
might be opened on occasion (such as during very dry
weather). Also the shellfish within this specific area
and the general closed area around Morehead City
contribute to the constant renewal of and large
populations of shellfish just outside the closed area. If
any commercially-important quantities of shellfish will be
directly affected by the proposed project, will these be
relocated?
f-13 Will dredging in Calico Creek affect shellfish leases in
Newport River, particularly by means of turbidity and
dispersion of pollutants now concentrated in sediments in
Calico Creek?
f-14 Will dredging change salinity patterns in estuaries,
thereby opening shellfish areas to predators?
f-15 Other investigators have shown that particulate emissions
of up to 100 tons a year can enter the estuary. What will
be the effects of this upon the lower bioaccumulative
flora and fauna?
f-16 Has the estuary been affected by the now documented
volumes of the fertilizer elements that have entered the
estuary?
13

j
f-17 What qualitative and quantitative impacts do current and
proposed aerial and runoff loadings of phosphate
fertilizer have on productivity (both primary and
secondary) of the Newport River estuary as well as
neighboring sound systems?
f-18 What are the potential retention characteristics of
estuarine marshes and intertidal mud and sand flats for
phosphorus loadings originating from the Morehead City
harbor?

f-19 What will be the effect of organic phosphate on living
organisms? Will NCPC produce any organic phosphates or
phosphoric acid directly or indirectly?
f-20 What data is available on the productivity decline
reported by fishermen and shellfish lessees in the'
estuary?
f-21 How will NCPC measure the changes in shellfish and fish
catch due to phosphate loading into the waters?
f-22 Are recent deposits of phosphate dust as sediments in
Calico Creek responsible for the drop in crab populations
in the Yacht basin in the past two years? What is the
effect on the Newport River?
f-23 How has the effect of phosphate dust blown in the Newport
River been evaluated with regards to the shellfish and
finfish production. What would be the projected results
of tests on core samples taken from the Newport River
estuary now and 20 years from now?
f-24 Marshes are the State's responsibility. Can we be sure
that our State agencies are protecting them?
f-25 What will be the effect of NCPC's action on wildlife?
g. Dredging.
g-1 The draft EIS should provide appropriate information on
all lands, waters and bottomlands which may be impacted by
the project. This information should include locations,
acreage estimates, nature of dredged material including
depths and volumes, if applicable. In those areas
proposed for dredging, filling or construction, the
applicant should describe the vegetative community which
will be impacted and all indigenous and migratory fish and
wildlife species which are of ecological concern,
including indicator, unique, and endangered and threatened
species, as well as those species which are of economic
interest. In identifying the various habitats and
species, the applicant should provide reasonable
descriptions of species diversity, overall environmental
14

quality of the area, and anticipated impacts on those
resources to be affected by each of the various
alternatives.
g-2 The draft EIS should address the water-dependency of the
proposed work, the duration and time of year the work will
be performed and the projected frequency and time of year
maintenance activities will occur.
g-3 What will be the long-term dredging schedule? What will be
the spoil disposal sites for the expected life of the
facility?
g-4 How much spoil will be generated, where will it be placed,
and what will be the effects of such placement?
g-5 What is. the Corps of Engineers' schedule for dredging.
Calico Creek?
g-6 Do you or the Corps of Engineers foresee deepening or
widening of the Intracoastal Waterway through the Newport
River reaches?
g-7 What is the maintenance schedule for dredging?
g-8 Will you provide an estimate of the total amounts of spoils
obtained during original deepening and construction (cu.
yds.) and amounts during maintenance and the expected
frequency of maintenance?
g-9 What is the expected cost of dredging, engineering,
planning, and on-site work for initial operation? Who
will pay for this?
g-10 What will be public costs for dredging to benefit NCPC?
g-11 Will the channel or banks require annual maintenance?
What are the annual costs and who will pay for them?
g-12 Will altered portion of Calico Channel cause troublesome
shoaling at west end of widened channel?
g-13 Has a tidal prism analysis been made for the effects of
widening and deepening the Calico Creek cut?
g-14 What will be the effect of the dredging and reshaping of
Marsh Island on current flow and silting both upstream and
downstream Calico Creek?
g-15 Will the meander effect created at the west end of the
Marsh Island cut and its subsequent realigning of the
channel:
15

