19920039 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19920101

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Ja s B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Way a McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E„ Director
I
Mr. Jeffrey Furness
PCS Phosphate
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, NC 27806
Dear Mr. Furness:
Re: Mitigation plan approval
Whitehurst Creek relocation
Beaufort County
DWQ 92039
ED EHNR
November 19, 1997
On December 12, 1996, DWQ issued a revised Certification for the relocation of the
upper portion of Whitehurst Creek. A condition of that Certification was that additional
written approval was required for the mitigation plan. That plan (dated February 10, 1997)
was received by DWQ. This plan is acceptable to DWQ to meet the additional condition of
Certification Number 2748. All other conditions of that Certification are still applicable.
Please call Mr. John Dorney at [phone] if you have any questions.
,
Pssttoon y,
Toward, Jr., 'PA
cc: Washington DWQ Regional Office
Central Files `
Tracey Davis; Division of Land Resources
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action: Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

6'44
4

l
Y
t
Februa4l0, 1997
+r
PCS
Phosphate VAURORA DIVISION
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC 27806
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Dept. of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Domey:
C? ??,e I?? ? ? \ UU

RECEIVED
NO'v 1997,
ENV1RONMENTACSCIENCES
A modification to the 401 Water Quality Certification for Whitehurst Creek was issued by the
Division of Water Quality on December 12, 1996. A stipulation of the modification was that a
final mitigation plan for all wetland and stream mitigation must be submitted within two months.
Enclosed please find two copies of the mitigation plan. The plan consists of a narrative portion
and a set of five large drawings. The narrative describes the tree planting specifications,
monitoring plans and success criteria, and the drawings (labeled figures 1-5) show the plans for
different parts of the project.
If you have any questions on this plan, please call me at 919/322-8249. When you indicate your
approval of this plan, it will be submitted to the Division of Land Resources for incorporation
into the reclamation portion of our mining permit.
Sincerely,
? •us?
f
frey C. Furness
JCF/re
Enclosures
PC: Tracey Davis - DLR, Raleigh (w/o encl)
W. A. Schimming (w/encl)
P. J. Moffett (w/encl)
D. J. Millman (w/encl)
1t1ips/12-01-004-26 (w/encl)
B. W. Bolick - CZR (w/encl)
00-14-000 (w/o encl)
a
e
Mitigation Plan for the
Whitehurst Creek Channel
Beaufort County, North Carolina

PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
February 1997
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION `
On April 24, 1992 PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. (PCS Phosphate)
submitted an application for a 401 Water Quality Certification to the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) to impact a portion of the
channelized drainage of Whitehurst Creek. Approval of the 401 was issued
on June 30, 1992, and a mitigation channel was constructed. A
modification to the 401, to relocate a portion of the mitigation channel, was
requested on December 15, 1994 and approved on May 30, 1995. A second
modification was requested on May 28, 1996, which involved leaving the
current Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel in place, construction of a new
channel through reclaimed land, and a change in the date for the whole
channel system to be tied together and complete. This request was approved
by DWQ and resulted in the issuance of a modified 401 on December 12,
1996. This 401 Certification required that a mitigation plan for Whitehurst
Creek be submitted to DWQ for approval within two months of the date of
the modification approval.
_ This document is the proposed mitigation plan as specified in the 401
Certification conditions. The Whitehurst Creek mitigation project consists
of three distinct but integrated areas, shown in the large drawing labeled
Figure 1. The first is the 10-foot wide stream channel itself, which consists
of an east prong, (Figure 2), which was completed in August 1995, and a
west prong (Figures 3 and 4). The second is the flat floodplain areas
adjacent to the west prong and at the confluence of the east and west prongs
(Figures 3 and 4). Third is a headwater area located at the extreme upper
end of the east prong (Figure 5 ).
2.0 STREAM CHANNEL MONITORING
2.1 Water Quality. The parameters to be monitored include dissolved
oxygen, temperature, pH, conductivity, fluoride and total phosphorus.
Water quality monitoring has been done on a monthly basis in the east
prong for several years. Monitoring water quality in the west prong will
begin one month after it is tied-in to lower Whitehurst Creek, which must be
done by June 4, 2003. Samples will be collected from two locations in each
prong, one near the upper ends and one nearer the lower ends.
4

2.2 Fish. Fish sampling will be conducted during winter (February) and
summer (July) using a backpack electroshocker at an upstream and a
downstream location in each prong. This sampling is presently occurring in
the eastern prong, and will begin in the western prong following tie-in.
Samples will be taken over two 600-foot segments at each site, with
upstream and downstream blocknets used when needed. Fish collected will
be identified, measured, and either kept as vouchers or released. Voucher
specimens will be preserved in 10 percent formalin and transferred to 95
percent denatured ethanol after 48 hours. The created stream channels will
be considered successful when there is no greater than 25 percent reduction
in the total number of species found before mining.
2.3 Benthic Macro invertebrates. Qualitative macroinvertebrate sampling
will be conducted during winter and summer at an upstream and a
downstream location in each prong. Nine standing sweep net samples will
be taken at each site for each seasonal survey. These samples will be hand-
sorted in the field and all macroinvertebrates collected preserved in 10
percent formalin. Additional macroinvertebrates will be collected from log
washes and rubs as well as by incidental captures made during visual
searches. All specimens will be transferred to 95 percent denatured ethanol
in the lab. Macroinvertebrates will be identified to lowest reasonable taxa
within each group. Taxa identification for specimens collected in the
surveys will rely primarily on Brigham et al (1982), and will be based on
the level of effort established by DWQ during their sampling of Whitehurst
Creek in February 1992. The created stream channels will be considered
successful when there is no greater than 25 percent reduction in the total
number of genera (or species where identification is feasible) found before
mining. Monitoring will continue until this success criterion is met or until
the DWQ concurs that the benthic macroinvertebrate community has
successfully recolonized, whichever is sooner.
3.0 BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD WETLAND MONITORING
The monitoring of the floodplain wetland that will be created adjacent
to the stream channel will be based on the Compensatory Hardwood
Mitigation Guidelines published by the Wilmington District of the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
2

tr;
i
3.1 Planting Specifications. Hardwood trees will be planted at a density
of at least 400 trees per acre. The initial planting goal is 20 percent
containerized and 80 percent bare root seedlings, but may be modified
depending on ability to install the larger trees. Tree species on the lowest
floodplain areas may include bald cypress, green ash, water tupelo and
overcup oak. Tree species on the higher floodplain areas will include, but
not be limited to, willow oak, laurel oak, swamp chestnut oak, water oak,
cherrybark oak, river birch and blackgum. Trees will be planted in the west
prong floodplain in February 1998, and in the floodplain area at the
confluence of the east and west prongs by February 2003.
3.2 Tree Monitoring and Success Criteria. Tree success will be
monitored with tree transects scattered throughout the floodplain area.
Success is measured by tree survival and species composition. Average tree
density will be at least 320 planted trees/acre at the end of the third growing
season. At least six species of planted hardwood trees will be present at the
end of the third growing season (with bald cypress considered hardwood).
3.3 _ Hydrology Monitoring and Success Criteria. The hydrology of the
bottomland hardwood floodplain areas will be monitored with 24-inch wells
spaced within the floodplain and checked periodically throughout the
growing season. On most areas, the hydrology should meet or exceed the
level of 12.5 percent of the growing season as specified in the Corps of
Engineers Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines. Wetland
restoration sites that are inundated or saturated to the surface for a
consecutive number of days greater than 12.5 percent of any one growing
season under normal conditions are hydrologically successful. Portions of
this site which after three years of monitoring are inundated or saturated to
the surface between 5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season in most years
will be considered successful on a case by case basis. Standing water within
12 inches of the surface will be considered a positive indicator of wetland
hydrology.
4.0 HEADWATER AREA
The monitoring of the headwater area that will be developed at the
upper end of the east prong will be based on the Compensatory Hardwood
Mitigation Guidelines published by the Wilmington District of the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
3

t
f
i i
4.1 Planting Specifications. Bare root hardwood tree seedlings will be
planted at a density of at least 400 trees per acre. Tree species may include
bald cypress, green ash, water tupelo, overcup oak, willow oak, water oak,
laurel oak, swamp chestnut oak, cherrybark oak, blackgum, and river birch.
Trees will be planted in February 1998.
4.2 Tree Monitoring and Success Criteria. Tree success will be
monitored with tree transects scattered throughout the headwater area.
Success is measured by tree survival and species composition. Average tree
density will be at least 320 planted trees per acre at the end of the third
growing season. At least six species of planted hardwood trees will be
present at the end of the third growing season (with bald cypress considered
a hardwood).
4.3 Hydrology Monitoring and Success Criteria. The hydrology of the
headwater area will be monitored with 24-inch wells checked periodically
throughout the growing season. The hydrology of the bottomland hardwood
floodplain areas will be monitored with 24-inch wells spaced within the
floodplain and checked periodically throughout the growing season. On
most areas, the hydrology should meet or exceed the level of 12.5 percent of
the growing season as specified in the Corps of Engineers Compensatory
Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines. Wetland restoration sites that are
inundated or saturated to the surface for a consecutive number of days
greater than 12.5 percent of any one growing season under normal
conditions are hydrologically successful. Portions of this site which after
three years of monitoring are inundated or saturated to the surface between
5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season in most years will be considered
successful on a case by case basis. Standing water within 12 inches of the
surface will be considered a positive indicator of wetland hydrology.
5.0 REPORTS
An annual monitoring report will be submitted to DWQ by April 1 of
the following year. Upon meeting the stated success criteria, the wetland
areas within the scope of the Whitehurst Creek project would be expected to
count as mitigation credits for future wetland impacts.

r -'
4
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Brigham, A.R., W. U. Brigham, and A Gnilka, eds. 1982. Aquatic insects
and oligochaetes of North and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic
Enterprises, Mahomet, Illinois. 837 pp.

w
5
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. Jeffrey Furness
PCS Phosphate
P.O. Box 48
Aurora, NC 27806
Dear Mr. Furness:
C) FE F=1
December 12, 1996
Re: Modification of 401 Water Quality Certification
Relocation of upper portion of Whitehurst Creek
DEM #92039
Certification 2748 (originally issued 30 June 1992)
Beaufort County
The Certification issued on 30 June 1992 to Texasgulf, Inc. (now PCS Phosphate) is
hereby modified to read as follows:
Reconstruction of the upper portion of Whitehurst Creek shall be completed by 7 June
2003 as described in your letter of 29 August 1996 which shall include grading, tree
planting and establishment of a permanent continuous hydrologic connection to the
remaining portion of Whitehurst Creek. Grading and planting shall be done and completed
by 7 June 1998 with the final tie-in to the new channel by 7 June 2003. If these dates are
not met, a $1,000.00 per day penalty will be imposed by DWQ until the creek is
reestablished to assure compliance. In addition an additional 0.4 acre mitigation area shall
be created where the two channels come together. A final mitigation plan for all wetland
and stream mitigation shall be submitted within two months of the date of this letter.
All other conditions of this Certification are still applicable. Please call Mr. John
Dorney of my staff at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions.

cc:
Jim Mulligan, DWQ Washington Regional
Kristen Rowles, Pamlico-Tar River Found
Central Files
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Tracey Davis, Division of Land Resources

Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 • Telephone [phone] • FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
.? I
I I
? I
1
1
I
I
I ?

_ 1 I II I j: --tea
ICI II ICI,"?? ? ...
III II :..
111 1 \\\
?I

J
I
1- .
1
i
1
1
1
I? \
?l
f j
l
1 x
1 `
1
r
\
1

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Steven J. Levitas, Deputy Secretary
DATE: o 1 tl I
ED EHNR
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
FAX[phone]
QqLM
FROM:
PHONE: ?lq

NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:

, J15

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4
• 0
Ail
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan S. Howes, Secretary p
Steven J. Levitas, Deputy Secretary ` ? E FI
H N
[DATE:
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
FAX:[phone]
FtiG?o??? l9
,9 d
?Tq 96
FAX TO: \' I FAX NUMBER:
FROM: 'q?g- \' Ly 1-1
PHONE:
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:

010 rte,

&A-,\,
uAP

PCS
Phosphate AURORA DIVISION
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC 27806
October 31, 1996
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
N. C. Dept. of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dorney:
REc&/V"
Na Q
60N, , 071996
/VT'? seiFN?s
We have reviewed the draft modification of the 401 Water Quality Certification for
Whitehurst Creek dated October 17, 1996, which included the attached map depicting
two additional created wetland areas consisting of 2.5 acres and 0.4 acres. We
appreciate the opportunity to comment on it before it becomes final.
We believe that the 2.5 acre wetland is not practical from several standpoints. First, the
proposed southern half of the 2.5 acre area peaks in elevation at just under 19 feet msl.
This is where the stilling basin spoil was placed. A copy of the elevation survey of that
area is attached. The channel bottom through there is at 2 feet msl, therefore
approximately 16 feet of earth would need to be excavated to create a bottomland
wetland.
Second, the north area currently has several large pecan trees on it that we intentionally
saved during channel design and construction. Finally, excavating this proposed 2.5
acre area would essentially eliminate one of the few meanders constructed in this
channel. Therefore we request that reference to the 2.5 acre area be eliminated from
the draft 401.
We would agree to widening the area where the east prong would meet the west prong
to include an additional 0.4 acres of bottomland floodplain wetland. This would need
to be done when the west prong tie-in is complete by June 7, 2003. We feel that this
0.4-acre area along with our proposed 5-acre headwater area is a reasonable amount of
acreage added to that involved in the east prong channel itself.

Mr. John Dorney
October 31, 1996
Page 2 of 2
To make sure all the requirements are clear, we would propose that the last two
sentences in the main paragraph in your draft 401 be revised to read: "In addition, an
additional 0.4 acre floodplain wetland area shall be created at the end of the east prong
where it ties in to the west prong. Grading and planting of this 0.4 acre area should
also be complete by 7 June 2003. A final plan for all stream mitigation and wetland
creation shall be submitted within two months of the date of this letter."
We appreciate the Division's willingness to work toward agreeing to a modified 401,
and look forward to receiving a final version in the near future. If you have any
questions please call me at 919/322-8249.
Sincerely,
Oftey . Furness
JCF/re
Attachment
pc: W. A. Schimming (w/attach)
W. T. Cooper (w/attach)
S. R. Phillips/00-14-000 (w/attach)
H. M. Breza/D. J. Millman (w/attach)
P. J. Moffett (w/attach)
Tracy Davis, DLR, Raleigh (w/attach)
12-01-004-26 (w/attach)
n:?que?lOpportuairy:A[1.I?mativ0 ion m
01- _4
s 1
j
,?• ? it ?;:?- ? \
1\
1\

14.0
?
1 ? 1
?1 a

al 140
r
DENS.

Y0. a
o ` DENSE TREES
, 14.4 , 14.4 o t,(\?.\-1NG
17.6
SPOIL 9.7
A
I !
r '
/s

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Steven J. Levitas, Deputy Secretary
DATE:
A&141 0
ooftftfto - ;k a
ED F= F1
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creels Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
FAX[phone]
FROM:
PHONE:
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
VIIJ
MEMORANDUM
Division of Water Quality
Washington Regional Office
November 12, 1996
To: John Dorney
Through: Roger Thorpe
From: Deborah Sawyer AQ9
?%
too
%
E:) FEE F1
Subject: PCS Phosphate Response
Draft Modification of 401 Water Quality Certification
Whitehurst Creek Relocation
This office has reviewed the above subject response from PCS Phosphate company concerning
the draft modification of the Whitehurst Creek relocation. As stated in the memorandum dated 10
October 1996 concerning the recommendation for additional enhancement of the eastern prong of
the relocation of Whitehurst Creek, the requested consideration for additional bottomland
hardwood wetland area to be created was an attempt to improve a stream relocation project
which has been determined by this Division to be less than successful. There are a few issues in
the memorandum from the PCS Phosphate company which this office would like to request
clarification:
1. The PCS Phosphate company states that the only meander in the eastern prong would
be removed if the bottomland hardwood wetland system were to be created. The
recommendation of this office and the Wildlife Resources Commission did not recommend
that the stream be removed or relocated (straightened out). If the existing side slopes were
excavated to a gradient which would be suitable to establish a bottomland hardwood
system, more functional value could be added to the system such as greater filtering and
water storage. The BLH system would only be inundated in times of peak flow. The
stream channel would carry the flow at normal times.
2. This office is not clear as to why the pecan trees would need to be removed. They
appear to be a distance which is further back than the proposed slope would be.
Excavation of the entire area may not be necessary; only the existing slope of the bank
would be changed to facilitate the creation of the BLH system. If additional area is needed
to establish the appropriate slope which may impact the pecan tree area, then the
recommendation could be modified by the PCS Phosphate company to be more
practicable and agreeable with the company. It should also be noted that the existence or
nonexistence of the pecan trees is not a water quality issue.
In conclusion, the recommendation previously submitted to you for review was an attempt to
improve a questionable design for a successful relocation of a creek system. Since the PCS
Phosphate company is proposing the relocation of Whitehurst Creek to be permanent, any and all
efforts should be made to establish a creek system which has the best chance for success. If you
have any questions or comments, please call this office at [phone]. Thank you.
cc: Jimmie Overton
DEHNR Fax:[phone] Nov 12 '96 15:07 P.02/03
1
AmmoRANDUM
Division of Water Quality
Washington Regional Office
November 17-,1996
To. John Dorney
Through: 'Roger Thorpe
From Deborah Sawyer 4100
Subject:
,r\J1JJ
Nil

pC5 Phosphate Response
Draft lvlodyfication of 401 Water Quality Certification
Whitehurst Creek Relocation
`jam
This office has reviewed the above subject response from PCS Phosphate company concerning
the draft modification of the Whitehurst Creek relocation. As stated iaa the memorandum dated 10
October ! 996 concerning the recommendation for additional enhancement of the eastern prong of
the relocation, of Whitehuxst Creek, the requested Consideration for additional bottomland
hardwood wetland area to be created was an attempt to improve a stream relocation project
which has been determined by this Division to be less than successful. There are a few issues in
the memorandum from the PCS Phosphate company which this office would like to request
clarification.:
1. The PCS Phospb*e company states that the only raeander in the
to he eastern . proiig would
be removed if the bottomland hardwood wetland system were
recommendation of this office and the Wildlife Resources Commission did not recommend
that the stream be removed or relocated (straightened out). If the existing side slopes were
excavated to a gradient which would be suitable to establish a bottomland hardwood
system, more functional value could be added to the system sucb as greater filtering and
water storage. The BLH system would only be inundated in tomes of peak flow. The
stream channel would carry the flow at nonnal times-
2. This office is not clear as to why the pecan trees would need to be removed, They
appear to be a distance which is further back than the proposed slope would be.
Excavation of the entire area may not be necessary; only the existing slope of the bank
would be changed to facilitate the creation of the BLIP system.. If additional area is needed
to establish tllc appropriate slope which may impact the pecan tree area, then the
recommendation could be modified by the PCS Phosphate company to be more
practicable and agreeable with the company. it should also be noted that the existence or
nonexistence of the pecan trees is not a water quality issue.
In conclusion, the recommendation previously submitted to you for review was an attempt to
improve a questionable desigD for a successful relocation of a creek system, Since the PUS
1 •
DEHNR Fax : [phone] Nov 12 '96 15:07 P.03/03
Phosphate company is proposing the relocation of whWhitchuxst ich has the best chance efo permanent, u any if you ll
efforts should be made to establish a creek system
have any questions or comments, please call this office at [phone]. Thank you.
cc. ifim mie Overton
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Steven J. Levitas, Deputy Secretary
DATE:
L19W;W'A
IT 0
A&44V
?.r
AdMftMM
ID EE F1
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
FAX[phone]
I NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET: ') I
Q I P2.!e_ Cl? ? ccz? ?

"rt DEHNR Fax:[phone] Nov 12 '95 1506 P.01t03
p? 14SA F=1
North Carolina
Department of
Environment, Health
Natural Resources
WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE
1424 Carolinas Avenue
Washington, N. C. 27$99
Pnone: 919-946-6481
1o rr1_w J. 1,
To:
FAX: [phone]
FAX NUMBER: (Llj? 7.3- 3q J
FROM:
DATE:
-
Number of pages (including cover page) 3
A. a-,;a.
C?
September 23, 1996
MEMO
TO: Deborah Sawyer, DWQ Washington Regional Office
William Westcott, WRC
FROM: John Dorne?
RE: Review of PCS Phos ate modified plans and schedule to
relocate Whit urst Creek
--Attached for your review are the revised plans from PCS
Phosphate to relocate Whitehurst Creek. As you know, our earlier
Certification specified a relocation schedule and penalty. PCS
Phosphate would like that schedule revised since it is now likely
that the support facilities (i.e., perimeter roads and canals)
will have to remain in the Whitehurst Creek area longer than
earlier proposed. Present plans are to redesign the upper
Whitehurst Creek area but not fully connect it until the roads
and canals can be moved (year 2003). There are no mitigation
details-for the site near the southern prong of the creek
(adjacent to the pond). According to Jeff Furness, they are
uncertain how much water will be there and therefore what types
of plantings would be appropriate. He suggested that we all meet
on-site after grading to determine the appropriate species to
plant. We could condition the Certification in this manner if
you concur.
pl-eas-e-review the attached material. I would appreciate
comments by 7 October 1996. Please call me at 919-733-1786 if
you have any questions.
pcswhit.mem
cc: immie Overton
Karen Lynch l? UU
?r-
L PCS
Phosphate VAURORA DIVISION RECEIVED
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC 27806
SEP. a 51996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
August 29, 1996 -""""
Mr. Jimmie Overton
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Re: Modification of 401 Water Quality Certification
Relocation of Upper Whitehurst Creek
DEM #92039
Certification 2748 (originally issued 30 June 1992)
Beaufort County
Dear Mr. Overton:
In a letter to Steve Tedder dated December 15, 1995 submitting the 401
application for Bailey Creek, PCS Phosphate proposed some changes in the
restoration plans for Whitehurst Creek and in the associated 401 certification for
Whitehurst Creek. At the time, PCS Phosphate requested that the Bailey Creek
401 application was the priority issue for the agency to work on. Once the
Bailey Creek 401 certification was issued, the focus was shifted to the
Whitehurst Creek request. Several drawings and figures were packaged with a
cover letter to John Dorney dated May 28, 1996, and a meeting was held at your
offices in Raleigh on May 28 to address the changes requested for the
Whitehurst Creek restoration.
The proposed modifications to the plans for the restoration of Whitehurst
Creek involved two main areas. These areas were the west prong through
reclaimed land and the east prong, which would be the existing Whitehurst
Creek mitigation channel. In the meeting, drawings were reviewed for the
redesign of the western prong. The project would be done in two stages, with
the final tie-in complete by June 7, 2003. This prong would then be
approximately 3200 feet long and contain approximately 7 acres of floodplain
wetland adjacent to the channel, which did not previously exist. You and your
staff seemed receptive to this part of the package, with the one exception being
a request to add more meanders to the western prong to match the design for
Bailey Creek. A draft letter dated June 17, 1996 setting forth new conditions for
the 401 certification was faxed to PCS Phosphate on June 20 from your agency,

Mr. Jimmie Overton
August 29, 1996
Page 2 of 3
however we requested a delay in issuing a final version until all of the issues
were resolved.
The other area of discussion involved leaving the existing Whitehurst
Creek mitigation channel in place permanently as the eastern prong. You
expressed some reservations regarding this plan because of the lack of wetlands
adjacent to the stream channel and the associated water quality benefits that
wetlands would provide before this water reaches lower Whitehurst Creek. This
was reiterated by you during a field visit to the site on June 17. This portion of
Whitehurst was previously highly channelized with no adjacent wetlands,
however you stated that this proposal would be enhanced if the water entering
the head of this eastern prong could go through a wetland area first, thereby
potentially improving the quality of it before it flowed through the channel.
The five large drawings enclosed with this letter depict modifications we
have made in the design of the project since the plan submittal and meeting on
May 28. The first two drawings are the design for Phase I and Phase II of the
western prong. These drawings are similar to the ones submitted on May 28,
except that more meanders have been added. Again, Phase I would be
complete by June 7, 1998, and Phase 11 (final tie-in) would be complete by June
7, 2003. - -
The next two drawings (plan view and cross-sections) depict a proposed
new Whitehurst Creek headwater area. This flat, unmined area of approximately
five (5) acres would be the receiving area for stormwater coming off of the future
blend reclamation area to the west. Stormwater would sheet flow through this
area, out through an open spillway, into an existing water diversion canal and
into the pond currently in place at the upper end of the Whitehurst Creek
mitigation channel. This headwater area would be seeded with legumes and
grasses (no fescue) and planted with a variety of bare root hardwood tree
seedlings before June 7, 1998. Until the final reclamation of the blend area to
the west, a culvert will be used to discharge stormwater from this 5-acre area
instead of the open spillway. The culvert will serve to restrict the water flow off
of this area which should keep the area as wet as possible.
The fifth and final drawing shows the overall plan for the ultimate
restoration of Whitehurst Creek. It can be seen how the blend reclamation
4- . , %.,
Mr. Jimmie Overton
August 29, 1996
Page 3 of 3
areas, the headwater wetland area and the east prong, portions of the mine
perimeter canal system, and the west prong, are all tied together to form a
Whitehurst Creek headwater system that should serve well in water quality and
aquatic life functions.
= We respectfully request that the 401 Water Quality Certification for
Whitehurst Creek (No. 2748, DEM #92039) be modified to reflect the drawings
included in this package and the time schedules as reflected in this letter and
your agency's draft letter of June 17, 1996. We would be happy to meet with
you and any member of your staff to discuss this issue. If you have any
questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
cJe rey C. Furness
Environmental Scientist
JCF/re
Enclosures
pc: Tracy Davis - DLR, Raleigh (w/encl)
W. A. Schimming (w/encl)
S. R. Phillips/12-01-004-26 (w/encl)
H. M. Breza/D. J. Millman (w/encl)
P. J. Moffett (w/encl)
00-14-000 (w/o encl)
September 23, 1996
MEMO
TO: Deborah Sawyer, DWQ Washington Regional Office
William Westcott, WRC
FROM: John DorneM?
RE: Review of PCS Phos ate modified plans and schedule to
relocate Whit urst Creek
-:--Attached for your review are the revised plans from PCS
Phosphate to relocate Whitehurst Creek. As you know, our earlier
Certification specified a relocation schedule and penalty. PCS
Phosphate would like that schedule revised since it is now likely
that the support facilities (i.e., perimeter roads and canals)
will have to remain in the Whitehurst Creek area longer than
earlier proposed. Present plans are to redesign the upper
Whitehurst Creek area but not fully connect it until the roads
and canals can be moved (year 2003). There are no mitigation
details for the site near the southern prong of the creek
(adjacent to the pond). According to Jeff Furness, they are
uncertain how much water will be there and therefore what types
of.plantings would be appropriate. He suggested that we all meet
on site after grading to determine the appropriate species to
plant. We could condition the Certification in this manner if
you concur.
review the attached material. I would appreciate
comments by 7 October 1996. Please call me at 919-733-1786 if
you have any questions.
pcswhit.mem
cc: Jimmie Overton
Karen Lynch

L Pcs
Phosphate AURORA DIVISION
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC 27806
August 29, 1996
Mr. Jimmie Overton
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Re: Modification of 401 Water Quality Certification
Relocation of Upper Whitehurst Creek
DEM #92039
Certification 2748 (originally issued 30 June 1992)
Beaufort County
Dear Mr. Overton:
RECEIVED
Skr. 0 51996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
In a letter to Steve Tedder dated December 15, 1995 submitting the 401
application for Bailey Creek, PCS Phosphate proposed some changes in the
restoration plans for Whitehurst Creek and in the associated 401 certification for
Whitehurst Creek. At the time, PCS Phosphate requested that the Bailey Creek
401 application was the priority issue for the agency to work on. Once the
Bailey Creek 401 certification was issued, the focus was shifted to the
Whitehurst Creek request. Several drawings and figures were packaged with a
cover letter to John Dorney dated May 28, 1996, and a meeting was held at your
offices in Raleigh on May 28 to address the changes requested for the
Whitehurst Creek restoration.
The proposed modifications to the plans for the restoration of Whitehurst
Creek involved two main areas. These areas were the west prong through
reclaimed land and the east prong, which would be the existing Whitehurst
Creek mitigation channel. In the meeting, drawings were reviewed for the
redesign of the western prong. The project would be done in two stages, with
the final tie-in complete by June 7, 2003. This prong would then be
approximately 3200 feet long and contain approximately 7 acres of floodplain
wetland adjacent to the channel, which did not previously exist. You and your
staff seemed receptive to this part of the package, with the one exception being
a request to add more meanders to the western prong to match the design for
Bailey Creek. A draft letter dated June 17, 1996 setting forth new conditions for
the 401 certification was faxed to PCS Phosphate on June 20 from your agency,

Mr. Jimmie Overton
August 29, 1996
Page 2 of 3
however we requested a delay in issuing a final version until all of the issues
were resolved.
The other area of discussion involved leaving the existing Whitehurst
Creek mitigation channel in place permanently as the eastern prong. You
expressed some reservations regarding this plan because of the lack of wetlands
adjacent to the stream channel and the associated water quality benefits that
wetlands would provide before this water reaches lower Whitehurst Creek. This
was reiterated by you during a field visit to the site on June 17. This portion of
Whitehurst was previously highly channelized with no adjacent wetlands,
however you stated that this proposal would be enhanced if the water entering
the head of this eastern prong could go through a wetland area first, thereby
potentially improving the quality of it before it flowed through the channel.
The five large drawings enclosed with this letter depict modifications we
have made in the design of the project since the plan submittal and meeting on
May 28. The first two drawings are the design for Phase I and Phase II of the
western prong. These drawings are similar to the ones submitted on May 28,
except that more meanders have been added. Again, Phase I would be
complete by June 7, 1998, and Phase II (final tie-in) would be complete by June
7, 2003.
The next two drawings (plan view and cross-sections) depict a proposed
new Whitehurst Creek headwater area. This flat, unmined area of approximately
five (5) acres would be the receiving area for stormwater coming off of the future
blend reclamation area to the west. Stormwater would sheet flow through this
area, out through an open spillway, into an existing water diversion canal and
into the pond currently in place at the upper end of the Whitehurst Creek
mitigation channel. This headwater area would be seeded with legumes and
grasses (no fescue) and planted with a variety of bare root hardwood tree
seedlings before June 7, 1998. Until the final reclamation of the blend area to
the west, a culvert will be used to discharge stormwater from this 5-acre area
instead of the open spillway. The culvert will serve to restrict the water flow off
of this area which should keep the area as wet as possible.
The fifth and final drawing shows the overall plan for the ultimate
restoration of Whitehurst Creek. It can be seen how the blend reclamation

Mr. Jimmie Overton
August 29, 1996
Page 3 of 3
areas, the headwater wetland area and the east prong, portions of the mine
perimeter canal system, and the west prong, are all tied together to form a
Whitehurst Creek headwater system that should serve well in water quality and
aquatic life functions.
We respectfully request that the 401 Water Quality Certification for
Whitehurst Creek (No. 2748, DEM #92039) be modified to reflect the drawings
included in this package and the time schedules as reflected in this letter and
your agency's draft letter of June 17, 1996. We would be happy to meet with
you and any member of your staff to discuss this issue. If you have any
questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
C Je rey C. Furness
Environmental Scientist
JCF/re
Enclosures
pc: Tracy Davis - DLR, Raleigh (w/encl)
W. A. Schimming (w/encl)
S. R. Phillips/12-01-004-26 (w/encl)
H. M. Breza/D. J. Millman (w/encl)
P. J. Moffett (w/encl)
00-14-000 (w/o encl)
MEMORANDUM
Division of Water Quality
Washington Regional Office
fI RF?F??Fo
F"''?Ro ,? ? $199
n,y?NTgc Sc/??6
IFS
October 10, 1996
To: John Dorney
Through: Jim Mulligan
Through: Roger Thorp *
From: Deborah Sawyer
?EHNR
Subject: Review of PCS Phosphate Modified Plans and Schedule to Relocate Whitehurst
Creek
The above subject relocation plan and schedule has been reviewed by this office. The PCS
Phosphate company has designed the west prong of the relocation of Whitehurst Creek similar to
the design of the relocation of Bailey Creek. This office accepts this plan and schedule.
On 8 October 1996, I met with William Wescott of the WRC to discuss the PCS proposal to
leave the existing Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel (eastern prong) permanently in place. The
PCS company proposes to construct a five (5) acre area of flat unmined area into a receiving area
for stormwater. This area will be planted with grasses and a variety of bare root hardwood tree
seedlings. This proposal is acceptable with this office if the company will agree to construct
additional wetlands (BLH) adjacent to the stream channel. Mr. Wescott has drawn in potential
areas where this may be accomplished. The attached plan shows these areas. This would add
approximately three (3) more acres of wetlands (BLH), for a total of approximately eight (8)
acres, adjacent to the original eastern prong of the Whitehurst Creek relocation. If the company
will agree to establish these BLH systems, this office will recommend that the eastern prong be
allowed to remain permanently in place. This will enhance the existing prong of the relocation
project adding functional values.
If you have any questions or comments, please call this office at [phone]. Thank you.
\ ? ? \11 1 111
II
II
?yl I II I
?,?.? ?? ?? Iii _ _____
v. I
? ? ?? ? /rC ?,I
` 4J ? ? 1 '.t
f W J. 'I
1 '3 (i I • ?1
lip 0
LOU
- rr1 I - \ I
ry 1
? ? I ;u: I ! • S r
I
;7 III I ? i I.
tri
J
.jai'/ I I ? "r \
----- -------- --
i -
S
,
to s. m.•m.atm: ?•+•ss.,czs•,?:•?` \ \ i I: ; '? It t f \
1i ? I•I I ?? s
N4140
T BOUNDARY
(`fir y ?.??'C'..?,y?,.+• /?G:Y?%'...- . , i•r"?.

RECEIVED
OC e 1 4 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
,^-J
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney
Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Management, DEHNR p?
FROM: William Wescott, Coastal Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: October 8, 1996
SUBJECT: Review of PCS Phosphate modified plans and schedule to relocate Whitehurst
Creek.
In an attempt to improve their mitigation techniques and success, PCS has modified their
channel relocation design to more closely resemble a natural creek system with a narrow, shallow,
winding channel with wide, flat floodplains on both sides. This new design will be used for Bailey
Creek and the west prong of Whitehurst Creek. PCS commitment to mitigation should also
include reconstructing or improving past mitigation projects that were unsuccessful. The existing
Whitehurst Creek Mitigation Channel is nothing more than a drainage canal that in no way
resembles a natural stream system, nor does it restore natural functions or wildlife values.
PCS plans to construct a 5 acre forested headwater wetland but plans no remedial action
for the approx. 4,200 ft. canal (east prong). We are not advocating reconstructing the east prong
but we do recommend that portions of the canal bank be graded down to establish a bottomland
hardwood system adjacent to the channel. Our recommended locations are highlighted on the
attached map. The areas should be graded down to allow inundation during periods of heavy
precipitation but remain saturated within a few inches of the surface during periods of dry
weather. Our recommendations would result in the creation of approx. 3 acres of bottomland
hardwoods in addition to the 5 acres of forested headwater wetlands proposed by PCS.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any concerns
regarding our comments, please contact William Wescott at [phone].
WW/fin

\
1 ?I I
CI)
.. I ?I
I J ?I
I
f
i I 1
r I \
r?l \ \
v?
.?•_•.•.,•. •-._..,. _ •?? •..,.;,....-;. .r may.
{•
j ?.
I '? I I I11fl .` ail
tt I f ??ii':.
1 I Et it I! ?':? ;'t

?. 1 F: I I ?! I I f

I , l if'
J I

It 7• ~.
I II
I
I
I •D
?LJ ?D
r-
ri
- ? I II la ?i__..>
III Il.?lyi? ?
III II Ili T
0
y ?I ? 11`

j
t
.l
_J
a
O
4
0
a
--------------------
a
1
i ,.
1 ? .o
1 ?
1
1
i
I
t .
1
1
1 !
\
\
1
• I ? r,
?NdaNno9 .

wC
>c
f,
Z I!
a

September 23, 1996
MEMO
TO: Deborah Sawyer, DWQ Washington Regional Office
William Westcott, WRC
FROM: John Dorne?
RE: Review of PCS Phos ate modified plans and schedule to
relocate Whit urst Creek
-.Attached for your review are the revised plans from PCS
Phosphate to relocate Whitehurst Creek. As you know, our earlier
Certification specified a relocation schedule and penalty. PCS
Phosphate would like that schedule revised since it is now likely
that the support facilities (i.e., perimeter roads and canals)
will have to remain in the Whitehurst Creek area longer than
earlier proposed. Present plans are to redesign the upper
Whitehurst Creek area but not fully connect it until the roads
and canals can be moved (year 2003). There are no mitigation
details for the site near the southern prong of the creek
(adjacent to the pond). According to Jeff Furness, they are
uncertain how much water will be there and therefore what types
of plantings would be appropriate. He suggested that we all meet
on site after gradin. to determine the appropriate species to
plant. We could con 'tion the Certification in this manner if
you concur.
---.. P-l eas-e_.. review the attached material. I would appreciate
°m-
comments by 7 October 1 96. Please call me at 919-733-1786 if
you have any questions.
pcswhit.mem
cc: =ie Overton
GKaren Lynch
b
PCS
Phosphate AURORA DIVISION
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC 27806
RECEIVED
Skr. 4 51996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
August 29, 1996 ?'""'r,."
Mr. Jimmie Overton
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Re: Modification of 401 Water Quality Certification
Relocation of Upper Whitehurst Creek
DEM #92039
Certification 2748 (originally issued 30 June 1992)
Beaufort County
Dear Mr. Overton:
In a letter to Steve Tedder dated December 15, 1995 submitting the 401
application for Bailey Creek, PCS Phosphate proposed some changes in the
restoration plans for Whitehurst Creek and in the associated 401 certification for
Whitehurst Creek. At the time, PCS Phosphate requested that the Bailey Creek
401 application was the priority issue for the agency to work on. Once the
Bailey Creek 401 certification was issued, the focus was shifted to the
Whitehurst Creek request. Several drawings and figures were packaged with a
cover letter to John Dorney dated May 28, 1996, and a meeting was held at your
offices in Raleigh on May 28 to address the changes requested for the
Whitehurst Creek restoration.
The proposed modifications to the plans for the restoration of Whitehurst
Creek involved two main areas. These areas were the west prong through
reclaimed land and the east prong, which would be the existing Whitehurst
Creek mitigation channel. In the meeting, drawings were reviewed for the
redesign of the western prong. The project would be done in two stages, with
the final tie-in complete by June 7, 2003. This prong would then be
approximately 3200 feet long and contain approximately 7 acres of floodplain
wetland adjacent to the channel, which did not previously exist. You and your
staff seemed receptive to this part of the package, with the one exception being
a request to add more meanders to the western prong to match the design for
Bailey Creek. A draft letter dated June 17, 1996 setting forth new conditions for
the 401 certification was faxed to PCS Phosphate on June 20 from your agency,

Mr. Jimmie Overton
August 29, 1996
Page 2 of 3
however we requested a delay in issuing a final version until all of the issues
were resolved.
The other area of discussion involved leaving the existing Whitehurst
Creek mitigation channel in place permanently as the eastern prong. You
expressed some reservations regarding this plan because of the lack of wetlands
adjacent to the stream channel and the associated water quality benefits that
wetlands would provide before this water reaches lower Whitehurst Creek. This
was reiterated by you during a field visit to the site on June 17. This portion of
Whitehurst was previously highly channelized with no adjacent wetlands,
however you stated that this proposal would be enhanced if the water entering
the head of this eastern prong could go through a wetland area first, thereby
potentially improving the quality of it before it flowed through the channel.
The five large drawings enclosed with this letter depict modifications we
have made in the design of the project since the plan submittal and meeting on
May 28. The first two drawings are the design for Phase I and Phase II of the
western prong. These drawings are similar to the ones submitted on May 28,
except that more meanders have been added. Again, Phase I would be
complete by June 7, 1998, and Phase II (final tie-in) would be complete by June
7, 2003.
The next two drawings (plan view and cross-sections) depict a proposed
new Whitehurst Creek headwater area. This flat, unmined area of approximately
five (5) acres would be the receiving area for stormwater coming off of the future
blend reclamation area to the west. Stormwater would sheet flow through this
area, out through an open spillway, into an existing water diversion canal and
into the pond currently in place at the upper end of the Whitehurst Creek
mitigation channel. This headwater area would be seeded with legumes and
grasses (no fescue) and planted with a variety of bare root hardwood tree
seedlings before June 7, 1998. Until the final reclamation of the blend area to
the west, a culvert will be used to discharge stormwater from this 5-acre area
instead of the open spillway. The culvert will serve to restrict the water flow off
of this area which should keep the area as wet as possible.
The fifth and final drawing shows the overall plan for the ultimate
restoration of Whitehurst Creek. It can be seen how the blend reclamation

Mr. Jimmie Overton
August 29, 1996
Page 3 of 3
areas, the headwater wetland area and the east prong, portions of the mine
perimeter canal system, and the west prong, are all tied together to form a
Whitehurst Creek headwater system that should serve well in water quality and
aquatic life functions.
-- We respectfully request that the 401 Water Quality Certification for
Whitehurst Creek (No. 2748, DEM #92039) be modified to reflect the drawings
included in this package and the time schedules as reflected in this letter and
your agency's draft letter of June 17, 1996. We would be happy to meet with
you and any member of your staff to discuss this issue. If you have any
questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
c Je rey C. Furness
Environmental Scientist
JCF/re
Enclosures
pc: Tracy Davis - DLR, Raleigh (w/encl)
W. A. Schimming (w/encl)
S. R. Phillips/12-01-004-26 (w/encl)
H. M. Breza/D. J. Millman (w/encl)
P. J. Moffett (w/encl)
00-14-000 (w/o encl)
- ». State of North Ca (i a
Department of E ir' nment,
Health and Natural R spurces
Division of Environmental Management
Ja mes B. Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan 6. Howes,&cretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr:,-P.E., Director
FAX TO:
FAX NUMBER:
FROM:
& LTw?FA
14 0 2
A!11101111??Ll - 11111111111111k
ID EHNR
'?55
TF
1 9 Iq-'?33- r2B 6
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
P

Environmental Sciences Branch - 4401 Reedy Creek Road
Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
• Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
FAX # [phone]
50% recyckKV10% poetcorsuanerpaper
State of North CaPolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Ja mes B. Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan a Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
FAX TO:
F ?'v ?z-tJ cSS
*)A
?EHNF?L
FAX NUMBER: QlC(^ 3 2 Z -•AA44
FROM: -?'- .."c
PHONE: q1 i- -73 3- eAq (O
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
COMMENTS: le FF
1

N.gc %'4'm•Ie-
Environmental Sciences Branch • 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportu* Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycle&10% post cormurner paper
' Woo State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James R Hunt, Jr., G ovemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
FAX TO
FAX NU
FROM:
r?
?EHNFi
PHONE:

Environmental Sciences Branch • 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, No arolina,060,
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunely AffinnaWe Action Employer 50% re%V"10% post consumer paper
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
mkJJ'f .
l

'l
ek-

Lo!f
- P
( VT
W)4 57T Xf
;gym, Sw?; --
-? w--
J'b ?I

R
i
C
13
4
n n
J-C,
- Qcs r1
-?-: ?}?
:f
PCs
Phosphate AURORA DIVISION
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC 27806
May 28,"1-996
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina. Department of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:
On December 15, 1995, PCS Phosphate applied for a 401 Water Quality Certification for
impacts to the upper channelized drainage to Bailey Creek. In the cover letter for that
application, we also requested that certain conditions in the 401 Certification for Whitehurst
Creek (dated June 30, 1992) be deleted. These conditions involved the requirement for
reclamation of Whitehurst Creek within 4 years from the date of mining the fork of the two
drainage prongs and a $1,000 per day penalty if it was not reclaimed by then. We also
outlined a modified reclamation plan for the whole southern mining area encompassing the
Whitehurst and Bailey Creek drainages, and a map of this plan was provided. We agreed at
the time that the Bailey Creek 401 would be the issue of priority for DEM to focus on. Now
that the 401 Certification for Bailey Creek has been approved, the Whitehurst Creek issue
needs to be addressed.
At the time of the issuance of the initial 401 Certification for Whitehurst Creek (June 1992),
it was believed that the restoration of the upper channelized drainage to Whitehurst Creek
could be accomplished within the 4-year time frame stipulated in the permit. We believed that
we were close to completing the EIS process that had begun in 1988. However, the EIS
process is still not completed, which has caused PCS. Phosphate to request three additional
modifications to our mining permit to continue mining in upland areas in the southern portion
of our property. As long as mining activities continue in this southern area, the mine utility
corridor (2 canals, pipelines and road) needs to remain in place near the old S. R. 1941 bridge,
which precludes tieing-in a reclaimed channel to the main Whitehurst Creek channel. We
project that this corridor will need to remain much longer than anticipated when the Whitehurst
Creek 401 Certification was agreed to (Figure 1).
In the December 15, 1995 letter, a proposal was put forth to create one channel for Whitehurst
Creek through reclaimed land and to also let the current Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel
remain in place permanently. This makes the most ecological sense based on the direction that
stormwater would flow off the reclaimed land, and would result in approximately 8,200 feet
of restored channel compared to a currently required 5,000 feet. We believe that there is no
reason to not use the mitigation channel that is already in place and is functioning better than
the original channel for part of the permanent reclamation of this area.
Mr. John t orney
May 28, 1996
Page 2 of 2
We still are proposing that scenario, however we propose to modify the design of the channel
constructed through reclaimed land to be similar to the design recently approved for the
relocation of Bailey Creek. That is, there will be an approximately 50-foot wide floodplain
slightly elevated along each side of a 10-foot wide channel. This will result in approximately
7 acres of bottomland hardwood wetland, which did not originally exist. Enclosed are large
drawings which show the design of the reclaimed channel and the overall reclamation plans
for the area. The construction of the channel through reclaimed land would be accomplished
in two phases. The first phase of constructing the main portion of the channel would be done
by April 1998. The second phase would be tieing-in the new channel to the original channel,
which would be done by April 2003. This timing is outlined in Figure 2. Notice that the total
delay in the restoration of Whitehurst Creek is 5 years, which equals the amount of time that
we will have mined in this area over what we originally believed we would. For this reason,
we request that the condition in the original 401 Certification that the restoration of upper
channelized drainage to Whitehurst Creek be completed within the 4-year time frame (by June
1998) be modified to reflect the 5-year delay and specify restoration by June 2003. In
addition, we request that the $1,000 per day penalty condition be dropped since the existing
Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel equals the total length of the original channelized drainage
and is functioning better than the original channel.
A table highlighting the benefits of the new plans for Whitehurst Creek is also enclosed. If
you have any questions on this request, please call me at 919/322-8249.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey C. Furness
JCF/re
Enclosures
PC: Tracy Davis - DLR, Raleigh (w/encl)
W. A. Schimming (w/encl)
W. T. Cooper (w/o encl)
S. R. Phillips/12-01-004-26 (w/encl)
H. M. Breza/D. J. Millman (w/encl)
P. J. Moffett (w/encl)
00-14-000 (w/o encl)
UAAWC401chg.
a
J
O
crm
co
v
a
CL
O
WE=

V,
T
V
W
C i

cz

LCD

aI)

cd
c0 E
?
X
O
L

LO

m
N

i- N LO CO C?
N 'co

C
O Q Q Q Q ?

V
C O
C) O
co O
N O
ti cm
C
O
C
'>

C
? C

cn
C
O
L
CD
O
'L
cn
CD
L
LU
m
C
O
.a
cz
C
U
CD
O
L
E
C
r
L
LL
1/
O
cc
CO)
cc
lhd
i
v
y

M
O

N
O I '
cc -

O L
A:

O d'
O E
N 'X :
O.
L
cn Q•
co

cn
O

cn
L
cn }

rn
cn O
o
a?

W O ? V O ?

D
0 ?_

L .,"' U o

= ?
pV p O
O O
O O
? O
O N Y
.,.. 0 =_ rr p
i p N
M d'
N O
i .C
;0 W o x x tm t

.c m 'c ?-> •oa >•on.
.? o
O
.
C O U tm O w
d
o -
c0 N
CL d L
?
C
r C
O = 0
NW .
121=
x121= o
N
0. L O
p_
o' 0
o
. 0
a . . . O
OC
o C .? 0 w .1-0 .
Q N t m O W E
A
.

0 L
r-
O CL
Q
r. U Q. a p
N
d
L
w

a
a
Comparison Between Whitehurst Creek Restoration Plans
Total Channel
Restoration Length
Bottom Width
Side Slopes
Topsoil Placement
Bottomland Hardwood Acreage
Completion Timing
Currently
Approved Plan Proposed Plan
5000 ft. Approx. 8200 ft.
10 ft. channel 110 ft.
(incl. 10 ft. channel)
6:1 to 10:1 4:1
side slopes & bottom bottom
0 acres
Two prongs
totalling 5,000 ft.
June 1998*
Approx. 7 acres
Eastern Prong: 5,000 ft.
w/stilling basin
March 1996
Western Prong: 3,200 ft.
(2 phases)
Phase I 2,400 ft.
June 1998
Phase II 800 ft.
June 2003
* Required by DEM 401 Water Quality Certification of 6/92
Benefits of the Proposed Whitehurst Creek Restoration Plan
I. East Prong - Current Whitehurst Creek Mitigation Channel
A. Already established (constructed in 1992 and 1996)
1. 5000 ft. long channel (as long as original total length)
2. stilling basin (extra surface water area)
3. trees are planted
i. 538 trees/acre of 12 species
ii. 20% balled and burlapped (350 trees),
80% bare-root seedlings
II. West Prong - To be constructed in reclaimed area, approximately 3200 ft.
long and 7 acres of bottomland hardwood area.
A. Phase I
1. approx. 2400 ft.
2. excavation and topsoil placement in 1996 and 1997
3. 50 ft. floodplain on each side of channel
4. tree planting in February 1998
i. 538 trees/acre of 12 species
ii. 20% balled and burlapped and 80% bare-root seedlings
B. Phase II (east and west tie-ins)
1. approx. 800 ft.
2. excavation (tie-ins of both ends) and topsoil placement in 2002
3. tree planting in February 2003
i. 538 trees/acre of 12 species
1 20% balled and burlapped and 80% bare-root seedlings
DEHNR
Fax:[phone]
4 AM
ED r-_= Fla,
Oct 10 '96 11:00
North Carolina
Department of
Environment, Health
Natural Resourcgs
P. 01104
1/1*' 61
WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE - -\?J
1424 caroiina Avenue
WaShington, N. C. 27889
?
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
ray
U
TO:
FAX NUMBER:!
L ._ rr. • r''j/'Ca. U
FROM:
DATE.
Number of pages (including cover pager.

L `l rC i •r? C 4' C 1 L•< U se ?V rn
? ? rJ 1
,
pe S S {1 C" l n C6?PO?Cc - i-
P - IUOS
- -- c °?