Deny access and normal use to any upstream user?
Alter the marine environment that could affect marine
life upstream including fishing, crabbing and shrimp
nursery areas?
h. Transportation.
h-1 How will the phosphate products reach the NCPC facility?
Give specific planned routes.
h-2 What barge, rail, or highway traffic will result from
NCPC?
h-3 How many rail cars, trains, and other rail traffic does
NCPC propose to ship to the State Port area facility?
h-4 Describe the barges and tugs to be used for transport from
Aurora to Morehead City.
h-5 Has a study been made of transportation on the
Intracoastal Waterway?
h-6 How many other barges and other vessels also use the same
stretch of waterway?
h-7 Where do people live along the waterway and what will be
the effects of phosphate shipments on them?
h-8 For each bridge and other structure (including docks) what
will be the effect of increasing the number of barges along
the waterway?
h-9 How much phosphates and related products will each barge
contain?
h-10 What is the maximum time required for receipt of barge at
the terminal, transfer to NCPC storage silos, transfer to
the port storage system and final transfer to outgoing
ships? How many barges will be scheduled per day? What is
the number of barges anticipated per year? What effect
will this additional water traffic have on the present
water traffic of fishermen, tourists, and commercial
shipments of various commodities? What procedures are in
place for lightering a stranded vessel in the event of
accidental grounding of a ship or barge? What procedures
are in place for reducing the effect of a spill?
h-11 Will increased barge traffic create congestion in the
AIWW? How will it change the frequency of bridge openings
on NC 101 at Core Creek? (Current values, projected values
without NCPC, and seasonal variation should be included.)
What additional vehicular traffic delays would be expected
at the bridge? Would there be any emergency vehicle (fire,
sheriff, ambulance) delays?
16

h-12 Will the NCPC facility or operations (including entire
barge route) interfere with recreational boating? Will
construction interfere?
h-13 What will be the effect on the safety of recreational
boaters. with the increased barge traffic in the
Intercoastal Waterway and surrounding the Calico Creek
area?
h-14 What will be the effect on commercial and military
traffic?
h-15 How many accidents occur each year on that stretch of the
waterway and what were the causes of each?
h-16 How many additional accidents does NCPC foresee by
increasing the waterborne shipments and what will be the
causes of each?
h-17 What effect will NCPC have on current and planned military
use of the port?
h-18 Will you define the marine traffic problem at Core Creek?
Also, at the Calico Creek location of the yacht basin and
the U.S. Army reserve detachment? And at the proposed
marshalling docks just east of Marsh Island?
h-19 Will tugboats making turn for NCPC operations create
shoaling problems at mouth of Channel leading to Morehead
City Yacht Basin?
h-20 Describe the 'wake effect' of the tugs upon yachts
entering and leaving the Morehead City Yacht Basin. Will
there be a reflection from the 'rip-rap' on Marsh Island or
port bulkhead?
h-21 Will Calico Channel permit simultaneous movement of both
NCPC barges and Army Reserve boats? Will boats docked at
Corps of Engineers dock be jeopardized?
h-22 Does NCPC plan to ship any products by rail to or from the
SPA property?
h-23 How much phosphate material will each rail car contain?
h-24 How many other rail cars, etc., presently use the rail line
from Aurora to the port or vice versa?
h-25 Will NCPC generate any train traffic through New Bern? If
so, how much and how often?
h-26 What is the maximum time required for receipt of rail cars,
transfer of phosphate to NCPC storage silos, subsequent
transfer to the port storage system, and final transfer to
17

outgoing ships? How many rail cars of phosphate per day
are planned for this facility? What effect will these rail
shipments have when added to the present and planned rail
shipments of fuel, coal, grain, and other products through
the Town of Morehead City? What short range and long range
plans does the State have to solve the Morehead City
vehicular and pedestrian traffic problems that will be
caused by additional rail shipments of phosphate? Routine
vehicular and pedestrian traffic as well as emergency fire
and rescue traffic problems must be addressed in order to
insure the safety of Morehead City citizens and visitors.
h-27 Will the State's conveyor system be used for both
phosphate and coal? If so, what arrangements will be made
among the NCPC, Texasgulf Corp., Morehead City Coal
Terminal, the State of North Carolina and others, to
schedule transfers from the storage system to the outgoing
ships in a manner - for the minimum cars to remain on the
premises awaiting time and space for unloading
commodities? This question also applies to the most
efficient scheduling to prevent traffic congestion in
downtown Morehead City when "making up the trains" for
departure from Morehead City.
h-28 What effect, if any, will the storage structures have on
the operation of the Beaufort/Morehead airport and its
instrument approach procedures?
i. Aesthetics.
i-1 What will be the aesthetic impact of the facilities on
adjoining non-port property during construction? During
operation? What measures can be taken to reduce the visual
impact of the storage silos? What will be the
compatibility of the scale, texture, and color of the
proposed facilities with the port area and with the
surrounding community (including both existing and
proposed development)?
i-2 How will the proposed condominium projects, marinas,
restaurants, and tourist attractions in the immediate area
to be affected? Will the odor, dust, and visible handicaps
lower the use of the area by tourists?
i-3 What will be the predicted aesthetic effect on the visual
environment of the Morehead City/Beaufort/Atlantic Beach
waterfront areas?
i-4 Are silos a significant alteration of the existing
Morehead City skyline?
i-5 What alternatives are there to the sixteen 153' high
silos? Are some alternatives less intrusive than others?
18

i-6 What off-site sensory impacts will NCPC facility have?
Include smell, sight, sound, touch, and taste. Include
duration and timing.
i-7 What odor will the facility produce?
i-8 What will be the visual impact on the surrounding
community:
- Of the buildings?
- Of blowing dust?
i-9 Will visibility and clarity of the air be reduced?
i-10 How much noise pollution will be created:
- By the unloading from barges operation (blowers,
etc)?
- In transshipment and storage?
Consider the effect on neighboring residences, businesses,
and on marine and animal life.
i-11 How much noise will the NCPC barge traffic add along the
AIWW?
j. Socio-economics.
j-1 A socio-economic benefit analysis must be included as part
of your environmental report. Among other things, it must
specifically address tax revenues, costs to" units of
government, downtown revitalization, and tourism.
j-2 The purpose of benefit cost analysis is to determine
distribution of benefits arising from the project, in
order to demonstrate income flows from private investment
and from public cost required to support these private
investments.
Analysis of the following should be included in any
economic study:
Transportation/ shipping phosphate by rail.
Long-term need for bulk exporting and competitive
status at Morehead City Port.
Competition within the port - will one commodity
cause losses of other commodities?
Jobs gained/Jobs lost.
What taxes will be paid? County? State? Federal?
What county services will be required?
- Effects on fisheries, tourism, and development?
19
7