DEHNR
Mr'M0FA"U1v1
Fax:[phone]
1)ivi5io7a of Water (juaUty
?lashingto .,
october 10, 1996
b*'
4A?b
Oct 10 '96 1101 P.02/04
i?
1'0; John D(.,ruey
Througb- Jim lvliilligan
'Tibrougb- Ko1?erThnrpe
Pro= Deborah Sawyer
?
clterlulc to Relucatc Whitehu it
Review of PCS 1'hofphatc Modified Plans and S
Subjoot:
(;rcclc
has been re,,icVVed by this obice. T)'- FC;•5
,be above subject rtlor don 1'leas toad schtxllile o the relocation orwhitchurst C,•,.ek sitw1ar to
ld has designCd the West pr.nn, 1wI and schedule.
phosphate wmpe relncation of P?iltY creek. This office accepts this P
William Wescoiti. of fire ?G to discuss tllc PGS Proposal to
'the
on s October 1996, I met with e1Stk:i n prong) pe1''ranently in place-
leave the c.>astn?3; y?rbitehurst Creek. mitigation channel (orflat unwed.ea into recrivirig area
cou ny proposes to constxuct a five (5) acre area
P" ti't lamed with greases and a variety of 1ta etoaeo strurtrCe
for stortw ater. ' i'his ar r a wd1 A tenrial
S. 111 proposal is acceptablC with this office if the cou will
seeding . rn c1lannel. Mr. Wescott has cl?'1,?w u acltl
additional wMands (131-11) ,ompl s to tT Sttt chcd Plan shows tltcse t?reas•
areas where this nay be artemplihe. , for a total , If approxtintntely eight (S3}
aPl7roxltoately three 0) more acres of wCtlands (Lrtchurst Creek
auras, adjacent to the orig relocation. If the c t!'t,c
l eastern pnmg Of ow ? ,1 that the eastern p S
ro"S
wiD agree to establish these S' ,l'1 sy5teu?s, this officeanuw ill e iho Wsti rccotnme?at th uy, p of the r
allowed to t a 6, pe ently in place. This will enh
1 '1111L.
. .
projt:ct adding fiwctiona v .s
uesti0? ox cUmtncnts, *8 he, cal this o.t3 "tcc at (91y) 946 (i4$1.'"f'U3n? you,
If you have any q
DEHNR Fax :[phone] Oct 10 '96 1101 P.03/04
If North C.arahm Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Satirhnry Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1168, 419-73.1,1391
C I-4rlw R. Full wrusi, F,.xecutive Director
MF.MOR AIti1Ti>_TM
TO; John Dorney
Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Mwiegement, DEHNR
rRONK William Wescott, Coastal Coordinator
Habitat Conservation P, ugLam
DATE. October S, 1996
SUBJECT: Royicw of PCS Phosphate,nodilieri plans and schedule to relocate Whitehurst
Creek,
In an attenrl.?t to uuprove their n it9gation techniques and suecoss, PCS has modified their
channel relocation dosisn to more closely resenible.. a ria€Ural creek system with a narrow, shallow,
-Ainding cha,uial with wide, flat floodplains on both sides. 't'his new design will be used for Bailey
Creek and the west prong, of Whitrhurst C_:reek. PCS commitment to mitigation should also
inalUdt ceco nstructing or improving past initigation projcots that wCro unsuccessful. The cxisl ing
Whitehurst Creek Mitigation C iinitel is nothing more than a drainage canal that in no way
resembles a natural stream system, nor does it restore natural functions or wildlire values
PCS plans to construct a 5 Urc forested headwater wetland but plans no remedial action
for the approx. 4,260 fl. canal (east prong), We are not advocating reconstructing the cast prong
but we do recommend that portions of the canal bank be graded down to establiAi'a 1xirtnmlanri
lwdwood system adjacent in 11i, c;lieumel. Our recommended locations are highlighted on the
attached map. The areas should be a adod down to allow inundation during periuds of heavy
precipitation but remain saturated wlilim a few inches of the surface during periods of dry
weather. Our recommendations would result in the creation of approx. 3 acres of berttirritlanrt
hardwoods in addition to the 5 acres urrurested headwater wetlands proposed by PCS,
Thank you for the opportunity to Commcnt on this projCCt. !£ you lravc day umt:Frns
regarding our comments, please Goiltaut Willialn Wcsc;ult at [phone].
ti??irrn
? R
DEHPR
\?
Fax:[phone] Oct 10 196 11:02 P.04i04
1t . N .
1; VI'll
ti\s,1:II II II
sl 11 .R

f Il ? I,.IL`
vY tf'I ' f ? ??;.
!I { ; 1
! ?? ??ti f1t ? S
J J
?r tF I f f
N I ti r
'y
S '
`? Ir ,, f
1
N +
` I 7 r
t :I s \c"N i
. ? 7
Y ?
DEHNR Fax:[phone]

A LT. ! *?
0'r
74*A
Ca?HNR
TO:
Oct 10 '96 11:12 P.01t02
North carolina
Department of
Environment, Health
Natural Resources
WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE
1424 Carolina Avenue
washington, N. C. 27889
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
FAX NUMBER:
FROM:
DATE: 1 0_ ?'?
e3 6
Number of pages (including cover page) :
COMMENTS'

. . . 1
DEHNR
ti\
k
Oct 10 '96 1112 P.02/02
1
Wd
"•r
Fax:[phone]
\
\
---------------------
,n a
; EXXIMPARY
t? 1 I;.r
iii; ??}
`1111
D '? I ! l l I' .
• I! i
!It I? }
„
-,
? s
t
r
/
I? JI
? ``3 I E
.1
A •4.
Texas l nc.
an elf aquitaine company
P.O. Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
December 15, 1994
Mr. Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Re: Modification of Water Quality Certification #2748
Dear Mr. Tedder:
W.A. Schimming
Manager
Environmental Affairs
[phone]
Texasgulf Inc. requests, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0504(d)(2), modification of Water
Quality Certification #2748.
In 1992, Texasgulf received authorization pursuant to the Corps of Engineers NWP 26 to
mine through 0.9 acre of a channelized section of upper Whitehurst Creek. The 0.9 acre
was located within an upland interim mining area where Texasgulf must mine while awaiting
the Corps' issuance of an individual Section 404 permit for mining. Certification #2748
currently requires a 4-step process:
(1) establish a successful temporary mitigation channel at a specific site within the
interim mining area;
(2) mine through 0.9 acre of Whitehurst Creek;
(3) successfully re-establish Whitehurst Creek in its original location, thereby
eliminating the need for the temporary mitigation channel; and
(4) mine through the temporary mitigation channel.
As Texasgulf has advised the Division, the first and second steps have been completed and
the third step will be completed in 1998. Unfortunately, the Corps' EIS and individual
permit process has required more time than our respective staffs anticipated in 1992 when
the certification was issued. Texasgulf needs to mine through a 290-acre portion of the
interim mining area where approximately 3000 feet of the 5000-foot temporary mitigation
channel is currently located.
?.+'?Q rUUn Q:?
A* an
Ax,cbdP*W
v .. • j 0
Page 2 of 2
We request a modification of Certification #2748 to allow for the existing temporary
mitigation channel to be relocated to the perimeter of the interim mining area. The
relocated channel would continue to convey water from the upper Whitehurst Creek
drainage area to lower Whitehurst Creek. The design and methodologies used at the
present location to successfully replace Whitehurst Creek uses would be used for the
relocated channel. Most importantly, the changes would have no effect on the timing or
success of the long-term mitigation goal: the re-establishment of the original channel of
Whitehurst Creek.
We have enclosed 7 copies of the 404/401 NWP application, 7 copies of a Whitehurst Creek
mitigation channel relocation report dated October 11, 1994, and a copy of the original
certification with tentative wording changes which we offer as suggestions for consideration
by you and your staff. A meeting was held on this issue in Raleigh with several DEM staff
members on September 19. At that meeting, Ron Ferrell and others requested that
Texasgulf look for upper headwater stream segments in the vicinity that had been
channelized, and to propose restoring such a channelized segment, instead of simply
relocating a segment of the existing mitigation channel. We searched U.S.G.S. quad sheets
and aerial photos over a 7 mile radius of Whitehurst Creek, and found 3 candidate sites.
After more detailed analysis all 3 sites were deemed unacceptable due to a variety of
reasons: surrounding land ownership, amount of water expected from the drainage area,
sediment and erosion control problems, and cost. Therefore, we have proposed relocating
a portion of the existing mitigation channel to the perimeter of the mining area.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at (919) 322-
8239 or Jeff Furness at [phone] if you have any questions on this matter.
Sincerely,
W. I. Schimming
WAS:re
Enclosures
pc: T. J. Regan (w/o encl) J. C. Furness (w/o encl)
T. C. Younger (w/encl) 00-12-000 (w/o encl)
H. M. Breza/I. K. Gilmore (w/encl) 12-01-004-2$ (w/encl)
'% _ f f

DEM ID: ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT APPLIED FOR (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #):
JOINT APPLICATION FORT[ FOR
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION CONCURRENC
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS. SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: Texasgulf Inc.

2. OWNERS ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 48, Aurora, NC 27806
3. OWNERS PHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK) : [phone]
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER: Wi 1 1 i am A Sehimminc
Mnnngar. F.nvirnnmental Affairs
TP7ta-, gijf Tnn
(A10) -479-4111
5. LOCATION OF PLANNED WORK (ATTACH MAP). COUNTY : R P•a i i f o r t
NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Airnrn
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Whi tPhi r-,t .r k mi i gati on channel off of ofd SR 1()41
6. NAME OF CLOSEST STREAM/RIVER: W hitehurst Creek
7. RIVER BASIN: Pamlico River/South Creek
8. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, SA, HQW, ORW,
WS I, OR WS II? YES ( ) NO (X)
9. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES (X) NO ( J
IF YES, EXPLAIN. A MM 6 was used to fill 0,6 acres of water-, of th
U.S. in July 1992 in this vicinity.
10. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WATERS OF THE U.S., INCLUDING
WETLANDS, LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE: 0.69
3/30/9:
14. Mining of phosphate must be carried out in waters because
the ore can be mined only where it is found, and the ore is
located irrespective of landscape features present on the
surface of the land. Operating cost- is a key factor in the
year-to-year economic viability of the Applicant, directly
affecting its profitability. The ore thickness to the west-of
the active mine is significantly poorer than to the east, and
mining south or west would result in substantial operating
cost increases to the Applicant. Mining any further to the
south at this time would eliminate the continuous mining
corridor that currently exists between the southern boundary
of the mine operation and the railroad tracks. This corridor
is necessary for eventually allowing the mine to move into the
western portion of the area in a continuous manner.
Therefore, the only practical direction for a continuous mine
advance during 1995-96 is to the east of the active mine,
through a portion of the Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel.
Mining around this stretch of mitigation channel would result
in a substantial increase in operating costs along with a
permanent forfeiture of phosphate ore, which translates into
significant reserve value losses.
Texasgulf must maintain the lowest possible production
costs at all times to remain viable in the highly competitive
phosphate industry. Because the prices paid for phosphate
products are dictated by market supply and world demand, they
are independent of variations in recovery costs experienced by
Texasgulf. Therefore, additional operating costs in mining
the ore are borne by Texasgulf and are not passed along to
phosphate consumers. Texasgulf relies on high volume
production and minimization of operating costs to remain
viable. Production costs are closely related to the geologic
character of the ore and the location and orientation of the
area to be mined.
The factors that primarily determine operating costs are
overburden depth, ore thickness, ore grade, and ore transport
requirements. Ore transport costs are normally the most
critical operating cost consideration. As the distance
between the mine and the mill increases, the distance the ore
must be transported (pumped as a slurry through a pipeline)
increases. Transport distance also increases when the
direction of mining requires ore to be pumped around the mine
before being pumped to the mill. The location of the mining
operation in 1994 resulted in an average ore transport
distance of slightly less than 6 miles. On this basis, an
increase in ore transport distance of 1 mile correlates to a
17 percent increase in ore transport cost.
Mining to the south or west at this time is projected to
have a severe adverse impact on the economic viability of
Texasgulf. This economic impact is solely comprised of
additional operating costs which would be generated by mining
to the south or west, due to mining factors. Given these
substantial additional operating costs and continuity
concerns, mining to the south or west represents an
impracticable mine plan when compared to mining to the east.
Impacts to these waters will be minimized by only
proposing to mine the uppermost 3,000 feet of the mitigation
channel along agricultural fields, and not mining any natural
waters.
RELOCATION OF A
PORTION OF
WHITEHURST CREEK MITIGATION CHANNEL.
GARO??'''•.
C=OQ' ?ESSIp?, ti,9 ?'
QUO 9?
* SEAL
5365
?0 FMG? Nti?? `?,
.•''eFRT M. G?•'?
PREPARED BY:
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
October 11, 1994
RMC NO: 94103
RELOCATION OF WHITEHURST CREEK MITIGATION CHANNEL
INTRODUCTION
Texasgulf Inc. is in the process of obtaining a U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
permit for the continuation of phosphate mining within a 14,200-acre project area. As a
permit process is proceeding, Texasgulf continues to mine in COE nonAurisdictional area
in a southerly direction. The current mine operation is located in the vicinity of Brantley
Swamp Road just to the West of N. C. Highway 306. In order to continue mining through
1995 as the permit process continues, Texasgulf plans to move to the East (see Figures
1 and 2). This 290 acre area involves no wetlands, but does involve relocation of the
mitigation channel that was previously constructed as a condition for mining in the
channelized Whitehurst Drainage.
The rational, concept and design forthe mitigation channel has been previously fully
documented in a report titled:
MITIGATION PLAN FOR REPLACEMENT
OF
5000 FEET OF CHANNELIZED
WHITEHURST CREEK
PREPARED BY:
TEXASGULF INC.
CZR INCORPORATED
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
dated
14 MAY 1992
The above report is herein referenced for inclusion in the relocation of the mitigation
channel and details for construction will remain the same except as further noted herein.
II. RELOCATION
The portion of the mitigation channel to be relocated is shown on Figure 3 and will
involve excavation of the retention pond at the new site as shown, connection of the
diversion channel along the south and east sides of the added mine area, and
reconstruction of the mitigation channel between the retention pond and the undisturbed
portion of the existing mitigation channel.
III. 'DESIGN
The relocated mitigation channel will be excavated in an area with surface ground
elevations averaging approximately +8 feet above mean sea level. The new invert for the
channel will be approximately +2 feet elevation with zero fall between the outlet from the
retention pond and the connection with the existing undisturbed section of the mitigation
channel. This flat invert is to provide improved habitat for various species of plants and
aquatic life due to greater saturation during dry periods. The channel cross section will
remain unchanged from that previously constructed and the total length of the mitigation
channel will remain unchanged. The design plan and profile titled "Mitigation Plan for
Channelized Whitehurst Creek, RMC #94103 dated 10-11-94 is attached for additional
information.
IV. GEOMETRY
(a) The relocated sedimentation pond inlet will be located at approximately
N (-) 161 + 08
E 108 + 14
(b) The relocated sedimentation pond outlet/relocated mitigation channel will be
located at approximately
N (-) 155 + 03
E 107+58
(c) The relocated portion of the mitigation channel will connect to the remaining
portion of the previously constructed mitigation channel at approximately
N (-) 151 + 49
E 76+42
FIGURE 1
for
290 ACRE INE BLOCK
E Texasgulf Inc.
OATE- ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E:
JOB NO. 94103 ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
SCALE: NTS NEW BERN. NORTH CAROLINA
T9 NORTH. Alo
N [7?a
?-6
0-4/3
.
Q-2
MAU AM 1 0-1
0-6 aawo a.
ItEaJ1Y AREA 4
imaNw Aw? s
J
f
t
FinaAIM AFWA a r?
290 ACRE
: MINE BLOCK
FlGURE 2
LOCAn= NIP
f for
890 AMM >I= MOM
® Texas Inc.
}
OAM R09ERT M. CHILES, P.E.
Np 94107 olo!Q=_ NO,- CAIMLWM - f
EQAtSs 1? 4000 WW WK mm CAFAM
N
7

ofmww elm
??? 'P'ee:•.? .c.,c ^"' ,' rWa 14160
IN -M
N d

i
I I ?
?i
`:
W

nww 7M
lecarwa?wa11t1lMOSatI ?????????????
nam
?sOaN Melt OMIT ?rw w +w4 sw a4 4m.
teep6o6t oltela. -....
CAL 404 Lon -"--------------
.«. ftww? ,4dl. rs w, A. ??uw41IIM. ir_ ws .. 1 )
SEDIADIT BASK
. _ ... ... \>:........a. .
\ I ?
\ I \
Ch ACRE '\
-.1-Ml E` LOCK
.06bcr s \ \
,........... ..
t...
i .
- YAiLR ..
Rojo \ \ \
if= ?55-NIA \ ? \
r \
rAll?t of
\\\ \ ?\ ti "\\ \ \ \
-7 -7
Jill
?-- 46Y!` a AI??11p ?ell\e1e66
W W
$ Figure 3
WE PLAN
for
$ 290 ACRE M WE BLOCK 11
® Teaasgulf Inc. a
b
l DAIS: 10-13-94 ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
JOB Ii0. 94103 ENOMEERS AND CONSULTANTS
SCALE 1' a SW NE1tl8E1lN. NORM CARMM
,,,
DMMMAL MAW DPT• State of North Carolina
OIirtment of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett,- Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary June 30, 1992 Director
Mr. Bill Schimming
Texasgulf, Inc.
P.O. Box 48
Aurora, N.C. 27806
Dear Mr. Schimming:
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal.
Clean Water Act,
Proposed stream relocation and reclamation
Project # 92039
Beaufort County
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 2748 issued
to Texasgulf, Inc. dated June 30, 1992.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
K?Lo(
rge T. Everet
4Geirector
Attachments
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Washington Regional Office
Washington DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. John Parker
Central Files
Mr. Dave McNaught, Tar-Pamlico River Foundation
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh - Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251.6208 919/4861541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/9466481 919/395.3900 919/8967007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 276260535 Telephone [phone] -
An Equal Oppawmn Affirnnow Action Employer -
NORTH CAROLINA
` Beaufort County
i
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the
requirements of 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 Texasgulf, Inc. pursuant to an application filed on the 15th
day of My, 1992 to mine through about 0.96 acres of the stream
channel of Whitehurst Creek between SR 1941 and SR 1937.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the
discharge of fill material into the waters of Whitehurst Creek in
conjunction with the proposed 700 acre mine expansion in Beaufort
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 the activity be conducted in such a manner as
to prevent significant increase in turbidity
outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (increases such that the
turbidity in the Stream is 50 NTU's or less are not
considered significant).
2. Texasgulf must restore Whitehurst Creek to
approximately its original position within four
years of mining through the junction of the twa
prongs of the creek. Texasgulf must notify the
Division when they mine through the junction of the
two prongs of the Creek so that the beginning of
the four year time limit can be documented.
3. 'the-m-M-Agatlen ehanne! must be established-
See suggested €e-lew-eg the-giiid_el}ees of t-he "Mitigatien ;2321;
changes for €er Replaeemeeh 99 5,-8AA Feet a€ Ghaefie-}seed
Condition 3 on WI; i:17_e1;i=st: Greek" 4MQ;c3scu1€ et?1.._1 00`3, goz
the last page of
this certification
4. The mitigation channel must be monitored until the
original channel is back in place. Data are
necessary from at least two stations -- at the
mouth of the mitigation channel at SR 1941 and
approximately one-half way between SR 1941 and the
sedimentation pond. Benthic macroinvertebrates and
' fish must be monitored twice a year (in two
.47 different seasons) to ensure that these organisms
are colonizing the channel. Monitoring of
parameters of water quality is required monthly to
enable tracking of possible causes of
macroinvertebrate colonization failure. These
parameters must include dissolved oxygen,
temperature, conductivity, pH, total phosphate and
fluoride.
5. The criteria for re-establishing Whitehurst Creek
should be similar to the temporary mitigation
channel in terms of vegetation and substrate as
detailed in the "Mitigation Plan for Replacement of
5,000 feet of Channelized Whitehurst Creek"
(Texasgulf et al. 1992). The re-established
section of Whitehurst Creek will have a minimum
vegetative buffer of 50 feet on either side of the
stream channel. In addition, monitoring of benthic
macroinvertebrates and fish two times per year
(once each in the summer and winter) is required to
ensure successful re-establishment of the biota of
Whitehurst Creek. These data should be taken at
three stations corresponding to those chosen by
DEM's Ecosystems Analysis Unit when the original
stream channel was sampled on 2/12/92.
The re-established stream will be considered
successful when there is no greater than 25 percent
reduction in the total number of genera (or species
where identification is feasible) found before
mining. Monitoring of Whitehurst Creek is required
until this success criterion is met or until the
DEM concurs that the benthic macroinvertebrate
community has successfully recolonized whichever is
sooner. Texasgulf must take qualitative benthic
macroinvertebrate samples (as well as fish samples)
in Whitehurst Creek corresponding to the Division's
sampling methodology for this criterion to be.
applicable.
It is also necessary for Texasgulf to obtain
biological data during the summer of 1992 from
Whitehurst Creek prior to any mining activities in
the channel. These data should conform in stations
and methodology to the work done by DEM on 2/12/92.
These two data sets will be used as baseline data
for comparison with stream reclamation efforts.
6. If Whitehurst Creek is not re-established within
four years of mining through the junction of the
two prongs of the creek, Texasgulf must make
payments to the DEM of $1,000 per day until the
creek is reestablished.
7. A 401 Certification will not be required to mine
through the Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel as
long as Whitehurst Creek has been successfully
re-established.
8. Four copies of annual reports on the biology and
chemistry of both the mitigation channel and the
re-established Whitehurst Creek must be submitted
to the Division.
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 J day of June, 1992.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1
eo ge T. Everett Director
WQC#k 2748
Suggested Condition No. 3:
The portion of the mitigation charnel to be removed must be relocated to
the perimeter of the newly established mining area before bucket%heel
excavator prestripping activities begin in the Whiteh wst Creek mitigation
charnel. The charnel must be established following the guidelines of the
report "Relocation of a Portion of Trfiitehurst Creek. Mitigation Charnel"
(R.M. Chiles, 1994), and the 'Mitigation Plan for Replacement of 5,000
Feet of Channelized Whitehurst Creek" (Texaspulf et al. 1992).
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Heblth and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
June 10, 1996
Mr. Jeff Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
RE: Permit No. 07-01
Aurora Phosphate Mine
Beaufort County
Dear Mr. Furness:
XF0
! W*AA
[D F= F=1
This office has reviewed your May 23, 1996 letter requesting
a modification to the approved plan for the relocation of Bailey
Creek. Your company proposes to construct a temporary diversion
channel west and north of the existing Bailey Creek channel to
reroute the water flow. The diversion channel would include two
rock check dams and a settling basin before it reconnects with
the Bailey Creek channel. You also propose to fill in a section
of the existing channel to allow spoil placement as indicated on
the Sketch Plan - Temporary Water Diversion for Bailey Creek
Relocation dated May 22, 1996.
Your request for modification of Mining Permit No. 07-01 as
outlined above is hereby approved with the following stipulation:
Appropriate approvals must be obtained from the Division of
Environmental Management, Water Quality Section, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers prior to implementation of the above
modifications to the relocation of Bailey Creek. Please forward
two (2) copies of such approvals, when obtained, to Mr. Tracy
Davis of this office.
Please attach a copy of this modification approval letter to
your existing mining permit for future reference.
As a reminder, the total permitted acreage at this site is
10,862 acres.
Geological Survey Section Land Quality Section Geodetic Survey Section
[phone] [phone] [phone]
FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone]
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. Furness
June 10, 1996
Page 2
'juN 21996
EIVVIR0
Tq SCIENCES
Please contact Mr. Davis at [phone] should you have
any questions concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
Charles H.
CHG/td
bailey.mod
cc: Mr. Tracy Davis, P.E.
Mr. Floyd Williams, P.G.
Mr. John Dorney - DEM
Mr. Hugh Heine - USCOE
1-4
/(/-
Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Stat North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. Jeffrey Furness
PCS Phosphate
P.O. Box 48
Aurora, NC 27806
Dear Mr. Furness;
Re: Modification of 401 Certification
Bailey Creek relocation
Beaufort County
Ar. ?
[D F= F1
June 10 1996
In response to your letter of 23 May 1996, the 401 Water Quality Certification issued
on 6 March 1996 to PCS Phosphate to relocate a portion of Bailey Creek is hereby
modified to reflect the construction of a temporary diversion channel as shown on the map
attached to your letter.
Please call Mr. John Dorney of my staff at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
cc:
Jim Mulligan, DEM Washington Regional
Kristen Rowles, Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
William Westcott, WRC
CentraLFiles
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Tracey Davis, Division of Land Resources
r., P.
Division of Environmental Management - Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 - Telephone [phone] - FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
jl?jl*
Sob
PCS
Phosphate AURORA DIVISION
RO. BOX 48, AURORA, NC 27806
May 23, 1996
,/Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Tracy Davis
State Mining Specialist
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of EHNR
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. David Franklin
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Gentlemen:
F ?4? ??cFL
041, & FO
99
or
?cR
s
With the amount of dry weather that we have been having, the excavation of the Bailey
Creek relocation channel is progressing rapidly. However an unanticipated problem has
arisen as we approach the western tie-in point. The existing channel comes very close
to the top of the slope of the relocated channel, and there is no room in this area to
push the spoil.
We have designed a solution to this problem, and it is shown in the attached figure.
We propose to construct a temporary diversion channel west and north of the existing
Bailey Creek channel to reroute the water flow, and fill in a section of the existing
channel to allow spoil placement. This diversion channel would include two rock check
dams and a settling basin before it reconnects with the Bailey Creek channel.
49- . -%
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. Tracy Davis
Mr. David Franklin
May, 23, 1996
Page 2 of 2
We request your review and approval of this construction detail as soon as possible so
that we can complete the relocation during this good weather. If you have any
questions, please call me at 919/322-8249.
Sincerely,
C JM AO
Je ey C. Furness
Environmental Scientist
JCF/re
Attachment
pc: W. A. Schimming (w/attch)
S. R. Phillips/12-01-004-28 (w/attch)
H. M. Breza/R. M. Smith (w/attch)
P. J. Moffett (w/attch)
C. H. Brown (w/attch)
R M. Chiles (w/attch)
00-14-000 (w/o attch)
Wo
L/
19-43

? 111111 11 II
?? ?

m? 11111
I I l

11
- 0?

Z m
- 11 m
u

?
o) 1111 m
Q
1 r OAA
111 l 1 ll

11
?? 111111 I I I
- - SECTION
111111 ? 1 I
• _-_? •? ^- I

H I?I?
00
m
- •
A 1
• • !11111 ? 1 n`N?O
?
.1
Q t > 2 0
rmo
1111(((( jjjj1111 ? ? ?
a'' D
Ip w
'
' F
m O
b -<
\
s
\ 11111

.. 1
C? D
' A
'o
W
m m fTi
-+. f'rI n .t ?.

`
111111
11

11 D
m -
D 1 ?
? o 7\
o
2 ?
W;D
w N
;o 1-1't -D
0

o O Z r
n
=
D <
D
rri
111111
I
II
!A
o? M
r < p to
M _

? _,
t
.?
Z O Z O
Z ?
3'' I
T rn

dod95173CH7 05-22-96 1620
%-e -
f
PCS
Phosphate VAURORA DIVISION
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC 27806
May 23, 1996
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Tracy Davis
State Mining Specialist
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of EHNR
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. David Franklin
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Gentlemen:
? o
With the amount of dry weather that we. have been having, the excavation of the Bailey
Creek relocation channel is progressing rapidly. However an unanticipated problem has
arisen as we-approach the western tie-in point. The existing channel comes very close
to the top of the slope of the relocated channel, and there is no room in this area to
push the spoil.
We have designed a solution to this problem, and it is shown in the attached figure.
We propose to construct a temporary diversion channel west and north of the existing
Bailey Creek channel to reroute the water flow, and fill in a section of the existing
channel to allow spoil placement. This diversion channel would include two rock check
dams and a settling basin before it reconnects with the Bailey Creek channel.
t
A
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. Tracy Davis
Mr. David Franklin
May-23, 1996
Page 2 of 2
We request your review and approval of this construction detail as soon as possible so
that we can complete the relocation during this good weather. If you have any
questions, please call me at 919/322-8249.
Sincerely,
Je ey C. Furness
Environmental Scientist
JCF/re
Attachment
pc: W. A. Schimming (w/attch)
S. R. Phillips/12-01-004-28 (w/attch)
H. M. Breza/R. M. Smith (w/attch)
P. J. Moffett (w/attch)
C. H. Brown (w/attch)
R M. Chiles (w/attch)
00-14-000 (w/o attch)
OZ9l 96-ZZ-90 L143£Lt96POP
Y W
1007P z o aQ4c

m
i co W
t= o Au
r

:
i
I
L
(111(1 > Q o
o
?/
•
:
a Z o
.
_ Q -? a
o - J L z
- a w W
W I Q ?? Uj Z W
W W z
U ?
Z Il I I VIII) ,?.
TTT
W m
• W
W
:: - Q U
L- ?

a
o
LL,

CL bi
10
w

L al_
LLI m

quo z O J
.
0
\ Z J
s r?

C,
OW<??

4c
D ? IA
•fNm?C II 111111
I ..
aW
l
llll ?t
to ?, ..

111
11 mg
11 .

(
1

1
..

.

? .
NOlt?3S
III .. I
$ ??

1

I

? 1111 ? u

1

+rj _ I
P
J 1 I

?
FT
((

( 1
(11111 I

li I II
LIIII!
.?OJ ??

??

..i

WRONMENTAL AFFAPS DEPT. State of North Carolina
1111 QFleAartment of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
June 30, 1992
George T. Everett,- Ph.D.
Director
Mr. Bill Schimming
Texasgulf, Inc.
P.O. Box 48
Aurora, N.C. 27806
Dear Mr. Schimming:
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal.
Clean Water Act,
Proposed stream relocation and reclamation
Project # 92039
Beaufort County
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 2748 issued
to Texasgulf, Inc. dated June 30. 1992.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
Ge rge T. Everet
'f'Sirector
Attachments
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Washington Regional Office
Washington DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. John Parker
Central Files
Mr. Dave McNaught, Tar-Pamlico River Foundation
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/4861541 704/663.1699 919/571.4700 919/9466481 919/395.3900 919/8967007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 276260535 Telephone [phone] -
An Equal Opportumw Alfirmame Action Employer
AP 's

THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the
requirements of 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 Texasgulf, Inc. pursuant to an application filed on the 15th
day of =, 1992 to mine through about 0.96 acres of the stream
channel of Whitehurst Creek between SR 1941 and SR 1937.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the
discharge of fill material into the waters of Whitehurst Creek in
conjunction with the proposed 700 acre mine expansion in Beaufort
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 the activity be conducted in such a manner as
to prevent significant increase in turbidity
outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (increases such that the
turbidity in the Stream is 50 NTU's or less are not
considered significant).
2. Texasgulf must restore Whitehurst Creek to
approximately its original position within four
years of mining through the junction of the two.
prongs of the creek. Texasgulf must notify the
Division when they mine through the junction of the
two prongs of the Creek so that the beginning of
the four year time limit can be documented.
See suggested €e _le;ri 9--the °?-aft ie 144: } ; g t ; ^ Plan
changes for €e E Rep la e emeat 99 5, ^-F-eet of ^h fi ^ e , ; .1 e
Condition 3 on Whit el;u nst-.reek t ( Tzaxasql: i -e at , , , o c *7? J,e-FG.--
the last page of
this certification
4. The mitigation channel must be monitored until the
original channel is back in place. Data are
necessary from at least two stations -- at the
mouth of the mitigation channel at SR 1941 and
approximately one-half way between SR 1941 and the
sedimentation pond. Benthic macroinvertebrates and
.Ire a4
fish must be monitored twice a year (in two
different seasons) to ensure that these organisms
are colonizing the channel. Monitoring of
parameters of water quality is required monthly to
enable tracking of possible causes of
macroinvertebrate colonization failure. These
parameters must include dissolved oxygen,
temperature, conductivity, pH, total phosphate and
fluoride.
5. The criteria for re-establishing Whitehurst Creek
should be similar to the temporary mitigation
channel in terms of vegetation and substrate as
detailed in the "Mitigation Plan for Replacement of
5,000 feet of Channelized Whitehurst Creek"
(Texasgulf et al. 1992). The re-established
section of Whitehurst Creek will have a minimum
vegetative buffer of 50 feet on either side of the
stream channel. In addition, monitoring of benthic
macroinvertebrates and fish two times per year
(once each in the summer and winter) is required to
ensure successful re-establishment of the biota of
Whitehurst Creek. These data should be taken at
three stations corresponding to those chosen by
DEM's Ecosystems Analysis Unit when the original
stream channel was sampled on 2/12/92.
The re-established stream will be considered
successful when there is no greater than 25 percent
reduction in the total number of genera (or species
where identification is feasible) found before
mining. Monitoring of Whitehurst Creek is required
until this success criterion is met or until the
DEM concurs that the benthic macroinvertebrate
community has successfully recolonized whichever is
sooner. Texasgulf must take qualitative benthic
macroinvertebrate samples (as well as fish samples)
in Whitehurst Creek corresponding to the Division's
sampling methodology for this criterion to be.
applicable.
It is also necessary for Texasgulf to obtain
biological data during the summer of 1992 from
Whitehurst Creek prior to any mining activities in
the channel. These data should conform in stations
and methodology to the work done by DEM on 2/12/92.
These two data sets will be used as baseline data
for comparison with stream reclamation efforts.
6. If Whitehurst Creek is not re-established within
four years of mining through the junction of the
two prongs of the creek, Texasgulf must make
payments to the DEM of $1,000 per day until the
creek is reestablished.
7. A 401 Certification will not be required to mine
through the Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel as
long as Whitehurst- Creek has been successfull.y
re-established.
8. Four copies of annual reports on the biology and
chemistry of both the mitigation channel and the
re-established Whitehurst Creek must be submitted
to the Division.
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 30th day of June, 1992.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
?T.Everett eo ge Director
WQC# 2748
Suggested Condition No. 3:
The portion of the mitigation charnel to be remved nnzst be relocated to
the perimeter of the newly established mining area before buckemheel
excavator prestripping activities begin in the Whitehurst Creek mitigation
charnel. The charnel must be established following the guidelines of the
report "Relocation of a Portion of Vhitehurst Creek 11itigation Charnel"
(R.M. Chiles, 1994), and the 'Mitigation Plan for Replacement of 5,000
Feet of Charnelized Whitehurst Creek' (Texasgulf et al. 1992).
Texasgulf Inc.
an elf aquitaine company
P.O. Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
June 9, 1994
W.A. Schimming
Manager
Environmental Affairs
[phone]
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Dept. of EHNR
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dorney:

Section 401 Water Quality Certification No. 2748 was issued to Texasgulf on June 30,
1992, for the relocation and reclamation of the channelized headwaters of Whitehurst
Creek. Condition number 2 of the Certification requires that Whitehurst Creek be
restored to approximately its original position within four years after mining through the
junction of the two prongs of the creek. It also requires that DEM be notified when the
junction of the prongs has been mined so that the beginning of the four year time can be
documented.
This letter is to notify you that the area of the junction of the two prongs was mined on
June 7, 1994, thereby starting the 4-year reclamation timetable. If you have any
questions regarding this issue, please call Jeff Furness or myself.
Sincerely,
C ?r-t?t rus r
1 A. Schimming
WAS:JCF/re
pc: T. J. Regan 12-01-004-26
H. M. Breza 00-12-000
J. C. Furness
I. K. Gilmore
D. A. Hettinger
R. M. Smith
P. J. Moffett
Printed on
Rwycted PV-
(0 V`
Pcs 12EI
Phosphate VAURORA DIVISION
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC 27806
December 35, 1995
DEC 1 $ 1995
Mr. Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section WETlAPliD?G?Z"
Division of Environmental Management WATER UAL11Y 7
-
North Carolina Department of EHNR
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Tedder:
PCS Phosphate has applied to the Division of Land Resources to
modify its mining permit by adding 770 acres to the existing
permitted acreage. This modification is necessary to allow PCS
Phosphate to continue mining while the Environmental Impact
Statement process is continuing. A small portion of this 770-acre
area includes a segment of the upper channelized drainage to Bailey
Creek. A No. 26 Nationwide Permit application has been submitted
to the Corps of Engineers to impact approximately 0.3 acres of
"Waters of the U. S." in the channel itself. It is estimated that
"Waters of the State" would be less than one acre and, therefore,
7 copies of an application for a 401 Water Quality Certification
are enclosed.
Included with each application is a reclamation plan and several
drawings that relate to this permit request. PCS Phosphate
proposes to permanently relocate a segment of this channelized
drainage to Bailey Creek to the perimeter of the mining area prior
to impacting the existing channel. This channel relocation plan is
outlined in the enclosed reclamation plan and detailed in the
enclosed drawing titled "Construction Plan for the Relocated
Channel for the 770 Acre Mine Block."
Also enclosed with this application is a large drawing titled
"Reclamation Plan for the 770/290/360/700 Acre Mine Blocks". This
drawing visually depicts what the narrative reclamation plan
describes. Because of the necessity to continue mining in this
southwest area long after PCS had hoped to be mining in the eastern
tract, plans for reclaiming this site are required to be altered
from those previously approved.

Mr. Steve Tedder, Chief
December 15, 1995
Page 2 of 2
As long as mining activities continue in this southern area, the
mine utility corridor (2 canals, power line, pipelines and road)
needs to remain in place near the old S.R. 1941 bridge. This means
that any Whitehurst Creek channel constructed in reclaimed land
could not be tied-in to the existing lower channel until the
utility corridor is no longer required. Therefore we request that
the conditions that Whitehurst Creek be restored to its original
location within four years after mining through the junction of the
two prongs and the penalty of $1,000 per day if it is not restored
in four years, be deleted from Water Quality Certification 2748,
which was issued on June 30, 1992.
As can be seen from the large reclamation map, we propose to create
one channel for Whitehurst Creek through reclaimed land and to also
let the current Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel remain in place
permanently. This makes the most ecological sense based on the
direction that stormwater would flow off the reclaimed land, and
would result in approximately 7,600 feet of restored channel
compared to a currently required 5,000 feet. We believe that there
is no reason to not use the mitigation channel that is already in
place and functioning better than the original channel for part of
the permanent reclamation of this area.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to
contact Jeff Furness of my staff at 919/322-8249 if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
C N,?iuto
Peacock
Environmental Affairs
BAP:JCF/re
Enclosures
pc: Roger Thorpe - DEM, WaRO (w/encl)
T. J. Regan (w/o encl)
T. C. Younger (w/o encl)
W. A. Schimming (w/o encl)
W. T. Cooper (w/o encl)
H. M. Breza/I. K. Gilmore (w/o encl)
P. J. Moffett (w/encl)
J. C. Furness (w/o encl)
00-17-000 (w/o encl)
12-01-004-28 (w/encl)
s ?.
F
PCs
Phosphate V AURORA DIVISION
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC 27806
December 21, 1995
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
North Carolina Department of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607-6445
Dear Mr. Dorney:

?ECcr ??L
ft 2 2199S
E
NceS
In a letter from Preston Howard dated May 30, 1995, approving the modification
of Water Quality Certification Number 2748 for Whitehurst Creek, an as-built plan
was required to be submitted to DEM after construction. Enclosed is an as-built
drawing with cross-sections, showing the part of the Whitehurst Creek mitigation
channel that was relocated between June and October 1995.
If you have any questions or need further information, please call me at 919-322-
8249.
Sincerely,
(. ,(,V AW
J rey C. Furness
Environmental Scientist
JCF/re
EncL
pc: Roger Thorpe, DEM, WaRO (w/encl)
W. A. Schimming (w/o encl)
B. A. Peacock (w/o encl)
P. J. Moffett (w/encl)
12-01-004-26 (w/encl)
00-14-000 (w/o encl)

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
December 7, 1994
MEMO
To:
From:
Re:
Deborah Sawyer,-WaRO
A4. tr-owj
E:) F== F1
Jimmie Overton
Ron Ferrell
John Dorn `
Monitoring report
Whitehurst Creek relocation project
Texasgulf
Beaufort County
Attached for you review and comment is the latest report
from Texas Gulf on the Whitehurst Creek relocation project.
Please review and send any comments to me by 22 December 1994.
texgulf.mem
cc: Cherri Smith
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

Texasguif inc.
an elf aquitaine company
RO. Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
November 22, 1994
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental
North Carolina Department
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Dorney:
RECEIVED
VIOV 2 1994
ENVIR OmmENTAL SGIENCb
Management
of EHNR
27607
Water Quality Certification No. 2748 for the
relocation requires periodic biological and
annual reporting. Enclosed are four copie
report, as required in condition Nc. 8
Certification.
W.A. Schimming
Manager
Environmental Affairs
[phone]
Upper Whitehurst Creek
chemical sampling and
s of the 1994 sampling
of the Water Quality
In our last meeting at your office in Raleigh, there was a question
regarding the low pH-values recorded during some late winter and
early spring samples. We are currently pulling together
meteorological data from days prior to each sample event to see if
there are any patterns.. We will forward that analysis separately.
If you have any questions regarding information presented in the
report, please call Jeff Furness or myself.
Sincerely,
W. /A. Schimmi
WAS:JCF/re
Enclosures
pc: H. M. Breza/I. K. Gilmore (w/o encl)
P. J. Moffett (w/o encl)
J. C. Furness (w/o encl)
12-01-004-26 (w/encl)
00-12-000 (w/o encl)
Panted o
R.YO.W Paper
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
UPPER WHITEHURST CREEK
AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE AND FISH SURVEY
AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSES:
1994 MITIGATION CHANNEL REPORT
Prepared For:
TEXASGULF INC.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared By:
CZR INCORPORATED
4709 College Acres Drive, Suite 2
Wilmington, North Carolina
September 1994

Upper Whitehurst Creek
Aquatic Macroinvertebrate and Fish Survey
and Water Quality Analyses:
1994 Mitigation Channel Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables .......................................................... iii
List of Figures ......................................................... iii
List of Appendices ...................................................... iii
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1
A. Purpose ................................................... 1
B. Project Site ................................................ 1
II. METHODOLOGY ........................... 2
A. Macroinvertebrates ........................................... 2
B. Fish ...................................................... 2
C. Water Quality ............................................... 2
III. RESULTS ....................................................... 5
A. Macroinvertebrates ........................................... 5
B. Fish ...................................................... 5
C. Water Quality .............................................. 11
D. Recolonization ............................................. 11
IV. SUMMARY ..................................................... 15

LIST OF TABLES
Table Paqe
1 Description of conditions at stations in the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel
second-year (1994) macro invertebrate survey, Beaufort County, North Carolina ....... 6
2 Taxa richness of macroinvertebrates (by group) for the upper Whitehurst Creek
mitigation channel second-year (1994) survey, Beaufort County, North Carolina ....... 7
3 Second-year (1994) macroinvertebrate survey of the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation
channel, Beaufort County, North Carolina ................................. 8
4 Second-year (1994) fish survey of the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel,
Beaufort County, North Carolina ....................................... 10
5 Monthly water quality sampling and analyses conducted in the upper Whitehurst Creek
mitigation channel by the Texasgulf Environmental Affairs laboratory ............. 12
6 Summary of macroinvertebrate recolonization of upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation
channel within the first two years (1993-1994) ............................ 13
7 Fish recolonization of upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel within the first two
years (1993-1994) ................................................ 14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Paqe
1 Fish and Macroinvertebrate Sample Sites: Upper Whitehurst Creek Mitigation Channel 3
2 Monthly Water Quality Sample Sites: Upper Whitehurst Creek Mitigation Channel ..... 4
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Taxa Documented in Upper Whitehurst Creek 1992-1994

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
' This report presents the results of the 1994 aquatic macroinvertebrate and fish surveys
conducted by CZR Incorporated (CZR) for Texasgulf Inc. in the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation
' channel as required as a condition of 401 Water Quality Certification No. 2748 issued on 30 June 1992
to Texasgulf Inc. by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) of the North Carolina Department
' of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
This is the third report in a series for upper Whitehurst Creek, and is the second report
on the aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish of the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel. The first
report presented the baseline condition in historical upper Whitehurst Creek based on 1992 surveys by
' DEM and CZR. The second report presented the first-year conditions of the upper Whitehurst Creek
mitigation channel based on 1993 surveys by CZR. This third report presents the second-year
t conditions of the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel based on CZR's 1994 surveys, and
' presents the recolonization to date based on the 1993 and 1994 surveys.
' B. Project Site
A detailed description of the mitigation channel is found in Appendix B of the 1992
Baseline Report. The upstream end of the mitigation channel begins at the outlet of a sediment basin
' and continues for approximately 5,000 linear feet to join Whitehurst Creek on the west side of the
bridge on old SR 1941. The mitigation channel has a flat bottom approximately 10 feet in width and
' 2.5:1 side slopes. The slopes were vegetated with a mixture of Kobe lespedeza, German millet, and
Pensacola bahia grass in addition to various tree seedlings. Log/limb sections and leaf litter were added
' to selected spots in the mitigation channel in April 1993.

II. METHODOLOGY
A. Macroinvertebrates
Two monitoring stations were established in the mitigation channel in 1993 for
surveying aquatic macroinvertebrates. Station 1 is located above SR 1941 near the mouth of the
mitigation channel, and Station 2 is approximately half-way between SR 1941 and the sedimentation
pond (Figure 1). Sampling was conducted at these stations on 16 February 1994 and again on 20 July
1994. The sampling methodology is presented in the 1992 Baseline Report.
B. Fish
Two monitoring stations were established in in the mitigation channel in 1993 for
surveying fishes. Each station consists of a 600-foot stretch of channel marked by stakes at the
starting-, mid-, and ending-point. These two 600-foot stretches incorporate the macroinvertebrate
monitoring stations described above (Figure 1). The fish sampling methodology is presented in the
1992 Baseline Report.
C. Water Quality
Monthly water quality sampling and analyses were conducted by the Texasgulf
Environmental Affairs laboratory. These samples were collected from locations near the mouth and
near the middle stretch of the mitigation channel (Figure 2). Water samples were analyzed for
temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and pH while in the field , and for fluoride and total
phosphorus in the laboratory.
2

C
11 W HITEHURST CREEK
II 0 500 1000
STATION 1
II OLD SR 1941 FEET
II ??
?II
Q II
0II
II
MINING BLOCK vll
Il0
¢II cc
IIco
II W
Ila
II
II
II LL.,
1
II
II
11
II
11
II
. II
II
II
II
?7Y v 11
SEDIMENT BASIN
STATION 2
FISH AND MACROINVERTEBRATE
SAMPLE SITES
UPPER WHITEHURST CREEK
MITIGATION CHANNEL
OCTOBER 1993 SCALE AS SHOWN
CZR INCORPORATED
Environmental Consultants
4709 College Acres Drive
University Place Suite 2
Wilmington, NC 28403-1725
CP# 745.26 1 FIGURE 1

?J

C

C

II 11 W HITEHURST CREEK
...
MOUTH 0 500 10(
II
OLD S R FEET
1941
?-- II
II ?
MIDDLE
?II
cc
II
MINING BLOCK vll
II°
? a
0
a ll
I II

II W
I ' U
U
II a
II
I I
11
I

I

I I

I

I
II

11

11
I I
I

I
I ' I MONTHLY WATER QUALITY
•
•
II SAMPLE SITES

I
I UPPER WHITEHURST CREEK
MITIGATION CHANNEL
OCTOBER 1993 SCALE AS SHOWN

CZR INCORPORATED
I I ?-
Environmental Consultants
» ,\ 4709 College Acres Drive
? University Place Suite 2
.?? Wilmington, NC 28403-1725
SEDIMENT BASIN
CPI 745.26 FIGURE 2
4

III. RESULTS
I A. Macroinvertebrates
' Water quality information and site descriptions collected during macroinvertebrate
sampling are presented in Table 1. A summary of macroinvertebrate taxa richness is provided in Table
' 2. The summaries are presented by major taxonomic groupings, with insects divided into orders and
other invertebrates divided into classes. A breakdown of macroinvertebrate taxa included within each
' of those groups along with relative abundances of the taxa within each sample is provided in Table 3.
Forty-six macroinvertebrate taxa were identified from the upper Whitehurst Creek
' mitigation channel during 1994, the second year after its construction. Twenty of these taxa were
documented in historical upper Whitehurst Creek during the 1992 baseline surveys. Nineteen of the
other twenty-six taxa represent new additions to the fauna documented for Whitehurst Creek, with the
other seven new taxa documented during the 1993 sampling as well.
B. Fish
A summary of the seasonal fish surveys is presented in Table 4. Six species were
' documented from the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel during the second year after its
construction. Five of these species were among the nine fish species documented in historical upper
' Whitehurst Creek during the 1992 baseline surveys. One of these six species, the brown bullhead,
' represents a new addition to the documented fauna.

0

Table 1. Description of conditions at stations in the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel
second-year (1994) macroinvertebrate survey, Beaufort County, North Carolina. Winter survey
conducted 16 February 1994; summer survey conducted 20 July 1994.
Station 1 Station 2
Parameter
Winter Summer Winter Summer
Depth (m):
Average 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2
Maximum 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3
Canopy (%) 0 0 0 0
Aufwuchs heavy none none none
Bank erosion minimal minimal minimal minimal
Substrate (%):
Gravel 0 0 0 0
Sand 0 1 65 3
Silt 97 89 32 69
Detritus 3 10 3 18
Water quality:
Temperature (°C) 9.0 26.6 10.2 28.3
Conductivity 120 382 125 469
(,uvhos)
Salinity (ppt) 0.3 0 0.2 0
D.O. (mg/fl 14.6 NAa 13.2 NAa
pH 4.8 NAa 4.6 NAa
Water flow moderate none/pools moderate none
a Equipment malfunction, see Table 5 for other readings.
6
I

1

7
Table 2. Taxa richness of macroinvertebrates (by group) for the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel
second-year (1994) survey, Beaufort County, North Carolina. Winter survey conducted 16 February 1994;
summer survey conducted 20 July 1994.
Station 1 Station 2
Total
Group Winter Summer Total Winter Summer Total Taxa
Crustacea 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
Ephemeroptera 1 2 2 1 2 2 2
Odonata 3 4 5 2 8 9 10
Hemiptera 1 2 2 0 5 5 5
Coleoptera 3 5 8 3 10 11 14
Megaloptera 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Dip tera 2 3 5 3 6 7 10
Arachnida 0 1 1 1 1 2 2
Total taxa richness 11 18 24 11 34 39 46
EPT taxa richness' 1 2 2 1 2 2 2
EPT taxa richness is a measure of the number of identified taxa within the Insect orders Ephemeroptera,
' Plecoptera, and Trichoptera.

J
Table 3. Second-year macroinvertebrate survey of the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel, Beaufort County, North
Carolina. Winter survey conducted 16 February 1994; summer survey conducted 20 July 1994. Relative abundance
tabulated as Rare 0 -2 specimens), Common (3-9 specimens), or Abundant (z 10 specimens). A dash (-) indicates that
no individuals of the taxon were documented. An asterisk (*) indicates taxon in common with 1992 upper Whitehurst
Creek baseline.

I?