Retirement income to County.
What will the effect of more coal and phosphate
trains be upon Morehead City, Beaufort, and Atlantic
Beach in terms of traffic, water mains, sewer lines,
property values, hospital access, fire and emergency
vehicles?
j-3 The National Regional Impact Evaluation System, developed
by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Dept. of
Commerce suggests that the appropriate methodology for
assessing the effects of a public investment incorporates
a "With and Without" framework. This framework allows
decision-makers to see the local economy with the proposed
investment, and without the investment, which is much
different from a "Before and After" framework. In
accordance with the suggested BEA methodology, assess:
(a) The potential elimination of jobs in research-related
facilities as a result of bulk port development; the
type of jobs eliminated including the salary
structure, career advancement paths, and fringe
benefits.
(b) The opportunity costs to both tourists and the local
economy resulting from train delays; i.e. the
appropriate valuation of time from the vantage point
of the tourist, and the valuation from the point of
view of local merchants, for time a tourist spends at
a crossing.
(c) The future of the regional economy in twenty years
without the additional phosphate export facility.
(d) The magnitude of compensation required to bring the
local economy to a point no worse off in twenty than
it would be without the bulk export facility.
j-4 Give a complete discussion of costs and benefits,
including definition of 'who pays the costs, and who reaps
the benefits'? Tell why this project is necessary on a
national level, and why existing bulk handling ports are
unable to cope/discuss the world export phosphate market,
as well as the economics of rail and barge transport to
Morehead City, rather than to the Chesapeake ports, or by
barge to the Gulf of Mexico.
j-5 Will the socio-economic costs and environmental damage
caused by this project overwhelm any benefits?
j-6 What are direct and indirect cost-benefit ratios?
j-7 What will be economic benefits of NCPC to Morehead City
area?
20
ti

j-8 How will the facility provide an overall economic boost to
Carteret County?
j-9 Will the construction of the new phosphate facility have a
net positive or negative economic impact on the towns of
Atlantic Beach, Morehead City, and Beaufort?
j-10 Why should a county that has an economic base centered in
tourism and fishing, which flourish best in a clean,
quiet, unspoiled environment, away from dirt and noise of
urban, industrialized settings, encourage, of all things,
a bulk export facility in the very hub of its tourist
attractions?
j-11 What are the basic feelings of local residents, and local
businesses, about development of the SPA property as a
bulk export facility?
j-12 As the Morehead City area becomes increasingly
industrialized, will the shellfish, fishing, and research
industries be overwhelmed and crippled by other interests
favoring increased industrialization?
j-13 How many and what sort of jobs will NCPC create?
j-14 What is the potential for new jobs? How many jobs will be
permanent and how many will be temporary?
j-15 List jobs available during operation of the bulk export
facility. Include skills required, skills trained for,
rate of pay, total man-hours.
j-16 Give the baseline data for salaries in Carteret County,
and how that data might change with the construction and
operation of the proposed phosphate export facility.
j-17 How many of these jobs operating the facility will be
filled locally, and how many will be imported from outside
Carteret County?
j-18 What is the population trend in Carteret County? What
attracts residents and visitors to this area?
j-19 What is the total water-related employment in Carteret
County?
j-20 What is the value of dockside fish and shellfish landings
in the Beaufort/Morehead City/Atlantic Beach area?
j-21 What will the economic loss to local fishermen due to
increased dredging, and the construction and operation of
the facility?
21