J

Station 1 Station 2
Taxa Winter Summer Winter Summer
Crustacea:
* Astacidae spp. R C C -
* Ostracoda spp. - - - C
Ephemeroptera
* Caenis spp. R R C A
Callibaetis spp. - A - A
Odonata (incl. Anisoptera, Zygoptera):
Anax Junius R R - R
Anomalagrion hastatum - - - R
* Enallagma spp. C A R A
* Erythrodiplax spp. - - R -
lshnura posita - - - R
* lshnura/Anomalagrion spp. - - - C
* Nannothemis bella R - - C
* Pachydiplax longipennis - R - -
Plathemis lydia - - - A
Libellulidae spp. - R - A
Hemiptera:
* Belostomatidae spp. - - - C
* Corixidae spp. C C - A
Mesoveliidae spp. - - - C
Naucoridae spp. - - - R
Nepidae spp. - R - R
Coleoptera:
Agabus spp. C - - R
Berosus spp. - A - C
Deronectes spp. A - - -
Deronectes/Hydroporus spp. R - R -
8

Table 3. (concluded)

Station 1 Station 2
Taxa Winter Summer Winter Summer
Enochrus spp. - R - -
Hydrochus spp. - - - C
* Hydroporus spp. - - - C
Hydrovatus spp. - R - -
* Laccophilus spp. - - - R
* Notomicrus spp. - - R R
* Peltodytes spp. - - - R
Suphisellus spp. - R R C
* Tropisternus spp. - A - A
* Uvarus spp. - - - C
Megaloptera:
Neohermes spp. - - - R
Diptera:
Anopheles spp. - - - R
Chrysops spp. - - - R
Culex spp. - - - R
* Dicrotendipes spp. A - - -
Goeldichironomus spp. - A - -
Larsia spp. - R - R
Microtendipes spp. - C - -
* Procladius spp. A - R R
* Simulium spp. - - R -
Orthocladiinae spp. - - C R
Arachnida:
Eylais spp. - R - R
* Tetragnatha spp. - - R -
Total taxa per station per season 11 18 11 34
Total taxa per station 24 39
Total taxa for 1994 46
9

Table 4. Second-year (1994) fish survey of the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel, Beaufort
County, North Carolina. Winter survey conducted 16 February 1994; summer survey conducted 20
July 1994. Length expressed as range in total length (in millimeters) of individuals (N) within sample.
Station 1 Station 2
Winter Summer Winter Summer
Species N (Length) N (Length) N (Length) N (Length)
Brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) 2(112-132) 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 0 (NA)
Pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus) 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 4(44-89)
Eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) 0 (NA) 18(10-31) 0 (NA) 6302-47)
Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 1 (88) 5(37-61)
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 10(29-54)
Swamp darter (Etheostoma fusiforme) 1 (51) 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 1 (32)
Total species per station per season 2 1 1 5
Total species per station 3 5
Total species for second-year survey 6
10
I1
' C. Water Quality
A summary of the monthly water quality analyses is presented in Table 5. This
summary includes data collected from November 1993 to August 1994.
D. Recolonization
' A summary of the macroinvertebrate recolonization of upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation
channel within the first two years (1993-1994) is presented in Table 6. A breakdown of
' macroinvertebrate taxa included within each of the groups presented in Table 6 is provided in Appendix
A.
' Fifty-nine macroinvertebrate taxa are shown as documented from the upper Whitehurst
Creek mitigation channel within the first two years after its construction. The actual number of species
' documented is higher since the taxa presented are broken down only to the taxonomic level of effort
' initially established by personnel from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management (DEM) during the winter 1992 baseline
' survey of upper Whitehurst Creek. For example, since DEM identified taxa within the group Coleoptera
only to the generic level, the three species within the genus Tropisternus identified during the summer
1994 survey were lumped within the taxon Tropisternus spp. established by DEM.
Representative taxa from nine of the eleven macroinvertebrate groups documented
' during the 1992 baseline survey, as well as an additional group, have been documented as recolonizing
the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel. Seven of the nine fish species documented in the 1992
' baseline survey, as well as an additional species, have now been documented as recolonizing the upper
Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel (Table 7).
1

11

y
co
x
F-
O
N
L
a)
c
c
ca
' U
G
O
ca
rn
Y
a?
a?
U
y
7
t
O
N
a
Q
7
N
s
' C
N
U
7
C
O
U
y
N
O
ca
is
c
m
'O
C
O
to
c
Q.
E
' ca
0
m O
O +'
a ca
o
3 N
t Q
C
1
0-5
C
O
L6 E
O O
-0 >
N C
' H W

O
p N
N -
M It
`- V-
N T-
N M
N
[1 M
LO M
O CO
LO
W a O O O O O O O O O O
a- E
FE Q
O
Q
-
J
.-
N
00
N
d
.-

N
N
N
LO
N

d
M
LO
M
lO
M
M
L
L O O O O O O O O O O O
E
N M M d LO M r- r- d'
N _ O O N O O o LO O O O
J D
Q O O O O O O O O O O
O °- a
Cn •?
0
~ _
4-- tO d O 1? M n

O

O
r
O
O
M
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
CL E O O O O O O O O O O
? O M M d' M (O M CO N C10
O LO r, CO 4 LO M m r? r, m

2
Q
3
M
LO
M
M
CO
Cfl
r*?
Cfl
O
r*?
O LO r? CO d' m m O r- n CO
E
O
r-
M
CO
Cl)
O
O
M
't
•-
W M M M O LO CA 00 M
o E
.
?
O

M ?- CO M N M O d' N
O M M 00 6 ? O LO O O O

? rn rn n
-

E
N
N M
N
N
N
N M
M 0 O
d M
M
~ O
U t
D
?
-
Z r

+'

N

n

d

I?

tO

I?

M

O

LO
O
U O
0
N M
N M
N M
N O
M m
N b
M
d M
M LO
M
W
?
? a)
?
.O
?
•-
OO
N
?--
d'
ao
?
•-
CO
?
I?
N
M
N
M
N
? U
L.U
W 7
O O M N
r- M M M
?- CO M
N O
M M
N
LU E

W N

O CO

O 't

O CO ?- CO Cl) M M M

Q

?-

O N

O M

O 4

O 6

O CO

O I?

O M

O

M M M M M W M M M M
12

' Table 6. Summary of macroinvertebrate recolonization of upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation
channel within the first two years (1993-1994).

11

L

Number of Taxa by Group
Group 1992 Baseline Upper 1993-1994
Whitehurst Creek Mitigation Channel
Oligochaeta 3 0
Crustacea 5 3
Ephemeroptera 1 2
Odonata 9 11
Hemiptera 5 5
Coleoptera 15 18
Megaloptera 1 1
Diptera 17 15
Trichoptera 3 1
Orthoptera 1 0
Arachnida 1 2
Mollusca 0 1
Total 61 59
13

Table 7. Fish recolonization of upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel within the first two years
(1993-1994).

i

F

0

1

Species Upper Whitehurst
Creek
Baseline 0 992) Mitigation Channel
Years 1-2 (1993-
1994)
American eel (Anguilla rostrata) X
Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) X X
Brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) X
Pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus) X X
Eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) X X
Bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus) X
Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) X X
Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) X X
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) X X
Swamp darter (Etheostoma fusiforme) X X
Total Species 9 8
14
I

IV. SUMMARY
Sixty-one taxa of aquatic macroinvertebrates were recorded in the 1992 baseline survey, of
historical upper Whitehurst Creek whereas 59 taxa have been documented in the 1993-94 surveys of
the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel. To date, 25 of the 61 taxa (or 41.0 percent) of aquatic
macroinvertebrates documented in the 1992 baseline survey have been documented within the
mitigation channel. An additional 34 taxa of aquatic macroinvertebrates not documented in the
historical upper Whitehurst Creek have been documented within the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation
channel within the first two years since its construction.
Seven of the nine species (or 77.8 percent) of fish documented in the 1992 baseline survey of
historical upper Whitehurst Creek have been documented within the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation
channel. An additional species of fish not documented in the historical upper Whitehurst Creek has
been documented within the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel within the first two years since
its construction.
15

C

l
APPENDIX A
AQUATIC MACRO INVERTEBRATE TAXA
DOCUMENTED IN UPPER WHITEHURST CREEK
1992-1994

n
n

rn
N
N
Y
U
Y
' L
.C
a
a
C
' a
a?
c
d
E
U
' O
a
co
x
co
N
CD
t
N
'o
U
c
ca
U
7
r
Q
Q
' X
•D
C
N
CL
a

cc E
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
a i
-
t n
c U
U o

M
rn d
c_ x x X X X

a?
E X X X X X X
r '

+' U (n
ii o
M +'
C3) Co
m d
c x x x

V
C
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
? U cn
c Y
C
r
m
CO ;;
C14 * 0)
c_ X X X X• X X X X X X

a
a
N
C ? ?m ,O
O
a
a
CL
a
CL

C
N
O a
N N
y

r
Q
a

N
a

N

t
C

5? d
N
Q

N a
vai N
k

v (p

y y -O

7 O- 3

co N

f00

-00 D.

N

y
o
C
.
Ip

m
m
L
c\o
Q
l
Q
°
Q
a
N
° ? m °' o o

?

a o

c C

a

c

m
v

? co ti

c

o
co

x

4
,
m
y

a?

c
m

a 1

o
x
ca o E a)
to

Q m

a
U o

L
W Y

N
Q Y

N
O a?

m
U

m
U m

c o

c o

m
U m

C m

Q

? c

t c

Z a?

;o
I- -4 Q Q W
N
N
co

Y
Y

L ?
U 0
N
41
CL U E N
C
O L
CL O
O
C7 O U
A-1
wr

:
N
7
C
C
O
U
Q
X
c
C
CL
CL
Q
N
E x x x x x x x x x x x

v z (n
o U

N o
cn .4
co
d
rn c_ X X X X X

E
X X X X X X X X
CD M
a r
c'n
yU
LL p
CO
N
C
_
> X X X X X

CL -he
CL (D E
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
a> U N
c Y

co
M Y
a

C c x X X

a

U N a O
w .Q U N ci O
0)
Q C.
O
m ?.
a

CL
CL
h
k j N :O
+?
m a
y
a
m

_0

m
a
i N

'a
a
c CL
a
o
fl to
v Q h J m

o
m N
a) v
i vi y a y ,? .4
y a co (1) co
m c
m
m c 4 o k
` ° N v
m a o 0 0
? 0
m
H
Z
Z
Cl)
J
m o
U a?
(D
Z 0
Z o
Z
> a
Q a,
Q y
ca a
i
Q a?
Q
f0 ?

Y N
CL

0 Y

o
a
E 0.

aoi
0
O
(7 2 U
A-2

n

a?
c
c

c
0
U
Q
' X
v
c
a>
CL
fl.
a

N
C X X X X X X X X X X

cc
a s
z
c0U
N
0
'
U ?
It m
rn C X X
a?
X X X X X X X X
(D ca
N U
C
O

Y
M

L
M ? N
Y
X X

L
CL -)d
j 0
0)
L
E

E

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
OU ?

i
ca t
Co
Y

L
cli
CD 3 a)
C_
X
X
X
X
X
X
r >
>

a

h

y

L

L L1.

w

ci

CL ?
0
U)

c

0.
o

N fl

fl.
y a fl

y
y

J

l0
to

J N

j 0

3 a

U)
0 C

X

d

a co

CO
o

V

y
3

0
o
y
0.
N
co
h J O y0 OC C v w N CL C N y c0 CD -
a)
O O U O O C w N .C y c .a p
X p
O
N
.0
C
U
J ca
N a)

F-
D
W
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z cri
v
Z
a
a 0
c
?
?
?
h
? >
J
U O
U
a7
L
N
CL 0
0
0 0
C7 U
A-3

u

LI
?i

I?
a)
7
' C
C
O
U
Q
' x
C
a?
CL
CL

N
a?
a? x x x x x x x
L (n
o U
N o
U) '+,
i (a L
rn ?_ x
d
_
r x x
> Co
in
yU
LL p
C7 +_'

N
4-1
?- c x x
_
>

L
CL
CL a) E

x

x

x
U
a) :3
i
n
c +.
y
L
a3 •c
m ? L

rn C_ x x x x x x x x x x
r
O
r
CL
y
N
O

>

•y

d
7 3 d

vdi
O

y
d ?

3

20
0) 0 m
CL
CL

y

CL x
c a a CL
CL Q C

r N

a k y
d
E
CL y
y v°i y h a
N to m
4
O O
\ O
C
O o w Q v c
U
m a)
d ?
N
Q
L y
:3 d
CL ti a ?a .O
v
i C O co I O C N V O N y0 N
X ++ O O O C C V Q V a) > ` V Q
H ? Z (? Q U V U U U V U Q V' Z ? v ? a

co
ca
L L

N d

d d
O _O
co fL0
O N N CL
C7 U 0
A-4
?I

0

v
a?
c
c
0
U
' X
c
N
CL
CL

ca c N
E

x

x

x
o i
r
-
c U
0
a

't ( a?
c
X
X
X
X

d
c E X X
?• r '

yU c
n
u. 0
M
0)
N
C
? ?= C X X X

L
as
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
(D U to
c
r
_
N t
m ? L
c_ X X X x X x x X
r 2
/

C ?

C C
a
?
N
•y
?
.y
N C
C C
' C CL O.
C N
U
V
y
fl
C
Q
h a a o Q m y j o vai m
? J w sw N C a a
U) 0. N
c O 'y a S ?
w
.
a y
J
J
J
N
m
O
j C
O

C

CL

C -
C
a
m
a R
a;
°
3
o
y
a
o
y
m
m
m
m m
m o °a m cCO Q ° c
+1 c Z o a a c
H W a a U o O t- U O v? W W
co /0 co
N
0 N

o
s f0
w
CL a? -C
t ?
0 r V CO _
C7 F- O Q
A-5

1

1

1

1

.a
N
U
c
O
U
Q
' cc
°L
CL
a

c a?
E
E
o
i
o?
o u n

N o `t
U) 'Z;
d N
rn
a?

C a?
E

N
fn

M Lo
C
LL O M M

m
±= O
C
LO
r
CL Y E
y M
CD U M
c +?

co
cu t
m D
04
M j
>
C

co
M
m
x
t0
C
O
N N

N
CL N
a
X X X
m
i- co
F- ca
F-
a
°
0
0
C7 0
F- F- H
A-6
Conditions for 401 Certification for Texasgulf Mine at Whitehurst
Creek
1. Texasgulf must restore Whitehurst Creek to approximately its
original position within five years of mining through the junction of
the two prongs of the creek or within three years of mining through
the 700 block, whichever is sooner. Texasgulf must notify the
Division when they have mi ned through the junction of the two
prongs of the creek or have finished mining through the 700 acre
block so that the beginning of the five year or three year time limit
can be documented.
2. The mitigation channel must be established following the
guidelines of the "Mitigation Plan for Replacement of 5,000 Feet of
Channelized Whitehurst Creek" before mining activities begin in the
Whitehurst Creek channel.
3. The mitigation channel must be monitored until the original
channel is back in place. Data are necessary from at least two
stations -- at the mouth of the mitigation channel at SR 1941 and
approximately one-half way between SR 1941 and the sedimentation
pond. Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish must be monitored twice
a year (in two different seasons) to insure that these organisms are
colonizing the channel. Monitoring of parameters of water quality is
required monthly to enable tracking of possible causes of
macroinvertebrate failure. These parameters include dissolved
oxygen, temperature, conductivity, pH, total phosphate, and fluoride.
4. The criteria for re-establishing Whitehurst Creek should be
similar to the temporary mitigation channel in terms of vegetation
and substrate as detailed in the "Mitigation Plan for Replacement of
5,000 feet of Channelized Whitehurst Creek" (Texasgulf et al. 1992).
The re-established section of Whitehurst Creek will have a minimum
vegetative buffer of 50 feet on either side of the stream channel. In
addition, monitoring benthic macroinvertebrates and fish two times
per year is required to insure successful re-establishment of
Whitehurst Creek. These data should be taken at the three stations
corresponding to those chosen by the DEM's Ecosystems Analysis Unit
when the original stream channel was sampled 2/12/92.
The success of this stream will be determined by the species
composition of the benthic macro invertebrate community as
determined by the Common Taxa Index (CTI). This Index divides
the number of genera (and species where feasible) in common to
f
Whitehurst Creek before mining and after re-establishment by the
total genera (and species where feasible) found both before and after
mining. Success or no impact is achieved at values greater than 0.70.
The re-established stream will be considered successful when
there is a no greater than 25 percent reduction in the number of
genera (or species where feasible) found before mining Monitoring
of Whitehurst Creek is required until this success criterion is met or
until the DEM concurs that the benthic macroinvertebrate community
has successfully recolonized, whichever is sooner. Texasgulf must
take qualitative benthic macroinvertebrate samples (as well as fish
samples) in Whitehurst Creek corresponding to the Division's
sampling methodology for this Index criterion to be applicable.
Because we believe that sampling two times per year is important
for comprehensive biological monitoring, it is also necessary for
Texasgulf to obtain biological data this summer on Whitehurst Creek
prior to any mining activities. In this way there will be baseline data
for two different seasons (winter and summer) to compare to future
monitoring.
5. If Whitehurst Creek is not re-established within five years of
mining through the junction of the two prongs of the creek or within
three years of mining through the 700 acre block, Texasgulf will
make payments to the DEM of $1,000 per day until the creek is re-
established. As stated previously, after Whitehurst Creek is re-
established, monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates is required
until the conditions of the Common Taxa Index are met.
6. A 401 Certification will not be required to mine through the
Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel as long as Whitehurst Creek has
been successfully re-established.
7. Four copies of annual reports on the biology and chemistry of
both the mitigation channel and the re-established Whitehurst Creek
must be submitted to the Division.
,A1! __3
Conditions for 401 Certification for Texasgulf Mine at Whitehurst
Creek
1. Texasgulf must restore Whitehurst Creek to approximately its
original position within five years of mining through the junction of
the two prongs of the creek or within three years of mining through
the 700 acre block, whichever is sooner. Te xasgulf must notify the
Division when they have mined through the junction of the two
prongs of the creek or have finished mining through the 700 acre
block so that the beginning of the five year or three year time limit
can be documented.
2. The mitigation channel must be established following the
guidelines of the "Mitigation Plan for Replacement of 5,000 Feet of
Channelized Whitehurst Creek" before bucket wheel excavator
prestrippping activities begin in the Whitehurst Creek channel.
?,.? ? -d Dot
3. The mitigation channel must be monitored until the original
channel is back in place. Data are necessary from at least two
stations -- at the mouth of the mitigation channel at SR 1941 and
approximately one-half way between SR 1941 and the sedimentation
pond. Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish must be monitored twice
a year (in two different seasons) to insure that these organisms are
colonizing the channel. Monitoring of parameters of water quality is
required monthly to enable tracking of possible causes of
macroinvertebrate failure. These parameters include dissolved
oxygen, temperature, conductivity, pH, total phosphate, and fluoride.
4. The criteria for re-establishing Whitehurst Creek should be
similar to the temporary mitigation channel in terms of vegetation
and substrate as detailed in the "Mitigation Plan for Replacement of
5,000 feet of Channelized Whitehurst Creek" (Texasgulf et al. 1992).
The re-established section of Whitehurst Creek will have a minimum
vegetative buffer of 50 feet on either side of the stream channel. In
addition, monitoring benthic macroinvertebrates and fish two times
per year is required to insure successful re-establishment of
Whitehurst Creek. These data should be taken at the three stations
corresponding to those chosen by the DEM's Ecosystems Analysis Unit
when the original stream channel was sampled 2/12/92.
The re-established stream will be considered successful when
there is a no greater than 25 percent reduction in the total number
of genera (or species where feasible) found before mining.
Monitoring of Whitehurst Creek is required until this success
m . I
criterion is met or until the DEM concurs that the benthic
macroinvertebrate community has successfully recolonized,
whichever is sooner. Texasgulf must take qualitative benthic
macroinvertebrate samples (as well as fish samples) in Whitehurst
Creek corresponding to the Division's sampling methodology for this
criterion to be applicable.
Because we believe that sampling two times per year is important
for comprehensive biological monitoring, it is also necessary for
Texasgulf to obtain biological data this summer on Whitehurst Creek
prior to any mining activities. In this way there will be baseline data
for two different seasons (winter and summer) to compare to future
monitoring.
5. If Whitehurst Creek is not re-established within five years of
mining through the junction of the two prongs of the creek or within
three years of mining through the 700 acre block, Texasgulf will
make payments to the DEM of $1,000 per day until the creek is re-
established.
6. A 401 Certification will not be required to mine through the
Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel as long as Whitehurst Creek has
been successfully re-established.
7. Four copies of annual reports on the biology and chemistry of
both the mitigation channel and the re-established Whitehurst Creek
must be submitted to the Division.
OPPWPWW,
t ?R
yip

knt 'hvo,,- W'VLC-. asvot'ou-
CpF_?'?cP'tu f cvt N fdI t99s- (P*'?`7sue„ c??)
(/v adwltl.uP Ae4la"cll o? 1 SISS
5G.r?
ovi?`7?b @?nn?u?
uC U k&f
ca??s ? not eu?f-?? rv?t.
Kiz-
ely?
(T(t-
V_AJV--(V) dem7ss
,
CJ r* 41?f
sro
v?? '?? sus - ? sew
gar
??rr?p? ??„nv
13V -11*9 'y Vll?l
*b6l
0,

at: V..

4v-"kA.IVXA (IlL c4lvv? ) -, ?o U6U-??- C?
c.esy'?'` ? Qw«-?
eP¢?lc?? so n1a., Yrl etQen?
e.? o?? ?? `fe ?dnu CS7).
Q
07
W?bS
ao? ? ? -e-
dwvvvtLLQ-, rl-qso ike
GVk
,eA& j?mv,4

5? CO-0
knojur
? 6v"10-t-7
ro??9fC

rQwJ? i . ?a, -
y al,

?s 4 k4t.,? 44?
?aX

° w
.i w w v

O
O -' D
w O C
TS 'P W N N -?
O -? O O O O O O O m
CO w W W W -? W P O N
N
CO W

O N

w -.

o

w
W
W

N
W -?

O O

c
1+
m
K
=r -0

n ?
v
CO CO V O V w N w a C
cD m

W
w
o
m
O
0 3
° 0
O
c
T? W W M
Cal O w V 0 V V -? N + Z
?
C

3 n
W
cfl O w W
W N
V N
ca N
w N
w N
V N
to n <
N Cn CO N N CD W -? O O a --I
CD -?
3
O O O m 0 -? w w co w O
N O W N w O w Ic+
? 3 v

3
ca w w 0 0 -? w w w w E
-? ;P. cn O O w w CD V °-
CD

V V d) W Ut p O V w O
V O O V O 6 CD Co in w .O+

2
3
V V O -w p 4 CA V Cn a
ao iv rn w rn w 4 bo i.) 6 a
CD
O O O O O O O O o o 3 M
O
0 O W W N m 4 O W r+
-? V -? W V O 4 m V W O
2
3
0 0 0 0 0 0
, 0 0 0 0 3 mr-
0 0 o in :_ o o il) o o Q C
°
O O w w w
V 0 w w m
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W CTt in p N N N N N r
W W w to N - P w --? ? C
O
3 v
3
O O 0 o O O O 0 O 0 m
? N N W
O W w w .A N m
m -1
<< o
o m
7 Cn
3
CD
1
rt
N O
D?
-? =r
N
y
CD CD
O
O d
v
7
CO
O
R
n?
7
N
G
y
CD
y
O
O
C].
c
0
CD
CL

'+
S
CD
C
'D
'D
CD
S
CD
c
co
rt
0
CD
CD
7C'
3.
Cc
N
o'
7
O
s
v
CD
CT
CD
CD
x
N
y
CO
C
4--U
M M aT ?
+? • , Fable 6. Summary of macroinvertebrate recolonization of upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation
channel within the first two years (1993-1994).
Number of Taxa by Group
Group 1992 Baseline Upper 1993-1994
Whitehurst Creek Mitigation Channel
Oligochaeta 3 0
Crustacea 5 3
Ephemeroptera 1 2
Odonata 9 11
Hemiptera 5 5
Coleoptera 15 18
Megaloptera 1 1
Diptera 17 15
Trichoptera 3 1
Orthoptera 1 0
Arachnida 1 2
Mollusca 0 1
Total 61 59
M M I ffv
"fable 7. Fish recolonization of upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel within the first two years
(1993-1994).

Species Upper Whitehurst
Creek
Baseline (1992) Mitigation Channel
Years 1-2 (1993-
1994)
American eel (Anguilla rostrata) X
Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) X X
Brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) X
Pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus) X X
Eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) X X
Bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus) X
Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) X X
Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) X X
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) X X
Swamp darter (Etheostoma fusiforme) X X
Total Species 9 8

Page 1
Note for Jim Overton
From: John Dorney
Date: Thu, Sep 22, 1994 8:50 AM
Subject: TexasGulf meeting
To: Ken Eagleson
Cc: Jim Overton
There are two basic, current Tg issues to which Steve may be referring. 1) Whitehurst Creek
- We required Tg to relocate Whitehurst Creek and monitor the success of the relocation for
their most recent mine advance. As they warned us might be needed at the time, now they
need to mine through the relocated channel to reach high ground. This is a result of the delay
in the EIS and 404 permit. They proposed to relocate the challe again. We told them that
another possibility would be to search the nearby area for an existing, channelized stream
without buffers and then restore that stream. They would still need a settling pond on the
truncated Whitehurst Creek to maintain hydrology. Tg thought that was a possible approach
and will investigate. 2) the EIS and DEM comments - Bill Schimming sent a letter to Steve
(copied to me and WaRO) dated 6 September. Tg wants to pursue answering DEM's
(Central and Regional Offices) questions in parallel to completion of the EIS. They hope to
speed up the overall process. Bill Schimming's letter just asked whether they had gotten all
of the correct questions from all of the DEM comments. As far as Cherri and I could tell, Tg
had listed all of the correct questions. Bill was going to confirm this with WaRO also. Tg
will then attempt to answer our questions. Until the answers are received, I'm not sure
whether there will be any unresolved/unresolvable issues. I hope that this (somewhat
lengthy) response is sufficient.
s

A?
------------
J
I'

?
O
? D
W O) Jt
C ? W N N -? -{
O -? -? O O O O O o O m
CO W W W d7 -` W -P ? N

N
W W
O N
W
O -'
lb
W
W
N
O -'
O O
.Cr m
m

;m
nD

N
CO N
CO N
V
O
V
w
?
N
W
? a C
?
m m

O C-)
O
C31
M w
O W O
V W
Cn O
V M
? co
V W O
N Z
_
C

n
W

co
41.
O

cn
W
w
N
V
N
w
N
O
N
w
N
V
N
w

a <
y
<
N Cn W N N W W -? O O CL -i
CD -?
3
O O O m O w W cD W O
P N O W N w 6 -? bD rt
S 3 v
f° O
3
W w co M O cfl ao w ca a
4 Cn - o o w OD CD :i n

O
O V V 0 w m A O V Cn
V O O V O O W 6 in O Ic+

2

0 V V 0 W m 4 O V m Q
w N rn 6 W W .p W W 6 O
CD
O O O O O O O O O O 3 .D
O O _
v m O w w N m 4 V w ?
-? P- V -? w V O -;h? m V C/) O
0 --I
2
3

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
3 O>
O O O cn -+ O O N O O a C
CA Ln 0 O W W _ N
V P W W cu
o
O O O O O O O O O O
W CJi CJ1 .A N N N -+ N N ? r
W CO QC -? Cn N -? {a CJO -? O' C

3 70
3 -v
O O O O O O O O O O a m
rn w M N ?a K) -' w N a
W P N cu
m -i
? v
CD
o 7 Cn
3
CD
O
d O
D'
-? s
w '<
y <
C1
CD
O
1
O Cci
?+
H
N
v
co
a
C)
7
C)
'G
y
CD
cn
n
O
O
CL
c
n
CD
CD
CL
5
CD
c
'O
CD
CD
C
?. o
CD
CD
3
cfl
o
s C?
m
CD

rr
CD
CD
x
a?
f0
C
-h
M M I ffv
Table 6. Summary of macroinvertebrate recolonization of upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation
channel within the first two years (1993-1994).
Number of Taxa by Group
Group 1992 Baseline Upper 1993-1994
Whitehurst Creek Mitigation Channel
Oligochaeta 3 0
Crustacea 5 3
Ephemeroptera 1 2
Odonata 9 11
Hemiptera 5 5
Coleoptera 15 18
Megaloptera 1 1
Diptera 17 15
Trichoptera 3 1
Orthoptera 1 0
Arachnida 1 2
Mollusca 0 1
Total 61 59
DGiG1ff?
Table 7. Fish recolonization of upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel within the first two years
(1993-1994).

Species Upper Whitehurst
Creek
Baseline 0 992) Mitigation Channel
Years 1-2 (1993-
1994)
American eel (Anguilla rostrata) X
Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) X X
Brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) X
Pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus) X X
Eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) X X
Bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus) X
Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) X X
Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) X X
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) X X
Swamp darter (Etheostoma fusiforme) X X
Total Species 9 8

TA7Z
Y pUM
SEP I"
n.,vnu? 'F''IV7V
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
225 North McDowell Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
James G. Martin, Governor Roger N. Schecter
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary CERTIFIED MAIL Director
September 8, 1992
William Schimming
Manager, Environmental Affairs
Texasgulf Inc.
PO Box 48
Aurora, NC 27806
REFERENCE: DEM 92039, Nationwide Permit for Mining and
Channelization of Whitehurst Creek
Dear Mr. Schimmina:
Subsequent to our position on the above referenced proposal
provided to you by letter dated 7/31/92 we have received additional
information from your office, the Division of Environmental
Management, and Beaufort County. Based upon this information we
have reevaluated our position and determined that the activity is
consistent with the Beaufort County Land Use Plan and therefore
consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
We anticipate that Beaufort County will take advantage of the
current land use plan update process to clarify the County's policy
on phosphate mining and industrial development. We also anticipate
that any environmental issues which could not be addressed because
of the limited scope of the Nationwide Permit review for this
proposal will be addressed through the EIS process which --s
currently underway for Texasgulf mine expansion.
If you have any questions about our position, please contact
me or Mr. Steve Benton, Division of Coastal Management, at (919)
733-2293.
Sincerely,
Rog r hecter
F.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
A a'' •
•
cc: Mr. Preston P. Pate, Assistant Director
NC Division of Coastal Management
Mr. Terry Moore, District Office Manager
NC Division of Coastal Management, Washington
Wilmington District Engineer (CERTIFIED)
ATTN: CESAEW-CO-E
Ms. Trudy Coxe, Director (CERTIFIED)
US Department of Commerce, OCRM
Washington, DC 20235
Mr. Frank Bonner, Chairman
Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
PO Box_ 1027
Washington, NC 27889
Mr. Donald L. Davenport, County Manager
Beaufort County
PO Box 1027
Washington, NC 27889
Mr. Steve Benton, Consistency Coordinator
NC Division of Coastal Management
Mr. John Dorney, NC Division of Environmental Management
:•¢„40' 4
Conditions for 401 Certification for Texasgulf Mine at Whitehurst
Creek
1. Texasgulf must restore Whitehurst Creek to approximately its
original position within five years of mining through the junction of
the two prongs of the creek or within three years of mining through
the 700 block, whichever is sooner. Texasgulf must notify the
Division when they have mined through the junction of the two
prongs of the creek or have finished mining through the 700 acre
block so that the beginning of the five year or three year time limit
can be documented. -
2. The mitigation channel must be established efore mining
activities begin in the Whitehurst Creek channel.
3. The mitigation channel must be monitored until the original
channel is back in place. Data are necessary from at least two
stations -- at the mouth of the mitigation channel at SR 1941 and
approximately one-half way between SR 1941 and the sedimentation
pond. Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish must 'be monitored twice
a year (in two different seasons) to insure that these organisms are
colonizing the channel. Monitoring of parameters of water quality is
required monthly to enable tracking of possible causes of
macroinvertebrate failure. These parameterr i clude dissolved
oxygen, temperature, conductivity; a?p?osphate, d fluoride.
4. The criteria for re-establishing Whitehurst Creek should be
similar to the temporary mitigation channel in terms of vegetation
and substrate as detailed in the "Mitigation Plan for Replacement of
5,000 feet of Channelized Whitehurst Creek" (Texasgulf et al. 1992).
The re-established section of Whitehurst Creek will have a minimum
vegetative buffer of 50 feet on either side of the stream channel. In
addition, monitoring benthic macroinvertebrates and fish two times
per year is required to insure successful re-establishment of
Whitehurst Creek. These data should be taken at the three stations
corresponding to those chosen by the DEM's Ecosystems Analysis Unit
when the original stream channel was sampled 2/12/92.
The success of this stream will be determined by the species
composition of the benthic macroinvertebrate community as
determined 1y--+he-7om - This Index divides
the number of genera (and species where feasible) in common to
Whitehurst Creek before mining and after re-establishment by the
total genera (and species where feasible) found both before and after

mining. Success or no impact is achieved at values greater than 0.70.
Monitoring of Whitehurs J Cr ek is required until this su ce s
criterion is met. `1 T`ex sgulf ut take'q alit t ve - benthic
macroinvertebrate samples (as well as fish samples) in Whitehurst
Creek corresponding to the Division's sampling methodology for this
Index to be applicable.
Because we believe that sampling two times per year is important
for comprehensive biological monitoring, it is also necessary for
Texasgulf to obtain biological data this summer on Whitehurst Creek
prior to any mining activities. In this way there will be baseline data
for two different seasons (winter and summer) to compare to future
monitoring.
5. If Whitehurst Creek is not re-established within five years of
mining through the junction of the two prongs of the creek or within
three years of mining through the 700 acre block, Texasgulf will
make payments to the DEM of $1,000 per day until the creek is re-
established. As stated previously, after Whitehurst Creek is re-
established, monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates is required
until the conditions--o-€ -t-he Common Taxa Index are met.
6. A 401 Certification will not be required to mine through the
Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel as long as Whitehurst Creek has
been successfully re-established.
7. Four copies of annual reports on the biology and chemistry of
both the mitigation channel and the re-established Whitehurst Creek
must be submitted to the Division.

c?
c ?; n

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
February 18, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Tedder
THROUGH: Ken Eagleson
FROM: Jimmie Overto
Vince Schni7enr
Neil Medlin
RE: Whitehurst Creek Survey, Beaufort County
Per your request, Water Quality Section staff visited Whitehurst Creek in Beaufort County
on February 12, 1991 to characterize the stream at SR 1941 (Brantley Swamp Road) and
the South and West prongs where they cross SR 1937 (Guilford Station Road). DEM
staff met with Mr. Pete Moffett of Texas Gulf and Mr. Bruce Bolick and Mr. Sam Cooper
of CZR Incorporated who are environmental consultants for Texas Gulf. They observed
and filmed the sampling effort.
The survey team evaluated habitat, and collected fish and macroinvertebrates. Neither fish
nor macroinvertebrate biological criteria have been developed for small streams in the
coastal plain region and assignment of biological classification would be inappropriate for
this stream. Therefore information provided below will be limited to providing a taxa list
of organisms collected and a general description of the stream and riparian zone.
General Description of Area
Whitehurst Creek is located in Beaufort County, near Aurora, North Carolina. The
headwaters are located west of the Texas Gulf project area and flow through chanellized
agricultural streams in the project area prior to crossing under SR 1937. Two prongs cross
SR 1937 and are described as the southern and western prongs (Figure 1). According to
CZR personel, prior to 1990 these channelized streams flowed through wooded areas from
this point until they joined to form Whitehurst Creek, crossed under SR 1941 and
continued to NC 306. From that point the creek is bordered by freshwater marsh until its
confluence with South Creek.
The majority of the trees between SR1937 and SR1941 had been removed for site
preparation and revegetation by opportunistic plant species was present at the time of the
survey. All stream segments were heavily impacted by silt. There was riprap in place at
each of a series of ditches entering the stream, and it is impossible to evaluate the source
and time of silt delivery. The streams were generally shallow with visible velocity only at
several points where the channel was constricted. It was also impossible to evaluate what
the stream character was prior to site preparation and alteration of flow from a north prong
that used to cross the Creekmur Road (SR 1942).
Field observations of semi aquatic organisms such as amphibians or reptiles were not taken
due to the season. There were many signs of opposum, racoons, rabbits, and deer in the
area. The raccoon and opposum probably utilize the stream for food such as the crayfish
which were abundant at all sites. Other mammals would primarily use the area for cover
and water.
l :;.:
Z
m
CD

CD
e--P
CD
CD
P7'

Mr. Jeff Furness of Texas Gulf estimated the current size of the Whitehurst Creek
watershed above SR 1941 to be 3.2 square miles or 2048 acres. The historical size
(included tributary flow from the north) was estimated to be 3.8 square miles or 2423
acres. Much of the watershed above SR 1937 was in row crop type of agriculture on the
1983 topographic map.
Macroinvertebrates and Habitat
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected at three locations on Whitehurst Creek. The
collection method {sweep net samples, log washes, and visual collections) used at these
locations is intended to generate a taxa list for each site and is inappropriate for assigning
bioclassification ratings.
The three sites differed somewhat in regard to macroinvertebrate habitat. Station 2 was
the only location with visible flow and it also lacked the root mats and submerged
macrophytes found at Stations 1 and 3. Station 3 was the only station with a heavy
covering of algae and submersed aquatic vegetation on all other available habitat.
Table 1. Station descriptions, Whitehurst Creek macroinvertebrate survey, Beaufort
County. Febru= 1992,
Station 1 2 3
Depth (m)
Ave. 0.3 0.2 0.2
Max. 0.5 0.5 0.3
Canopy (%) 10 90 0
Aufwuchs none slight abundant
Bank Erosion moderate moderate moderate
Substrate M
Boulder 0 0 0
Rubble 0 0 0
Gravel 0 trace 0
Sand 50 60 30
Silt 40 30 50
Detritus 10 10 20
Comments heavy algae growth
on all habitat types
Table 2. Taxa richness and Biotic Index values of benthic macroinvertebrates (by Group),
Whitehurst Creek survey Beaufort County. February 1992,
Station 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera 0 0 0
Plecoptera 0 0 0
Trichoptera 2 2 1
Coleoptera 5 2 2
Odonata 5 2 1
Megaloptera 1 0 0
Diptera 8 4 3

Station 1 2 3

Misc. Diptera 3 4 1
Oligocheata 2 2 1
Crustacea 3 2 3
Mollusca 0 0 0
Other 1 0 1
Total Taxa Richness 30 18 13
EPT Taxa Richness 2 2 1
Biotic Index 4.09 4.28 4.01
Benthic macroinvertebrate taxa richness and relative abundance, Whitehurst Creek survey,
Beaufort County, February 1992.
Station 1 2 3
Organism
Coleoptera
DINEUTES SPP R--
HYDROPORUS SPP A, A
LACCOPHILUS SPP Cl: R
PELTODYTES SPP R
THERMONECTUS SPP
TROPISTERNUS SPP R
Crustacea
ASELLUSSPP R A
CRANGONYX SPP A
PROCAMBARUS SPP A A
Diptera: Chironomidae
CHIRONOMUS SPP A R
CLINOTANYPUS PINGUIS A C
CONCHAPELOPIA GROUP R R
CRICOTOPUS/ORTHOCLADIUS SP10 R
DICROTENDIPES SIMPSONI R
KIEFFERULUS DUX R
PARAMETRIOCNEMUS LUNDBECKI
PARATANYTARSUS SPP R
POLYPEDILUM ILLINOENSE A A
Misc. Diptera
HEXATOMA SPP R R
PALPOMYIA (COMPLEX) R
SIMULIUM SPP R
TABANUS SPP R R
TIPULA SPP R
Hemiptera
CORIXIDAE R
Megaloptera
SIALIS SPP C
R
C
A
A
A
A
R
A
R
C

Station * 1 2 3
Odonata
CALOPTERYX SPP R
ENALLAGMA SPP A C
EPIAESCHNA SPP R
LMELLULA SPP R R
NASIAESCHNA PENTACANTHA R
PACHYDIPLAX LONGIPENNIS R
Oligocheata
ILYODRILUS TEMPLETONI R A
LIlI2NODRILUS HOFFMEISTERI R A
LUMBRICULIDAE R
Trichoptera
CHEUMATOPSYCHE SPP R
PTMOSTOMIS SPP R
PYCNOPSYCHE SPP C R R
Fish
Fish collections were made using a single backpack electroshocker on a measured 600 foot
segment of stream. All fish were collected and preserved in the field. A blocknet was set
below the SR-1941 bridge during the sampling of the Whitehurst Creek segment to prevent
downsteam escape of fish. A blocknet was not required at the other locations. The results
of collections are listed below.
Whitehurst Creek at SR-1941 (Brantley Swamp Road)
Common Name Scientific Name # Wt (tot) Ln Ran2e
(gm) (mm)
Bluespotted Sunfish Enneacanthus gloriosus 3 22.3 34-88
Swamp Darter Etheostorn flabellare 2 0.4 37-41
South Prong of Whitehurst Creek at SR-1937 (Guilford Station Road)
Common Name Scientific Name # Wt (tot) Ln Range
(gm) (MM)
Pirate Perch Aphredoderus sayanus 1 14.7 99

West Prong of Whitehurst Creek at SR-1937 (Guilford Station Road)
Common Name Scientific Name # Wt (tot) Ln Ranee
(gm) (mm)
Mosquitofish m i h l r ki 19 3.8 22-32
Pumpkinseed L&pomis ibg? bosus 1 13.6 93
umm
Samples collected February 12 in Whitehurst Creek were in significantly altered streams,
and may not necessarily reflect populations present prior to site preparation. In either case
the streams are small coastal plain streams and therefore not appropriate for utilization of
bioclassification criteria developed for wadeable flowing streams in other ecoregions.
Collections of macroinvertebrates and fishes were adequate to collect populations present
within the stream reaches identified during February. It was not possible to evaluate the
extent of estuarine influence during other times of the year. It would be beneficial to
conduct future evaluations of this nature prior to site preparation in order to eliminate the
possibility of impact due to habitat loss and alterations in flow.
cc: Cherri Smith
John Dorney
Greg Thorpe
Roger Thorpe
Deborah Sawyer
Jeff Furness Texas Gulf
Pete Moffett Texas Gulf
Bruce Bolick CZR

FINAL DR-A-FT
Cedar Island NrWR Section 401 Certification Monitoring Plan
The Fish and. Wildlife Service (FtvS) will. implement a piJ_ot ?hase
of -L heir proposed Integrated Marsh Management .for Waterfowl d
Other Wildlife (IM?l3 as recommended by the North Carolina ?
Di vision of Environmental. Management (DE-%11) to assess the
proposal's impact on water quality and existing uses. A minimum
one vear monitoring effort will be completed on 12 ponds, ? ponds
r
in each vegetation zone (Zone 1, 2 and 3). The following
parameters will be monitored: 1) macroinvertebrates, 2; wildlife
(avian use), 3) vegetation, and ^) specific water quality
parameters Data collected from the 12-pond pilot area for each
of the parameters will be compared to control sites and to
performance criteria specified in this plan. Control plots shall
be established and a -minimum of two sampling events shall be
conducted prior to the excavation of ponds or other activities
.that may impact the natural functions of the marsh_ Sapling
will occur at regular intervals agreed to by FwS and Dom?, with
results sub?ri tted monthly to DEM. if ter l vear of monitoring
DEM and FTkS will assess impacts on water quality and existing
uses_ If success criteria have not been -net after one vear of
monitoring FWS may continue moni tori.n.g unsuccessful parameters
until then meet the success criteria. When all success criteria
are met DEM will use this data for 401 certification for the
entire aMy! proposal.
410
3- Macroinvertebrates - Samples will be taken of
macroinvertebrates (;includes benthics, e-gg- fiddler crabs,
snails, worms, insects, etc.) in the areas of spoil deposition as
well as cop_trol sites. Control sites will be established in each
vegetation zone and comparisons of findings made with project
area- Performance criteria for success: Not more than a 25%
reduction in nwnber of species and in total density of
individuals in project affected area as compared to control
sites. Also, there will be no elimination of species comprising
25% or greater of the total density.
2. Wildlife (avian use) - Bird use along established transects
or plots will be monitored by regularly scheduled inventories- A
list indicating species diversity and relative abundance for
before and after project implementation, will be developed and
compared- Performance criteria for success: No significant
change (decrease) in species diversity or relative abundance of
commonly occurring species before and after project.
3_ vegetation - Sample plots/transects will be established j,n
spoil deposition area as well as in control sites for each zone.
Sufficient samples will.be taken to show percent cover by
species- Comparison of before and after project will be made.
Performance criteria for success: riot more than a 25$ reduction
in species composition (number of species) and in total density
of individuals (percent cover/frequency of occurrences) in

project affected area, as compared to co?it=01 sites- "so, there
will be no elimination of any species which comprises 25% or
greater of the total density.
4. water Quality Parameters - The project area is located
adjacent to estuarine waters classified Sk-lice; (Nigh Quality
Waters) by DEM and the State has set water quality standards for
such areas- The ponds, once created, will be subject to the
State's standards appropriate for their salinity (if salinity is
greater than-0.5 ppt [500 ppm] , then they will be considered
subject to the saltwater [Class SC] standards; if less than 0.5
pnt, then they will be subject to the freshwater [class CJ
standards.) Water quality in the created ponds, existing
natural ponds of similar size and depth, or existing potholes
(blasted 1969 and 1970), and at the marsh-sound interface will be
monitored to ascertain if certain water quality standards are
being met- The following water auali.ty parameters will be
monitored at each location as indicated in the following chart=

Parameter SC Pond
Turbidity- (NTU) 25 NTIrjV
pU 6.8 - 8.5t
Temperature
Coliform bacteria** 200*
(c/100 ml)
P-O (mg/1) 5-0*
hTv Pond Marsh/Sound (SA)
50 hTU=' 10 NTli
5.0 6.8 - 8_5
.•r, y
a00
5-0?t 5.0
*values of these parameters will be acceptable if comparable to
existing ponds/potholes .oTn refuge
**If monthly monitoring indicates standard is being violated at
marsh/sound interface then more intense monitoring will be
required until the source/cause is determined.
4MAY-04-1992 16:4? FROM EHNR WASH REG OFFICE lU 1717
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANA
May 1992
Post-It"' brand fax transmittal memo 7673
MEMORANDUM yos _ . r.. _ POM ;,-
To : John DOrney Dept. MA P
Through: :Jim Mulligan
Through: Roger Thorpe ?"?Ql9-?`[33" E33B F
From: Deborah Sawyer
Subject: Review of Texas Gulf Inc. Document
"Mitigatii,bn For Replacement of 5,000 Feet of Channe112ed
Whitehu St Creek"
This office has reviewed the above subject document. The document included a
support document of hydrology calculations. In reviewing these documents, the
following comments are offered: Document: "Mitigation For Replacement of 5,000
Feet of Channelixed whitehurst Creek".
Page 4: "...economic impact of over $15,000,000...". The Texas Gulf Company has
supplied no cost/benefit analysis to support this statement. The Texas Gulf
Company should give this agency information and reasons as to why the mining
operation cannot be moved in a westerly direction to avoid the mining of State
waters.
Page 4: "...to replace and improve the low quality aquatic habitat now within
the 5,000 feet of Channelixed drainage between SR 1941 and 1937." The Texas
Gulf Company should explain the use of the word "low quality" as well as give
a full technical explanation of why their proposal will be an "improvement" of
water quality.
Page 5: (1st Paragraph) It should be noted that the Creekmur Road clearing took
place in 1989. The area was cleared for farming but to this agency's knowledge
has not been planted in an annual crop. The area across the road is still
wooded and portions of this area, as well as the adjacent wooded area to the
west, have been determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to be
jurisdictional wetlands.
Page 5: "...video taken on 9 July 1991 by CZR inc. to show ...". In reviewing
the document Climatological Data, North Carolina Jul 1991, Volume 96, Number 7
for the Aurora, N.C. area this aforementioned period showed to be 50% or greater
below normal for rainfall. For the sixteen (16) days prior to this date (25
June through 9 July) documented rainfall was only .82 inches. The temperature
on 9 July was 970 F and the average temperature for the month of July in 1991
was 91°F . It should be further noted that this office has video footage taken
on 14 and 15 May 1990 at which time staff members noted high and continuous flow
at SR 1937 and SR 7.941. Staff members were also within this area, as noted in
field books, on 24 October 1989; 2 November 1989; 20 June 1990; and 30 January
1992. Flow was noted on all dates.
page 5: "...there was no flow in this channelized section and no standing water