j-22 If the construction force is in-migrant, will the local
housing be able to absorb these workers, especially during
the peak summer vacation months?
j-23 What will be effect of NCPC facility on growth of other
economic sectors in Morehead City area?
j-24 How much will the facility contribute to Carteret County,
state, and federal tax revenues?
j-25 What will be total effects of NCPC on tax base of Morehead
City and Carteret County?
j-26 Will the facility contribute to 'a change in personal
property taxes?
j-27 What county and city services will the facility require?
j-28 What new services will the county have to provide to the
facility and its influx of employees?
j-29 What impact will the facility and its influx of worker have
on the county school system?
j-30 What police protection will be provided to the facility?
How much will it cost to provide adequate fire protection?
j-31 What public services will the facility contribute to the
community?
j-32 What impacts will the facility have, directly and
indirectly, on tourism? In Morehead City? In Beaufort?
In New Bern? on Bogue Banks?
j-33 Will odor, dust, and visual handicaps lower the use of
hotels, motels, cottages, restaurants, and/or marinas in
Carteret County?
j-34 What impact will the facility have on Carteret County's
retired people?
j-35 Will the facility affect the five marine biology research
labs in the county? What are the salaries paid in the
labs? How much do the labs spend in local purchases?
j-36 Will pollution drive away these clean research labs, which
are. located in this area precisely because of the
relatively unspoiled nature of the environment?
j-37 How far from the site of the facility will the effects of
air-borne dust be discernible?
j-38 How will air-borne dust affect tourism in Morehead City,
Beaufort, and on Bogue Banks?
22
t
j-39 How will NCPC affect Morehead City Waterfront
revitalization project?
j-40 Real estate developers along the Newport River indicate
that it could slow or cancel further tourist development.
Do you agree? If not, explain.
j-41 How will NCPC measure any changes in tourism due to
phosphate loading into the waters and air?
j-42 A permitted and now in construction condominium project
immediately north of your proposed location predicts that
the sales and rentals will be adversely affected. Do you
agree? If not, explain.
j?-43 What will be the impact of NCPC on the two condominium
projects nearby?
j-44 How will silos and conveyors affect sales of condominiums?
j-45 What justification is there for the silos being.taller
than the existing Texasgulf A-frame facility?
j-46 Morehead City has three permitted planned development
districts for luxury condominiums. They are Leeward
Harbor and Portside on Bogue Sound and Haystacks on
Newport River. The three projects are near the proposed
phosphate facility which will contain 16 silos 120 feet in
height plus 12 feet for conveyors (132 feet overall
height) and diameter 65 feet. How will these unsightly
silos affect the sales and rentals of the condominiums?
What. effect will the particulate emissions have on the
people living in the condominiums? What effect will it
have on the buildings and surrounding properties?
j-47 Who in the state of North Carolina is affected by this
project?
k. Health and Safety.
k-1 Is Morehead City's fire and rescue equipment adequate to
meet the needs of this type facility? If not, will NCPC
and/or the State of North Carolina furnish financial aid
to the Town for additional fire and rescue equipment?
k-2 What. is the rate of combustion for phosphate? What special
equipment and chemicals are required to extinguish a
phosphate fire? Will pamphlets and special training be
provided for fire, rescue, and police personnel? Will
this type of fire cause the evacuation of people from the
city, and if so, what would be considered a safe distance?
k-3 What health risks might result from operation of the NCPC
facility?
23

k-4 The N. C. State Department of Health has conducted a
sampling and analysis program relative to 'on ground'
phosphate. What are those results?
k-5 Are there any studies which document the long-term effects
of low level exposure to phosphate particles on the
residents?
k-6 What health and safety measures have been taken to protect
the employees handling the phosphate operations, spills,
cleanup, etc? What has been done or will be done to
protect the other employees at the port and the military
personnel who are exposed to the phosphate emissions?
k-7 What health risks are associated with exposure to fugitive
phosphate dust?
k-8 What is the human safe exposure level for phosphate dust?
k-9 What are the "safe" levels of dust concentrations in the
air. and water and how were these levels determined to be
safe?
- Since uranium is found in significant amounts in some
phosphates consider possible contamination from any
dangerous secondary elements.
What will be the effect of artifical phosphate
enrichment of the air, soil and water?
What will be the effect on the ecology of the area
through stimulation of algae and other abnormal plant
growth?
What will be the effect on marine life both directly
from phosphate and from the altered ph of the water
from phosphoric acid?
Will there be a "domino" effect from a change in one
portion of the food or life cycle that might affect
other portions?
At what levels is phosphate poisonous to humans?
Does it accumulate in the system like arsenic or does
the body eliminate all that is injested?
What is the effect of the creation of phosphoric
acids in the mouth, throat, esophagus, sinuses, and
lungs through ingested phosphate (phosphoric oxides)
mixing with body fluids?
What is the effect of phosphate and its acids on
structures, autos, boats, painted surfaces, etc.?
24