%MAY-04-1992 16:48 FROM EHNK WHSH KEU uF -1 c:E
Page 2
I U 11J1'7 (5 51 5 3t3 r. IOG
pools except immediately adjacent to SR 1941 bridge." This office requests an
explanation of the terms "no flow" and "no standing water" from the Texas Gulf
Company. Is the company referring to a dry stream or a stream with "0 flow"?
This office has not observed a dry stream at either SR 1937 or SR 1941 at any of
the times noted above. This office will further request of the Texas Gulf
Company the significance of the statement, because even though a stream may have
"0 flow" (stagnant) it doesn't mean there is no resource.
Page 6: "...to construct an improved stream channel section in the northeast
corner of the mine block." The Texas Gulf Company has not supplied adequate
information or data to support this goal of mitigation concept and design.
Jage 6: "...mitigation channel system flowing from the sedimentation basin, back
and forth in an east-west direction..." This construction design does not
simulate a natural stream. It more simulates a chlorine contact chamber or a
cooling conveyance which is designed for detention only. The ecological values
of the natural stream are not evaluated nor are they proposed for replacement.
Page 6: "The mitigation channel will have a flat bottom 10 feet in width and
2.5:1 side slopes." This in no way simulates the natural stream. The stream
bottom is not flat nor 10 feet in width nor have side slopes of 2.5:1. If the
Texas Gulf Company proposes this design as a replacement of the existing stream,
then the company should provide documentation that this design replaces the
ecological values of the existing stream or that it is an improvement. This
office does not agree with the proposed design principle that it replaces the
existing stream in all values and uses.
Page 7: "To replace the standing water habitat-to create two pools of standing
water in low flow conditions." The Texas Gulf company has in no way simulated a
natural stream with natural obstructions (friction/head loss) with this proposed
design.
Page 7: "The flow velocity and depths will be similar to that currently existing
at the SR 1941 bridge." This does not address (or simulate) the section of
stream between SR 1941 and SR 1937. This is an important section of stream with
a slower velocity than the flow at SR 1941 and should be considered in the
calculations and mitigation design.
Page 7: "...to limit the peak runoff velocity to approximately 2 feet per second
in the mitigation channel." This office requests an explanation of the benefit
of using this "2 feet per second" limit.
Page 7: "These measures should enhance the water quality in lower Whitehurst."
This document in no way evaluates what the water quality is in the lower
Whitehurst Creek area nor does it explain why the design measures should enhance
the water quality. This office disagrees with the company's statement that this
design will enhance water quality in the creek.
Page 7: "Construction ... is planned for May and June 1992." What is the
biological consideration for the construction in this time of year?"
r.
4MAY-04-1992 16:49 FROM EHNR WHSH KEU UrF-tUE
Page 3
I U 1717 (IDIJI. -Xi I- . UJ
Page 7: "The channel bottom will be covered with approximately 6 inches of
topsoil..." The Texas Gulf Company has not determined what soils now exist in
the existing stream bottom. A sand/silt/clay fraction should be performed. The
percent of organic matter should also be determined. This is necessary because
organic soils have a high percentage of pore spaces (>_ 80%) and consequently
higher water holding capacities than soils with a higher mineral content. Water
movement through organic soils is inhibited and therefore should be used in
calculating the hydrology of the existing stream and the replacement with the
mitigation stream. This office requests that the following questions be
answered as they relate to the soils:
1. What is the hydraulic conductivity and water holding capacity of the
existing sediment in the stream bottom and the topsoil proposed to be used?
2. What is the cationic exchange capacity (CE-0 of both the sediment in the
existing stream bottom and the proposed topsoil to be used in the mitigation
channel?
3. What is is the porosity and bulk density of both the sediment in the
existing stream bottom and the.proposed topsoil to be used in the
mitigation channel?
4. What is the pH and the Eh of both the sediment in the existing stream
bottom and the proposed topsoil, to be used in the mitigation channel?
Page 7: "The 2.5:1 side slopes will be vegetated... grass." The slopes of the
natural stream appear to be either 1.5:1 or 2:1. Why is the mitigation stream
proposed to be 2.5:1?
Pages 7 and 8: " Quick growing ... wax myrtle will be used." How long will it
take this vegetation to establish? Will it simulate the vegetation of the
existing system?
Page 8: "...habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial resources." The Texas
Gulf Company should supply this agency with information and data supporting this
statement (when, what species, how, etc.) and a study comparing what is
presently existing versus what wi.l.l be established in the mitigation.
Pages 8 and 11: HYDROLOGY - The following comments are made on the hydrology
section:
1. The document does not evaluate the long-term success of this stream
creation and/or restoration project should be dependent upon establishing
and managing the appropriate hydrology to support the ecological functions
of the system.
2. This document does not determine abiotie factors such as water
availability, nutrient availability, aerobic or anerobic soil conditions,
soil particle size and composition, and related conditions including water
depth, water chemistry (pH, Eh), and water velocity (this is evaluated but
jMAY-04-1992 16:49 FROM EHNR WRSH REG uFFICE iu i?iyrssissa
r
Page 4
other factors will influence.
3. This document does not evaluate factors such as shading (overatory and
understory), and bottom contours of the stream bottom. These factors
influenced other factors such as interception of precipitation, water
losses through evaporation and evapotranspiration, as well as depth,
velocity, and circulation patterns within the system.
r . 04
4. This document has not taken into consideration that in certain areas of the
existing stream velocity may be slower or faster due to water mounding in
upstream areas behind obstructions and creating the necessary head to
drive water through.
51 This document has not responded as to recharge and discharge of groundwater
into or from the stream.
6. This document has not responded as to the effects of circulation patterns
as they control the distribution of essential growth substances within the
system.
7. The Texas Gulf Company should supply this agency with complete
information concerning a total Water Budget. This Water Budget should
reflect all inflows and outflows which support this system. Areas to be
considered are as follows:
a. Effects of wind and sun on evaporation
b. Precipitation/Evaporation ratio (P/E)
C, P/S affected by factors such as radiation, temperature, wind, relative
humidity etc.
d. All inputs and exports:
AV = v+i-E
Inputs are 1) direct precipitation, 2) surface inflows, 3) subsurface
inflows,
Exports are 1) surface outflows, 2) subsurface outflows, 3)
evapotranspiration/evaporation.
Hydrology Calculation in Support of Mitigation Planninct for Channelized Drainaae
Modification of the Whitehurst Creek Watershed Upstream of SR 1941: This office
asks that the Texas Gulf Company supply answers for the following concerns:
1. This office agrees that removal of the 700 acre drainage area will decrease
atorawater runoff but the Texas Gulf Company should evaluate the effects of
this decrease in flow.
2. The Texas Gulf Company has not addressed base flow in the calculations.
3. The Texas Gulf Company has not reported the potential effects of this
decrease in flow (700 ac.+ base flow) to the Whitehurst Creek tributary.
Low flows and high temperature cause low D.O.'s which is a natural
occurrence. This decrease in stormwater runoff and base flow will only
*MAY-04-1992 16:50 FROM EHNR WHSH REU UHFIUE u lyly(S5153ri r.e?
Page 5
increase the likelihood of poor flushing, low D.O.`s, and fish kills.
4. The document has considered factors of the watershed such as historical
pre-agricultural characteristics. This office requests of the Texas Gulf
Company to explain further why this is being used as part of the
calculations. The calculations should reflect only the watershed as it
presently exists. Historical, pre-agricultural characteristics should only
be considered post-mining for the stream restoration/mitigation.
5. The Texas Gulf Company should explain why a 'manning coefficient of
n = 0.035 (page 19) is being used for velocity calculations of the existing
channel flow. Coefficients for friction loss ranging from 0.025 - 0.033
would be used for dredged channels. This channel has not been dredged for
many years. The roughness coefficient range for winding earth unlined
channels should be 0.023-0.030.
?. (page 19) This office has investigated the Whitehurst Creek area between SR
1941 and SR 1937 on numerous occasions. The slope of the existing creek
channel did not appear to be 1:1. The Texas Gulf Company should supply
this office with information concerning how this slope determination was
made.
In conclusion, this office is of the opinion that this mitigation proposal is
inadequate. This office believes that the mitigation proposal should reflect
both the constructed stream channel be used during the mining operation, as well
as the restoration of the original stream channel with all values and functions
pre-agriculture. This restoration effort should be complete within five (5) years
of the completed mining efforts within the Whitehurst Creek area. The following
are offered as recommendations of information which should be included in the
mitigation proposal for the temporary channel, as well as the restoration
channel post-mining: (Marble, 1992)
1. Life Support: include all types of microbial, invertebrate and vertebrate
animals and microscopic and macroscopic plants.
2. Hydrologic modification: include flood storage and conversely base flow
augmentation, ground water recharge and discharge, altered precipitation
and evaporation, and other physical influences on waters.
3. Water quality changes: include addition and/or removal of biological,
chemical, and sedimentary substances, changes in dissolved oxygen, pH, and
Eh, and other biological or chemical influences on waters.
4. Erosion protection: include bank and shoreline stabilization, dissipation
of wave energy, alterations in flow patterns, and velocity.
5. Open space and aesthetics: include outdoor recreation, environmental
education, research, scenic influences, and heritage preservation.
6. Geochemical storage: include carbon, sulfur, iron, manganese, and other
lyly rssi sst? r. eb
,' MAY-04-1992 16:50 FROM EHNR WHSH KEU Uh-F 1C:t l u
I.
Page 6
sedimentary minerals."
7. Long-term management: Include timeframe and management strategy.
If you have any questions or comments, please call this office at 946-6481.
Thank you.
TOTAL P.06

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES BRANCH
May 4, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cherri Smith
FROM: Jimmie Overton
RE: Mitigation Plan for Texas Gulf Mine at Whitehurst
Creek.
My staff and I reviewed the mitigation plan submitted by Texas Gulf
Representatives at the April 27 meeting at Ashley House. The "serpentine"
waterway placed at the end of a diversion ditch, seems of very limited value
in replacing the beneficial uses in Whitehurst Creek. Although I never saw
the maps on the draft plan, as described it appeared to be an honest attempt to
temporarily maintain those uses until the creek could truly be restored. It is
my opinion that this plan would not accomplish that. We contacted other
states to find a similar plan to evaluate, and were unsuccessful. Perhaps
Texas Gulf could provide that information. The channel drawn may achieve
the same number of linear feet, but is far different than any stream I have
encountered.
Regardless of what is eventually approved in the mitigation plan, the more
important question is when can Whitehurst Creek and its uses be
reestablished? I did find information on this in Florida. Their regulation
reads to restore or improve both the water quality and type, nature, and
function of the biological systems present at the site to those which existed
prior to mining activity. Achievable and reasonable time limits (not
exceeding five years) are included with the plan, and temporary mitigation of
lost uses are of less importance. Furthermore, when considering either
mitigation or restoration of use, I feel we should be consistent with Federal
and State regulations which define existing use as that use which existed at
any time since November 28, 1975. In the case of Whitehurst Creek,
regardless of the semantics of "field ditches" or other terminology used in
describing its "present" state, the alterations in hydrology and adjacent land
use that occurred in recent years likely affected its uses. Evaluation of existing
use should occur prior to site preparation activities in the future.
Not being a hydrologist, I am sure that others will provide much more useful
review of the hydrology document than I. One major shortcoming I see is in

that it addresses total volume, without consideration for when and at what
r. rate the water is delivered into Whitehurst Creek from its watershed. The
basic premise presented is that channelization increases flow rate and
volume; therefore, removal of a portion of the watershed allows the volume
to return to natural levels. As I discussed at the meeting, I am also concerned
with the short circuiting of water at low flow by the sedimentation ponds.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the plans. If you have questions
regarding these comments, please feel free to call.
CC. Ken Eagleson
John Dorney
Vince Schneider
Trish Macpherson

PAMLICO-TAR RIVER FOUNDATION
P.O. BOX 1854, WA.5"INGTON. NC 21889 [phone]
Dr. George Everett, Director
Division of Environmental Management June 11, 1.532
P.U. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 2-/611
re: Tg's proposed 111iti.gati.on for Whitehurst Creek, 4(dl
Certification on for Permit modification wand the ETS prod ss.
Dear George:
Since you are well,aware of the purposes and general
concerns of. the Pamlico-Tar River Foundar.lon, T. wi.ll
dispense With introductions. This letter addresNes the
specific action of DEM's proposed issuance of a 401
certification for the Texztsgul.f mine 'advance into the upper
portions of. Whi.tehurst Creek.
First it is Inappropriate to issue any permit
modifications prior to completion of tho E75. This first
point (perhaps ext:ranneouz to your immediate decision? is a
reiteration of star position as cxprp,5sed (l ettea-s dated
January 28, 1992) to the US Army Corps of rnglneers and to
the Division of. Land Resources when Tg initially requested
the permit moditicati.on. At that time three agencies of the
regionaal Dr'HNR office concllr.red with our position (memos
from DrM, DCH and DHF, Oct. and Nov, 1991.) 1 believe that
the regional office of UCH has c'ont$nued to express this
concern.
Secondly, our attorneys advise us that is.,uing a 401
certification in this case is wholly Inappropriate and
perhaps illegal. The law doers not allow for the loss, even
temporary loss, of exi::st.ing uses in surface waters. The
state's anti.degradation policy does allow for the loss of
use, and mitigation for the losses, in wetlands, but not
?;urface waters; hence this action is contrary to th'e state's
antidegradslt.ion policy.
We recognize the reluctance of the state to 'stop the
Company in their tracks'. Tg finds themselves in a quandry:
they need to mine somewhere, and yet they have not completed
the EIS though it's been nearly 4 year; since the process
began. We maintain that the EIS shoalld be completed prior to
Zny permit modifications; but we realize fig's desire to
sustain operations. The proposed 700 acre mane advance is in
the general direction that 1-'TRF ha> always preferred;
therefore, we did suggest (Jan, 28 letter to Floyd will iam.s,
Division of Land Resources) a permit modification that would
EbUC:ATION• AnVOCAC•:Y. R.t4F`.ARCH.
i• 1009b ?ecyclcd f)<tw
•t
I/ZO"d 200'ON ZS:VT Z6`ZT unr S96S-9b6-6I6 :?31
Z# Vd3 3Jd1 NN3d
nv> »1J1 IVI'I.lt7
4s'
have allowed the Company, to contj.rlue operations while
avoiding wetlands and surface waters, (There is
considerable upland area in and Ftround the 700 acre tract
Their proposal, by contrast, includes Whitehurst Creek.
While we could accept a mollification permitting expanded
upl.an.d mining, we cannot endorse the issuance of the 401
certification to eliminate state waters and existing m?,,es,
particularly in light of the on-going EIS. The Clean Water
Act does not allow for even a temporary loss of existing
uses of surface waters.
Tn addition, the mitigation plan presented by Tg does not
establish.a precise plan and timetable for the r.ecl.ltimation
of the Creek in its current location. We are unassured as to
when, how and to what extent reclamation will be conducted.
In our opinion, the Company has painted itself into a
corner. While it is not the state's obligation to r•!gol.ve
that problem, the state seems intent upon crafting a
temporary solution that ;satisfies the Company. The Company
wants a permit modification, and a 401 certification to mine
through the upper reaches of Whitehurst Crcluk. PTRF
continues to disagree with both steps of this process.
Sincerely,

David McNaugllt, , ecutive Director
Pamlico-Tar River. roundation
cc, Mike McCee, )!SPA
d I!_00* 0N LS: VT Z6 ` ZT unr ??h?-at?F-tiTF - 17-1 744 VU I i Iu I .,.,,.
J
PAMLIGO-TAR RivFR FOUNDATION
P.O, BOX 1854, WASHIWTON, NC 27889 [phone]
Dr. George Everett, Director. Jung 11, 1992
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
re: Tq's proposed mitigation for Whitehurst Creek, 401
certification for permit modification and the ETS process.
Dcar George:
Since you are well ,aware of the purposes and general
cone erns of the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation, I will
dispense with introdllnt.ions. Thin, l,etcer addresses the
specific action of DEM's proposed issuance of a 401
certification for the Texangulf mine advance into the upper
portions of Whi.tehurst. Creek.
First it is inappropriate to issue any permit
modifications prior to completion of the EIS. This first
point (perhaps extranneous to your immediate decisi.bn).is a
reiteration of our ponition a:t e:p.r.essed (letters dated .
January 28, 1992) to the US Army Corps, of Enginei%rs and to
the Division of Land Resources when Tg initially requost.-,d
the permit modification. At that time three agencies of the
regional. DEMNl; office concurred with our position (me'mt?s
from DER, DCM and D14F, Oct. and Nov. 1991.) I believe that
the, regional office of ACM has continued to express this
concern.
Secondly, our attorneys advise us that issuing a 401
cer.ti ficar.ion in this case i.s wholly in?,)ppropr.iate and
perhaps illegAl. The law does not allow for the .toss, even
temporary loss, of existing uses in surface waters. The
state's antidPgradation policy does allow for the loss of
use, and mitigation for the lnaxae.s, In werland5, but not
surface water.;; hence this action is contrary to the state's
antidegradatlon policy.
We recognize the reluctance- of the state to 'stop the
Company in their tracks'. Tg finds themselves in a quandry:
they need to mine somAwhere, and yet they have not completed
the E*TS though it's been nearly 4 years since the proooss
began. We maintain that the EIS should be completed prior to
any permit modifications; but we realize Tg's desire to
sustain operations. The proposed 700221 acre mine advance is in
the general direction that PTRF has always preferred;
therefore, we did suggeat (Jan. 28 letter to Floyd Williams,
Division of l.nnd Resources) a permit, modification that would
EDUCATION. ADVOCACY. RPSFARCH.
40 1000•b r0CVC1ed paper
n
y
have allowed the Company to continue operations while
avoiding wetlands and surface waters. {There is
considerable upland area in and around tho 700 acre tract. }
Their proposal, by contrast, includes Whitehurst Creek.
While we could accept a modification permitting expanded
upland mining, we cannot endorse the issuance of the 401
certification to eliminate state waters and e5ci8ting uses,
partioular.ly in light. of the on going EIS. The Clean Water
Act does not allow for even a temporary lo;s5 of existing
uses of surface waters.
In addition, the mitigation plan presented by Tg does not
establish a precise plan and timetable for the reclamation
of the Creek in its current location. We are unass?.?red as to
who-n, how and to what extent reclamation will be .conducted.
In our opinion, the Company has painted itself into a
corner. Whilc it is not the state's obligation to resolve
that problem, the state seem; intent upon crafting a
temporary solution that satisfies the Compz+ny. The Company
wants a permit modification, and a 401 Certification to mine
through the upper reaches of Whitehurst Greek. PTkP
continues to disagrec with both steps of this proces
Sincerely,
David McNuught, Executive Director
Pamlico--Tar River, Found;_:itlon
cc. Mike McGee, EPA
AIP

+r a
, ,.
?. 4
PAMMco-TAR RIVER FOVNUA'TION
P.O, PA)X 1854, WAStUMVl-ON, NC 271$89 [phone]
Fax Cover sheet:
To: Dr. GeOlge Everett, Director ?0.)
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
From: David McNaught, Exert.ltlve Director
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
re: Texasguif; 401 certification to mine through Whit ehkir:st
creek.
Fax Not 919-733-1-'ag
EDUCATION. ADVOCACY. RESEARCH. y
•? f fx)'% rVGyrlc(l p;grrr
0n/Tn,a )nn*nhl )C•bT 7F'7T un l CQF,C-QtFi-F,TR :1-41
7.# YHA A AH I
NNI-

PAMLICO-TAR AVER FOUNDATION
P.O. POX 1834, WA.5MNGTk)K NC 21889 [phone]
Dr. George Everett, Director Jir.ne 11, 7.992
Division of Environmental HanaJement
P.U. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
re: Tg's Proposed Mitigation for Whitehuzst Creek, 401
certification for permit modi.f..,ication and the EJS proct;ss.
Dear George:
Since you are well,aware of the purpose;; and general
concerns of, the PamliC,o-Tar River Foundar.ion, I tire.!!
dispense with introductions. This letter addres?;es the
specific action of DEM's Proposed issuonce of a 401
certi.fication for the Texaisgulf mine Advance into the upper
portions of. Whitehu.rst C'r'eek.
First it is Inappropriate to issue any permit
modifications prior to comPleti,on of the E75. This first
point (perhaps extranneous to your immediate decision) is a
rPi.toration of our position as cxprossed (l Otters elated
January 28, 1.992) to the US Army Corps of Fngi.nee.rs and to
the Division of. Land Resources when Tg initially requested
the permit moditication. At that, time three agetlcies of the
regional DEHNR office concurred with our position (memos
from DrM, DCM and Dfff, Oct. and Nov, 1991.) I believe that
the regional office of DCM has c?ontlnued to rxpless this
concern.
Secondly, our attorneys advise us that is°:uing a 401
certification in this ease is wholly Inappropriate and
perhaps illegal. The law dons not allow for the loss, even
temporary. loss, of existing uses in surface WL4tars- The
state's anti.degradation policy does allow for the lo'-'s of
use, and mitigation for the losses, in wetl.ands,'but not
surface waters; hence this action is contrary to the state's
antidegradelt.ion policy.
We recognize the reluctance of the itate to 'stop the
Company in their tracks'. Tg finds themselves in a quandryt
they need to mine somewhere, and yet they have not completed
the ETS though it's been nearly 4 year; since the process
began. We maintain that the EIS should be completf-d prior to
any permit modifications; but we reali7e Tg's desire to
sustain operations. The proposed 700 acre mine advance is in
the general direction that PTRF has always preferred;
therefore, we did suggest (,Tan. 28 letter to Floyd Williams,
Division of Land Resources) a permit modification that wotild
EI)t)( AT10N. ADVOCAty, RIaF'.ARCH_
n
4? 10095 re,. rv1ad f)8t)4rr
cnr7n•A )nn•nni )C-bT 7F17T unf ggFq-AtR-RIR :1?1
7# XH -I _dAHl NNIN