k-10 Are uranium or other harmful products present in N.C.
phosphate?
k-11 Is there any radioactive hazard from phosphate ore?
k-12 What would be the risk of a civilian or military aircraft
crashing into the NCPC facility? Would such an accident
cause water pollution?
1. Soil.
1-1 What level of soil contamination is expected from
phosphate particulates from NCPC operations? Would this
level have significant impacts? How large an area around
the facility would be affected?
1-2 What effect will phosphate dust have on soils?
M. Alternatives.
m-1 What alternatives have been considered? What advantages
and disadvantages do they offer? Here is a minimal list of
types. of alternatives that your ER should include:
Alternatives on same site
Alternative sites at Morehead City
Alternative sites at other ports
Alternative technologies
Alternative products to ship
Rail alternative
Slurry pipeline alternative
.Shared terminal with Texasgulf
No action
m-2 The draft EIS should address alternative construction
sites considered by the applicant and reasons why the
proposed site was selected.
m-3 Describe in detail the economic environmental factors that
led to the selection of Morehead City as the terminal site.
Include effects on Newport River estuary.
m-4 What alternatives are being considered to Morehead City?
Give cost analysis of each alternative.
m-5 What are alternatives to continued and increased use of
Morehead City for bulk phosphate? What are their costs?
m-6 The existing design of 16 silos at 132' height is not
compatible with the planned and the permitted luxury
condominiums to be built across the highway from the
planned phosphate terminal. Can design be changed to be
more in harmony with existing and future development?
25

m-7 What is the cost of shipping each bargeload of phosphate
material from Aurora to the site at the State Port area?
m,8 What would be the cost of shipping by rail or barge the
same phosphate material north to the Virginia ports or
south to Wilmington?
m-9 At the Virginia ports, would NCPC need to construct a
facility for loading and unloading phosphates? If so, how
much would it cost?
m-10 What is the cost of transporting each carload of phosphate
material from Aurora to the State Port area?
n. Unavoidable Losses.
n-l What unavoidable losses will be caused by the construction
or operation of the NCPC facility?
o. Mitigation.
o-1 What measures will be undertaken by NCPC to mitigate any
unavoidable losses?
o-2 If the dust soils cars, boats, and homes, how will owners
be compensated?
o-3 Who will pay for the jobs, businesses, and residences
displaced by operation of the facility?
o-4 Will NCPC compensate any tourist-related industry or local
residents for loss of business due to increased phosphate
in the environment?
o-5 Will NCPC compensate any fisherman for the resulting loss
of income caused by reduced catch?
o-6 Will NCPC replace any of the wetland areas they will fill
or dredges for the faiility at the State Port area?
o-7 How, does NCPC propose to mitigate any loss of wetlands?
o-8 For mitigation purposes, how does NCPC define a wetland
area (including the nature of the vegetation, the animal
life present, effects on shellfish and fish production,
etc.)?
o-9 How will NCPC monitor any man-made wetlands areas they
create to mitigate the detrimental effects of disturbing
other wetlands?
o-10 What will be the effect of replacing naturally occurring
wetlands with man-made wetlands on the fishing and
shellfishing industries?
26
v
o-11 Does a man-made wetlands area become the equivalent of a
naturally occurring wetlands area or does it revert back
to open water?
o-12 Has NCPC, the State, or anyone else studied the long-term
changes associated with man-made wetlands? If so, what
have been the results of those tests?
27

4. Table of Contents for EIS.
Environmental Impact Statement for
N. C. Phosphate Corporation's Proposed Terminal
at Morehead City, N. C.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(1) Cover Sheet
(2) Summary of EIS (including list of all federal, state, and local
permits, licenses, certifications, and other approvals which must be
obtained in implementing the proposal, including maps of preferred
alternative)
(3) Purpose and Need
(4) Alternatives Including Proposed Activity
(a) Description and evaluation of all reasonable alternatives,
including, those outside OCM jurisdiction and the no-action
alternative (as quantitative as possible, in comparative form)
(b) Reasons for elimination of alternatives (brief discussion)
(c) Preferred alternative(s)
(d) Appropriate mitigation measures.
(5) Affected Environment (succinct, length of;treatment proportional to
importance of.impact, material incorporated by reference so long as
clarity not sacrificed)
(6) Environmental Consequences
(a) Air Quality
(1) Direct effects and significance
(2) Indirect effects and significance
(3) Possible conflicts between proposed activities and the
objectives of federal, state, and local plans, policies
and controls for the affected area.
(4) Unavoidable adverse environmental effects, with note taken
of irreversible and irretrievable changes.
(5) Mitigation measures proposed.
(b) Water Quality
(1) Direct effects and significance
(2) Indirect effects and significance
(3) Possible conflicts between proposed activities and the
objectives of federal, state, and local plans, policies,
and controls for the affected area
28

(4) Unavoidable adverse environmental effects, with note taken
of irreversible and irretrievable changes
(5) Mitigation measures proposed
(c) Living Resources
(1) Direct effects and significance
(2) Indirect effects and significance
(3) Possible conflicts between proposed activities and the
objectives of federal, state, and local plans, policies
and controls for the affected area.
(4) Unavoidable adverse environmental effects, with note taken
of irreversible and irretrievable changes.
(5) Mitigation measures proposed.
(d) Dredging
(1) Direct effects and significance
(2) Indirect effects and significance
(3) Possible conflicts between proposed activities and the
objectives of federal, state, and local plans, policies
and controls for the affected area.
(4) Unavoidable adverse environmental effects, with note taken
of irreversible and irretrievable changes.
(5) Mitigation measures proposed.
(e) Transportation
(1) Direct effects and significance
(2) Indirect effects and significance
(3) Possible conflicts between proposed activities and the
objectives of federal, state, and local plans, policies
and controls for the affected area.
(4) Unavoidable adverse environmental effects, with note taken
of irreversible and irretrievable changes.
(5) Mitigation measures proposed.
(f) Aesthetics
(1) Direct effects and significance
(2) Indirect effects and significance
(3) Possible conflicts between proposed activities and the
objectives of federal, state., and local plans, policies
and controls for the affected area.
(4) Unavoidable adverse environmental effects, with note taken
of irreversible and irretrievable changes.
(5) Mitigation measures proposed.
(g) Socio-economics
(1) Direct effects and significance
29

(h)
(2) Indirect effects and significance
(3 Possible conflicts between proposed activities and the
objectives of federal, state, and local plans, policies
and controls for the affected area.
(4) Unavoidable adverse environmental effects, with note taken
of irreversible and irretrievable changes.
(5) Mitigation measures proposed.
Health and Safety
(1) Direct effects and significance
(2) Indirect effects and significance
(3) Possible conflicts between proposed activities and the
objectives of federal, state, and local plans, policies
and controls for the affected area.
(4) Unavoidable adverse environmental effects, with note taken
of irreversible and irretrievable changes.
(5) Mitigation measures proposed.
(i) Soil
(1) Direct effects and significance
(2) Indirect effects and significance
(3) Possible conflicts between. proposed activities and the
objectives of federal, state,: and local plans, policies
and controls for the affected area.
(4) Unavoidable adverse environmental effects, with note taken
of-irreversible and irretrievable changes.
(5) Mitigation measures proposed.
(7) Coordination and Consultation.
(8) List of Preparers (including qualifications of persons primarily
responsible for preparing EIS)
(9) Appendix (if needed for additional materials substantiating
analysis).
30

5. List of Participants in Sco in Process. Further information on
parti "pants comments is available from OCM.
a. Attendees at Public Scoping Meeting, Morehead City,
November 10, 1983: (Speakers denoted by asterisk.)
*Abernethy, Clint (N.C.
Armstrong, Sarah
*Banks, Steve
Barber, Richard T.
Barselow, Edward R.
Benjamin, Lucy M.
*Birk, Bob
Burt, Dottie
Callaway, Clark
Carpenter, Rann
Cochran, W.C.
Dabney, L.M.
Day, Viola
Denby, Charles J.
Dickens, Y.L.
Donavin, Dorothy W.
Flournoy, William L.,
Fussell, John 0., III
Fussell, M. Frances
Gillikin, Berkley R.
Gillikin, Norman D.
Grosz, Ward (NCPC)
Hamilton, Sarah
Department of Commerce)
Jr.
*Hammond, George H. (Carteret County Crossroads)
Harris, C. David
Hinkle, Raymond L.
Holcolm, Sam
^Hooper, Ann M. (Carteret County Crossroads)
*Hooper, Catherine
Hooper, I.R.
Hoss, Don
^.Ipock, Dorothy H.
Jaconis
Jones, Charles
Kerwin, Paul C.
Kilpatrick, Tom
Kindell, Patricia
Kues, Eddy
Kues, Gregg
.Madden, Cecil
.McMillan, John B.
:McQuaid, Tom
Mercer, Douglas
%,Miller, Carrie (Craven County Crossroads)
Miller, Charles
%?Miller, Todd (N.C. Coastal Federation)
31
Mitchell, Mary C.
Moore, Sheppard N.
l Newton, Bob (U.S. Army Reserve)
O'Brien, William E.
Parker, Les
Pate, Preston P.
Perkins, Richard B.
Perry, Thelma
Procter, R.W.
Ramus, Joseph
Reusch, Wilma J.
Sewell, Cecil
*Singer, Oswald
Small, Daniel L.
'Smith, James F. (N.C. Office of Coastal Management)
Stevens, Roy A.
*Uhlman, Ted
Umfleet, Ruth
Walker, Rusty
Walsh, Mrs. Chester
Watson, Charles T.
Webster,. Lillian M.
*Willett, Geoffrey (moderator, N.C. Office of
Coastal Management)
*Williams, Kathleen
*Williams, Robert E. (Haystacks)
*Willis, Ruth (Town of Morehead City)
Wood, George
Morehead City Yacht Basin
Morehead Machine Shop
b. State and Federal Agencies Commenting. This list includes
agencies commenting prior to start of EIS process. Primary
contact person is listed in parentheses. for each agency.
(1) State agencies
Department of Administration
State Property Office (Rupert Conyers)
State Clearinghouse (Chrys Baggett)
Department of Commerce
State Ports Authority (R.F. Goins)
Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives & History (Renee Gledhill-
Early)
Department of Human Resources
Division of Health Services (Bob Arnold)
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Community Assistance (Tom Cassell)
Division of Environmental Management
Air Quality (Mike Sewell)
Water Quality (Cecil Madden)
32
r
Division of Land Resources (Gerald Kraynak)
Division of Marine Fisheries (Dennie Spitsbergen)
Division of Wildlife Resources (Keith Ashley)
Office of Coastal Management
Field Services (Charles Jones)
Permit Coordinator (George Wood)
EIS Coordinator (Jim Smith)
Office of Water Resources (Bobby Pelligrini)
Natural Resources Planning and Assessment
(Bill Flournoy)
Department of Transportation (A.L. Hankins)
(2) Federal agencies
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
(Frank Yelverton/Bob Johnson)
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
(Shep Moore)
National Marine Fisheries Service
(Ron Sechler)
U.S. Coast Guard (Lt. G.A..Reed)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Ries Collier)
C. Written Scoping Comments
Mr. and Mrs. Charles G. Watkins letter of 11/10/83
Mrs. Margaret A. Rose letter of 11/10/83
Mr. Haywood Weeks letter of 11/10/83
Mrs. Catherine Hooper letter of 11/15/83
Dr. Joe Ramus letter of 11/16/83
Mr. John Runkle, Conservation Council of N.C.,
letter of 11/17/83
Mr. Richard Bell letter of 11/17/83
Mrs. Ruth M. Willis, Morehead City Town Council
lettet of 11/16/83
Ms. Dorothy H. Ipock letter of 11/16/83
Mr. Paul C. Kerwin letter of 11/16/83
Ms. Ann Hooper and Mr. George Hammond, Carteret County
Crossroads, letter of 11/16/83
Mr. Ries S. Collier, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
letter of 11/15/83
33