have allowed the Company to continue operations while
7 avoiding wetlands and surface waters. (There is
considerable upland.area in and Firound the 700 acre tract.)
Their proposal., by contract, includes whitehurst Greek.
While we could accept a modification permitting expanded
upland mining, we cannot endorse the issuance of the 401
certification to ellminate state waters and existing m:;es,
particularly in light of the on-going EIS. The Clean Water
Act does not allow for even a temporary loss of existing
uses of surface waters.
In addition, the mitigation plan Presented by Tg does not
establish.a precise plan and timetable for the recl:imat.ion
of the Creek in its current location. We are unassured as to
when, how and to what extent reclamation will be conducted.
In our opinion, the Company has painted itself iiito a
corner. While it is not the state's obligett:ion to r,!aoa.ve
that problem, the state seems intent; upon crafting a
temporary solution that satisfies the Company. The Company
wants a permit modification, and a 401 certification to mine
through the upper reaches of Whitehurst Crc(-..,k. F"CRP'
continues to disagree with both Nteps of this process.
Sincerely,
&&CL? ' Mvkk-
David McNaught, ecuti.ve Director
Pamlico Tar River.F'oundation
cc. Mike McCee, EPA
en rcn • -i )nn • nm ) C - tic 7F 1 7T unr QgRq-qVR-RTR :-1-11 7.4 XH - -I H I NN71N
DGJGlff4
MITIGATION PLAN FOR REPLACEMENT OF
5,000 FEET OF CHANNELIZED WHITEHURST DRAINAGE
INTRODUCTION
Texasgulf Inc., assisted by the environmental consulting firm of CZR
Incorporated (CZR), is preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for
the continuation of phosphate mining within a defined 14,200-acre project area.
This DEIR is being prepared under the requirements and guidance of the-U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE), Wilmington District to support the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to be prepared by the COE relative to Texasgulf's application
for a Section 404 permit to mine in wetlands. Input from State and Federal-
agencies and other groups and individuals has been received and evaluated
throughout the process, beginning with the scoping meeting in September 1988 and
continuing most recently with agency input on wetlands areas of special concern
and alternatives to be considered. Portions of the DEIR have been circulated
for agency review and comment and have been revised according to COE guidance.
The revised DEIR is planned for submittal to the COE in May 1992.
As the EIS process is proceeding, Texasgulf continues to mine in non-
jurisdictional areas in a southerly direction. The current mine operation is
located in the vicinity of Creekmur Road (SR 1942) just to the west of NC 306.
To continue mining through 1993 as the EIS/Section 404, permit. review _ process
continues, Texasgulf plans to move further south (see Figures 1 and 2). This
700-acre area involves no wetlands, but does involve about 0.6 acre of "waters
of the United States" and 0.96 acre of "waters of the state" in the channelized
Whitehurst drainage between SR 1941 and SR 1937 (see Figure 3). Mining through
this area would be permitted under Nationwide Permit 26 and the associated 401
Water Quality Certification.
As part of its mine planning for this additional 700-acre mine block,
Texasgulf has avoided all wetlands and the main downstream portion of the
Whitehurst Creek system, including CAMA jurisdictional areas and wetland areas
(primarily bottomland hardwood forest and brackish marsh areas) associated with
the downstream system. The plans minimize impact to section 404 jurisdictional
M W a ffV
areas, limiting the impact to 0.6 acre of waters of the United States in 2,500
feet of channelized areas. It is not practical for Texasgulf to avoid this
stretch of channelized drainage, as it would disrupt the logical mining sequence
and result in an economic impact of over $15,000,000 due to increased mining
costs and loss of ore reserves. Therefore, Texasgulf proposes to redirect the
run-off from the primarily agricultural land headwaters of the Whitehurst system
through a ditch system along the outer perimeter along the west, south, and east
sides of the 700-acre block. The lower (downstream) portion of this redirected
drainage would be designed and constructed to replace and improve the low quality
aquatic habitat now within the 5,000 feet of channelized drainage currently
between SR 1941 and SR 1937. The redirected drainage would connect with the
Whitehurst system at the same point at SR 1941 bridge (see Figures 1 and 3).
The specific plans and specifications for this system are contained in this
mitigation plan and in the "Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan, Mine Permit
7-1 Modification/700-Acre Block for Texasgulf Inc." prepared by Robert M. Chiles,
P.E.
The channelized section in question was channelized in 1948 and again in
1954, according to Soil Conservation Service records. The channel extends from
the bridge at SR 1941 upstream about 2,150 feet to where it splits, with the main
prong going in a southerly direction for another 1,500 feet to where it crosses
under SR 1937 (and then into 3 field ditches, one going south, one going
southwest, and one going west) and with a minor prong to the west for 1,350 feet
where it crosses under SR 1937 (see Figure 3). The downstream 2,150-foot section
has 10 field ditches emptying into it from the south; four field ditches empty
into it from the north, but these have been truncated somewhat by the current
mine block approximately 1,000 feet to the north. The southerly prong has 10
field ditches which empty into it from the west and three ditches which enter
from the east. The 1,350-foot westerly prong is a more narrow field-ditch type
drainage. It has four field ditches emptying into it along its south side and
six ditches emptying into it from the north. Flow from the northwest Whitehurst
drainage has been redirected around the current mine block into a sedimentation
D V3 M ff V
pond just to the north (between the prong and the current mine block) and then
into this prong.
The flow in the channelized section between SR 1941 and SR 1937 is
intermittent. During summer months and during dry periods, there is little or
no flow, especially in the westerly prong. During these times, there may be some
stagnant pools located in the lower portion just upstream from the SR 1941
bridge. A video taken on 9 July 1991 by CZR Incorporated to show the "waters
of the United States" is indicative of this situation. During CZR's field
activities from October 1988 through the end of February 1989, there was no flow
in this channelized section and no standing water pools except immediately
adjacent to the SR 1941 bridge. The flow conditions during the DEM sampling on
12 February 1992 as shown in CZR's video (copy provided to DEM) of the sampling
is indicative of wet season flow conditions.
The channelized section has scattered remnant trees and various shrub and
vine species growing along its banks. The banks are very steep, and the average
width of the vegetated stream corridor is about 30 feet. The existing value of
this area for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources is very limited. The
results of fish and macro invertebrate sampling by DEM on 12 February 1992 are
contained in a DEM Memorandum dated 18 February 1992 to Steve Tedder from Ken
Eagleson.
MITIGATION CONCEPT AND DESIGN
To replace the channelized section of Whitehurst drainage designated as
"waters of the State" between SR 1941 and SR 1937, Texasgulf proposes to redirect
the flow of the Whitehurst Creek headwaters around the 700-acre mine block's
west, south, and east perimeters and to construct an improved stream channel and
buffered corridor along the east side of the mine block. Figure 1 shows the
700-acre mine block, its major components, the redirected flow around the
perimeter, and the section of mitigation channel and corridor along the east side
of the mine block. Figure 4 shows an enlarged site plan for the mitigation
M W I ffV
channel and corridor. Figure 5 shows the cross-section profile of the drainage
canal around the west and south sides of the mine block; this canal will flow
into a 600-foot long and 75-foot wide sedimentation pond located at the southeast
corner of the mine block. Figures 6 through 8 show the cross-section profiles
of the mitigation channel flowing from the sedimentation pond, along the eastern
perimeter of the mine block, and into Whitehurst Creek at the SR 1941 bridge.
The diversion of the stormwater along the west and south sides of the 700-
acre mining block will be within a newly excavated channel that will connect to
a 600' x 75' sediment basin located at the southeast corner of this mining block.
The mitigation channel will begin at the outlet of the sediment basin and
continue for approximately 5000 L/F to the existing channel on the west side of
the bridge on SR 1941 (See Figures 4, 6, 7, and 8). The mitigation channel will
have a flat bottom 10 feet in width and 4:1 side slopes to existing grade. The
excavated soil will be piled between the channel area and the mine operation to
form a physical barrier. The increased cross section of the mitigation channel,
when compared with the diversion canal upstream of the sediment basin, will allow
a decrease in flow velocity within the channel. In addition, a stilling pool
upstream of the outlet at the bridge will provide for additional sediment
removal. The invert elevations of the mitigation channel will maintain a flat
grade throughout with short (20 ft) one-foot step grade changes at about 1000-
foot intervals. This flat grade will allow small pools to develop along the
length of the channel.
Construction of the mitigation channel is planned for May and June 1992.
The channel and adjacent slopes and spoil piles will be stabilized with
vegetative cover before redirecting water flow into the system (anticipated circa
October 1992). This construction and stabilization will be concurrent with
initial preparation phases of the 700-acre mine block. The channel bottom will
be covered with 6 to 12 inches of topsoil and will be stabilized with the
standard mixture (as presented in the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan)
of tall fescue, Robe lespedeza, German millet, and Pensacola bahia grass.
.0
M M I ffV
The 4:1 side slopes will be vegetated with the same mixture, less the tall
fescue and with a higher rate (80 lbs) of German millet. During early 1993,
trees and shrubs will be planted along the slopes adjacent to the stream. Quick
growing, hardy species, such as sweet gum, loblolly pine, willow, and wax myrtle
will be used.
The spoil piles, located to the west side of the mitigation channel, will
be stabilized with the standard mixture of tall fescue, Kobe lespedeza, German
millet, and Pensacola bahia grass. A 50-foot strip of land adjacent to the
mitigation channel just outside the east side of the 700-acre mine block will
be planted with a wildlife food mixture in 1992, and will be allowed to undergo
natural succession in later years.
The construction of the mitigation channel and pond along with its
associated 300, wide corridor will provide enhancement of habitat for both
aquatic and terrestrial resources. A comparison between the existing channel
and corridor and the proposed mitigation pond/channel/corridor is provided in
Table 1.
W W ? ? V TABLE 1
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE EXISTING CHANNEL AND THE
PROPOSED MITIGATION CHANNEL
Existing Channels Between
SR 1941 and SR 1937
Mitigation Channel
Stream bottom width is approximately
10 feet in the main channel and
southern prong, and 4 feet in the
westerly prong. Stream bottom
substrate is primarily silt.
Length of 10-foot wide run is 3,650
feet, and of 4-foot wide westerly
prong is 1,350 feet. The acreage of
channel bottom is 0.95 acre.
In-stream litter consists of leaf-
debris and fallen tree limbs.
Current stream "corridor" averages
30 feet, consisting of the stream and
scattered remnant trees with various
shrubs and vines along the steep
banks.
At present, over 35 field ditches
empty into the existing channels
between SR 1941 and SR 1937.
At present, only the redirected flow
from the northwest portion of the
Whitehurst drainage goes through a
sedimentation pond (located between
the westerly prong and the existing
mine, and flowing into the westerly
prong).
At present, only scattered wetland
plants occur in the channel. In the
main channel, scattered patches of
smartweed (Polvaonum sp.), rice
cutgrass (Leersia sp.), bur-reed
(SparQanium americanum), Ludwiaia
sp., and woolgrass (Scirpuus
evperinus) have been observed. In
the westerly prong, woolgrass,
cattails (Typha sp.), and Juncus sp.
have been observed.
Stream bottom will be about 10 feet
wide. Stream bottom will be topsoil
stabilized by vegetation prior to
flow.
Total length of 10-foot wide run from
the SR 1941 bridge to the settling
sedimentation pond is 4,750 feet.
The sedimentation pond is about 600
feet long and 75 feet wide. The
mitigation stream channel acreage is
1.1 acre.
Cut log/limb sections will be placed
in the stream; leaf litter will be
placed in selected spots.
The set-aside mitigation corridor
will be 300 feet wide. The stream
bottom will be about 10 feet wide,
and the banks will be at a 4 to 1
slope, stabilized with an initial
planting of millet and lespedeza, and
later planted with wax myrtle,
willow, sweetgum, and pine. The
spoil piles will be located on the
west side of the channel between the
channel and the mine operation and
will be stabilized with herbaceous
planting. A 50-foot corridor just
outside the 700-acre mine block to
the east of the mitigation channel
will be planted with wildlife food
and then allowed to naturalize in
subsequent years.
No field ditches will empty directly
into the mitigation channel.
With the flow redirected around the
700-acre mine block, all of the
runoff from the upstream Whitehurst
drainage will flow into the
sedimentation pond at the upper end
of the mitigation channel, resulting
in improvement of water quality.
Initially (prior to water flow
redirection into the mitigation
channel), the channel will be covered
with 6 to 12 inches of topsoil and
stabilized with a mixture of
herbaceous species. Once flow begins
in this channel section (circa
October 1992), these plants will die
off and natural succession of wetland
plants will begin to occur in
subsequent growing seasons.
low
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES BRANCH
May 4, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cherri Smith
FROM: Jimmie Overton
RE: Mitigation Plan for Texas Gulf Mine at Whitehurst
Creek.
My staff and I reviewed the mitigation plan submitted by Texas Gulf
Representatives at the April 27 meeting at Ashley House. The "serpentine"
waterway placed at the end of a diversion ditch, seems of very limited value
in replacing the beneficial uses in Whitehurst Creek. Although I never saw
the maps on the draft plan, as described it appeared to be an honest attempt to
temporarily maintain those uses until the creek could truly be restored. It is
my opinion that this plan would not accomplish that. We contacted other
states to find a similar plan to evaluate, and were unsuccessful. Perhaps
Texas Gulf could provide that information. The channel drawn may achieve
the same number of linear feet, but is far different than any stream I have
encountered.
Regardless of what is eventually approved in the mitigation plan, the more
important question is when can Whitehurst Creek and its uses be
reestablished? I did find information on this in Florida. Their regulation
reads to restore or improve both the water quality and type, nature, and
function of the biological systems present at the site to those which existed
prior to mining activity. Achievable and reasonable time limits (not
exceeding five years) are included with the plan, and temporary mitigation of
lost uses are of less importance. Furthermore, when considering either
mitigation or restoration of use, I feel we should be consistent with Federal
and State regulations which define existing use as that use which existed at
any time since November 28, 1975. In the case of Whitehurst Creek,
regardless of the semantics of "field ditches" or other terminology used in
describing its "present" state, the alterations in hydrology and adjacent land
use that occurred in recent years likely affected its uses. Evaluation of existing
use should occur prior to site preparation activities in the future.
Not being a hydrologist, I am sure that others will provide much more useful
review of the hydrology document than I. One major shortcoming I see is in

.
that it addresses total volume, without consideration for when and at what
rate the water is delivered into Whitehurst Creek from its watershed. The
basic premise presented is that channelization increases flow rate and
volume; therefore, removal of a portion of the watershed allows the volume
to return to natural levels. As I discussed at the meeting, I am also concerned
with the short circuiting of water at low flow by the sedimentation ponds.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the plans. If you have questions
regarding these comments, please feel free to call.
CC. Ken Eagleson
John Dorney
Vince Schneider
Trish Macpherson
IMPORTANT
r
Time
WHILE YOU WEPyE OUT
M 9C
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
G%.-
A,

N.C. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(A- 9-(n t C LS ?X?? o.1-------
REN TRFF JW-RX #2
4?0' *
.i • - a
Fax Cover sheet;
ILL y1y-yob-5yb? jun tz9,j1 lu--Un Nu.UU.Z r.UI/UJ
PAM LICO-TAR RIVER FOUNDATION
P.O. BOX 1854, WASI IINGI.ON, NC 27889 (9W)946-7211
Tok Dr. George Everett, Director
Division of Envir.c?nmcntal llanagemc-.nt
P.O. Box 27637
Raleigh, NC 27611
From: David Mr_Natight, Executive Diroat..or
Pa'alloo -Tar Ri.vr..r Foundatinn
re: Texasgulf; 401 certifirat.ion to mine through Whi.teburst
Creek.
Fax No: 919-733-1388
&OUCAri0N. APvoCACY. RLSLARC,H.
`0 700'% n: r: ycL: d p; ylrr
RENN 1HFF FHX Rl
t0 A*- A6
-..' ..X
I LL : yly-J40-DJOJ Jull 1L e 7L lU -uu IVU .UUL I .uL? UU
PAMLICO-TAR RIVER FOUNnATION
P.O. BOX 1854, WASHINGTON, NC 27889 [phone]
Dr. George Everett, Director Junei 11, 1992
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Boa 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
re: Tq's proposed mitigation for Whitehurst Creek, 401 .
certification for permit modification and the ETA process.
Dczr George:
Since you are wellaw,arty of the purposes and general
cony-.erns of the Pamlico-Tar River Foundat.iOn, I, w1.11
dispense with inrrodl.Irt.ionf',. This letter addresses the
specific action of DEM's proposed issuance of a 401
certification for the Texasqulf mine advance into the upper
portions of. Whitehurst. Creek
First it is inappropriate to issue any permit
modifications prior to completion of the E16. This first
point (perhaps exr_ranneous to your immediate decision) As a
reiteration of our po;,iti on a:; expressed (Xetters dated .
January 28, 1992) to the US Army Corps of Engineers and to
the Division of Land Resources when Tg initially requ,rstecl
the permit mollification. At tKat time three agencies of the
regional. DEMNP office concurred with our position (mPml?s
from DEM, DCM and DMF, Oct. and Nov. 1991.) I believe that
the rcgionsl office of DCM ha:*4 c?ont.inued to express this
concern.
Secondly, our attorneys advise us that issuing a 401
certification in this case is wholly inappropriate and
perhaps illegal. The law does not allow for the loss, even
temporary loss, of existing uses in surface waters. The
state's antidegradation policy does allow for the loss of
use, and m.iticlat;ion for the lnssps, In wetland.:, but not
surface water,;; hence this action is contrary to the state's
ant,idc°gradat-inn policy.
We recognize the reluctance of the state to 'stop the
Company in their tracks'. Tg finds themselves in a yuandry:
they need to mine sompwber.e, and yet they have not completed
the ETS though it's been nearly 4 years since the prores,
began. We maintain that the EIS should be completed prior to
any permit modifirat.ions; but we realize Tg's desire to
sustain operations. The proposed 700 acre mine advance is in
the general direction that FTRF has always preferred;
therefore, we did suggest (Jan. 28 letter to Floyd Williams,
Division of Land Resources) a permit, modification that would
EDUCATION. ADVOCACY. RESFARCH.
40 1001!h racyded paper
R
KENN IHFF FHA 92
',..4

I tL yly-yon-JygJ Jul] 1L yL lU -L)u ivu . VVL r . V.JI V J
have allowed the Company to Continue operations while
avoiding wetlands and Surface Waters. (There is
considerable upland area in and around the 700 acre t.r.act..)
'heir proposal, by contrast, includes Whitehurst Creek.
While we could accept a modif.iczition permitting expanded
upland mining, we cannot endorse the istcuance of the 401
certifir_ation to eliminjcr.e state waters and existing uses,
particularly in light. of the on going EIS. The Clean Water
Act does not allow for even a temporary logs of existing
uses of surface waters.
In addition, the mitigation plan presented by Tg does not
establish a precise plan and timetable for the reclamation
of tha. Creek in its current location. We are unass-ured as to
when, how and to what extent reclamation will be -conducted.
In our opinion, the Company has painted itself into a
corner. While it is not the state's obligation to resolve
that problem, the state seem: intent upon crafting a
temporary solution that satisfies the Company. The Company
wants a permit modification, and a 401 certification to mine
through the upper reaches of Whitehu.r.st Creek. PTRF
Continues to disagree with both step.-, of this process.
Sincerely,
David McNaught, ExeCUt.ive Director
Pamlico--Tar River_ Foundation
Co. Mike MCGee, EPA
MEMO
TO:

GA-J-7 C)Uv
L c=- S XO'? Sr C? N
T /r
?-j v P/L /4-C l C 1?-y C L=
?dTI

?r7t2(T 0
DATE:
SUBJECT:
/4C i--
Co? M-
tjo
/ -7t
3 r (--(61 -?--> M
From: M, i 'i f--
sta. STA7F q.?
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
ea
Printed on Recycled Papei
? s 3/a l
__ DV3GI??
MITIGATION PLAN FOR REPLACEMENT OF
5,000 FEET OF CHANNELIZED WHITEHURST DRAINAGE
INTRODUCTION
Texasgulf Inc., assisted by the environmental consulting firm of CZR
Incorporated (CZR), is preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for
the continuation of phosphate mining within a defined 14,200-acre project area.
This DEIR is being prepared under the requirements and guidance of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE), Wilmington District to support the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to be prepared by the COE relative to Texasgulf's application
for a Section 404 permit to mine in wetlands. Input from State and Federal
agencies and other groups and individuals has been received and evaluated
throughout the process, beginning with the scoping meeting in September 1988 and
continuing most recently with agency input on wetlands areas of special concern
and alternatives to be considered. Portions of the DEIR have been circulated
for agency review and comment and have been revised according to COE guidance.
The revised DEIR is planned for submittal to the COE in May 1992-.
As the EIS process is proceeding, Texasgulf continues to mine in non-
jurisdictional areas in a southerly direction. The current mine operation is
located in the vicinity of Creekmur Road (SR 1942) just to the west of NC 306.
To continue mining through 1993 as the EIS/Section 404 per it review process
continues, Texasgulf plans to move further south (see Figures 1 and 2). This
700-acre area involves no wetlands, but does involve about 0.6 acre of "waters
of the United States" and 0.96 acre of "waters of the State" in the channelized
Whitehurst drainage between SR 1941 and SR 1937 (see Figure 3). Mining through
this area would be permitted under Nationwide Permit 26 and the associated 401
Water Quality Certification.
As part of its mine planning for this additional 700-acre mine block,
Texasgulf has avoided all wetlands and the main downstream portion of the
Whitehurst creek system, including LAMA jurisdictional areas and wetland areas
(primarily bottomland hardwood forest and brackish marsh areas) associated with
the downstream system. The plans minimize impact to Section 404 jurisdictional
04. W Gil?l?V
areas, limiting the impact to 0.6 acre of waters of the United States in 2,500
feet of channelized areas. It is not practical for Texasgulf to avoid this
stretch of channelized drainage, as it would disrupt the logical mining sequence
and result in an economic impact of over $15,000,000 due to increased mining
costs and loss of ore reserves. Therefore, Texasgulf proposes to redirect the
run-off from the primarily agricultural land headwaters of the Whitehurst system
through a ditch system along the outer perimeter along the west, south, and east
sides of the 700-acre block. The lower (downstream) portion of this redirected
drainage would be designed and constructed to replace and improve the low quality
aquatic habitat now within the 5,000 feet of channelized drainage currently
between SR 1941 and SR 1937. The redirected drainage would connect with the
Whitehurst system at the same point at SR 1941 bridge (see Figures 1 and 3).
The specific plans and specifications for this system are contained in this
mitigation plan and in the "Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan, Mine Permit
7-1 Modification/700-Acre Block for Texasgulf Inc." prepared by Robert M. Chiles,
P.E.
The channelized section in question was channelized in 1948 and again in
1954, according to Soil Conservation Service records. The channel extends from
the bridge at SR 1941 upstream about 2,150 feet to where it splits, with the main
prong going in a southerly direction for another 1,500 feet to where it crosses
under SR 1937 (and then into 3 field ditches, one going south, one going
southwest, and one going west) and with a minor prong to the west for 1,350 feet
where it crosses under SR 1937 (see Figure 3). The downstream 2,150-foot section
has 10 field ditches emptying into it from the south; four field ditches empty
into it from the north, but these have been truncated somewhat by the current
mine block approximately 1,000 feet to the north. The southerly prong has 10
field ditches which empty into it from the west and three ditches which enter
from the east. The 1,350-foot westerly prong is a more narrow field-ditch type
drainage. It has four field ditches emptying into it along its south side and
six ditches emptying into it from the north. Flow from the northwest Whitehurst
drainage has been redirected around the current mine block into a sedimentation
opaffu
pond just to the north (between the prong and the current mine block) and then
into this prong.
The flow in the channelized section between SR 1941 and SR 1937 is
intermittent. During summer months and during dry periods, there is little or
no flow, especially in the westerly prong. During these times, there may be some
stagnant pools located in the lower portion just upstream from the SR 1941
bridge. A video taken on 9 July 1991 by CZR Incorporated to show the "waters
of the United States" is indicative of this situation. During CZR's field
activities from October 1988 through the end of February 1989, there was no flow
in this channelized section and no standing water pools except immediately
adjacent to the SR 1941 bridge. The flow conditions during the DEM sampling on
12 February 1992 as shown in CZR's video (copy provided to DEM) of the sampling
is indicative of wet season flow conditions.
The channelized section has scattered remnant trees and various shrub and
vine species growing along its banks. The banks are very steep, and the average
width of the vegetated stream corridor is about 30 feet. The existing value of
this area for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources is very limited. The
results of fish and macroinvertebrate sampling by DEM on 12 February 1992 are
contained in a DEM Memorandum dated 1S February 1992 to Steve Tedder from Ken
Eagleson.
MITIGATION CONCEPT AND DESIGN
To replace the channelized section of Whitehurst drainage designated as
"waters of the State" between SR 1941 and SR 1937, Texasgulf proposes to redirect
the flow of the Whitehurst Creek headwaters around the 700-acre mine block's
west, south, and east perimeters and to construct an improved stream channel and
buffered corridor along the east side of the mine block. Figure 1 shows the
700-acre mine block, its major components, the redirected flow around the
perimeter, and the section of mitigation channel and corridor along the east side
of the mine block. Figure 4 shows an enlarged site plan for the mitigation

D W L^? ? V
channel and corridor. Figure 5 shows the cross-section profile of the drainage
canal around the west and south sides of the mine block; this canal will flow
into a 600-foot long and 75-foot wide sedimentation pond located at the southeast
corner of the mine block. Figures 6 through 8 show the cross-section profiles
of the mitigation channel flowing from the sedimentation pond, along the eastern
perimeter of the mine block, and into Whitehurst Creek at the SR 1941 bridge.
The diversion of the stormwater along the west and south sides of the 700-
acre mining block will be within a newly excavated channel that will connect to
a 600, x 75• sediment basin located at the southeast corner of this mining block.
The mitigation channel will begin at the outlet of the sediment basin and
continue for approximately 5000 L/F to the existing channel on the west side of
the bridge on SR 1941 (See Figures 4, 6, 7, and 8). The mitigation channel will
have a flat bottom 10 feet in width and 4:1 side slopes to existing grade. The
excavated soil will be piled between the channel area and the mine operation to
form a physical barrier. The increased cross section of the mitigation channel,
when compared with the diversion canal upstream of the sediment basin, will allow
a decrease in flow velocity within the channel. In addition, a stilling pool
upstream of the outlet at the bridge will provide for additional sediment
removal. The invert elevations of the mitigation channel will maintain a flat
grade throughout with short (20 ft) one-foot step grade changes at about 1000-
foot intervals. This flat grade will allow small pools to develop along the
length of the channel.
Construction of the mitigation channel is planned for May and June 1992.
The channel and adjacent slopes and spoil piles will be stabilized with
vegetative cover before redirecting water flow into the system (anticipated circa
October 1992). This construction and stabilization will be concurrent with
initial preparation phases of the 700-acre mine block. The channel bottom will
be covered with 6 to 12 inches of topsoil and will be stabilized with the
standard mixture (as presented in the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan)
of tall fescue, Kobe lespedeza, German millet, and Pensacola bahia grass.
i
M M ? ? V
The 4:1 side slopes will be vegetated with the same mixture, less the tall
fescue and with a higher rate (80 lbs) of German millet. During early 1993,
trees and shrubs will be planted along the slopes adjacent to the stream. Quick
growing, hardy species, such as sweet gum, loblolly pine, willow, and wax myrtle
will be used.
The spoil piles, located to the west side of the mitigation channel, will
be stabilized with the standard mixture of tall fescue, Kobe lespedeza, German
millet, and Pensacola bahia grass. A 50-foot strip of land adjacent to the
mitigation channel just outside the east side of the 700-acre mine block will
be planted with a wildlife food mixture in 1992, and will be allowed to undergo
natural succession in later years.
The construction of the mitigation channel and pond along with its
associated 300, wide corridor will provide enhancement of habitat for both
aquatic and terrestrial resources. A comparison between the existing channel
and corridor and the proposed mitigation pond/channel/corridor is provided in
Table 1.
U W 1I U V
TABLE 1
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE EXISTING CHANNEL AND THE
IF PROPOSED MITIGATION CHANNEL
Existing Channels Between
SR 1941 and SR 1937
Stream bottom width is approximately
10 feet in the main channel and
southern prong, and 4 feet in the
westerly prong. Stream bottom
substrate is primarily silt.
Mitigation Channel
Stream bottom will be about 10 feet
wide. Stream bottom will be topsoil
stabilized by vegetation prior to
flow.
Length of 10-foot wide run is 3,650
feet, and of 4-foot wide westerly
prong is 1,350 feet. The acreage of
channel bottom is 0.95 acre.
In-stream litter consists of leaf-
debris and fallen tree limbs.
Current stream "corridor" averages
30 feet, consisting of the stream and
scattered remnant trees with various
shrubs and vines along the steep
banks.
LL S c? /O C;J(Lve_s-
cn C r e-
- ( on" "v"
At present, over 35 field ditches
empty into the existing channels
between SR 1941 and SR 1937.
At present, only the redirected flow
from the northwest portion of the
Whitehurst drainage goes through a
sedimentation pond (located between
the westerly prong and the existing
mine, and flowing into the westerly
prong).
At present, only scattered wetland
plants occur in the channel. In the
main channel, scattered patches of
smartweed (Polvgonum sp.), rice
cutgrass (Leersia sp.), bur-reed
(SAarganium americanum), Ludwigia
sp., and woolgrass (Scirpus
cvnerinus) have been observed. In
the westerly prong, woolgrass,
cattails (Tv ha sp.), and Juncus sp.
have been observed.
Total length of 10-foot wide run from
the SR 1941 bridge to the settling
sedimentation pond is 4,750 feet.
The sedimentation pond is about 600
feet long and 75 feet wide. The
mitigation stream channel acreage is
1.1 acre.
Cut log/limb sections will be placed
in the stream; leaf litter will be
placed in selected spots.
The set-aside mitigation corridor
will be 300 feet wide. The stream
bottom will be about 10 feet wide,
and the banks will be at a 4 to 1
slope, stabilized with an initial
planting of millet and lespedeza, and
later planted with wax myrtle,
willow, sweetgum, and pine. The
spoil piles will be located on the
west side of the channel between the
channel and the mine operation and
will be stabilized with herbaceous
planting. A 50-foot corridor just
outside the 700-acre mine block to
the east of the mitigation channel
will be planted with wildlife food
and then allowed to naturalize in
subsequent years.
No field ditches will empty directly
into the mitigation channel.
With the flow redirected around the
700-acre mine block, all of the
runoff from the upstream Whitehurst
drainage will flow into the
sedimentation pond at the upper end
of the mitigation channel, resulting
in improvement of water quality.
Initially (prior to water flow
redirection into the mitigation
channel), the channel will be covered
with 6 to 12 inches of topsoil and
stabilized with a mixture of
herbaceous species. Once flow begins
in this channel section (circa
October 1992), these plants will die
off and natural succession of wetland
plants will begin to occur in
subsequent growing seasons.

d r _ y?
APR 9 1992
PAMLICO-TAR RIVER FOUNDATION
P.O. BOX 1854, WASHINGTON, NC 27889 [phone]
Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Steve:
April 5, 1992
APR I n 1992
As you know, the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation is -
dedicated to protecting the natural systems of our region.
We, and others, have been closely monitoring the development
of the EIS for the future mining operations at Texasgulf
Chemicals Company. Therefore, when Tg requested a mining
permit modification in the middle of the EIS study area,
before that study was completed, we registered our concerns
with state agencies. We are further concerned by DEM's
response to Tg's request.
The implications of your March 25 letter to William
Schimming at Texasgulf are monumental. The suggestion to
approve the proposal through a 401 certification seems a
relaxation of previous DEM policy which required '
declassification of stream segments that were to be mined.
The segment of WhItehurst Creek, the stream in question, has
been shown (thrcli DEM field assessment) to support
significant exis<ng uses, including aquatic life
production. We totally disa.gr_ee with DEM's overly
optimistic belief "that the uses of the stream will be
protected if those uses are reestablished in the original
location immediately following reclamation". Even a
temporary elimination of uses (especially one based on a
premise of anticipated, unproven restoration) is contrary to
the antideg:radation standard of the Clean Water Act.
On behalf of the more than 2000 members of PTRF, we
requestea public hearing on the proposed issuance of this
401 certification. There is substantial interest in this
issue which certainly warrants full, public discussion.
Sincerely,
/V
avid McNau
U -k
ght, E iv.e Director
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
cc. Mike McGee, EPA
Derb Carter, SELC
EDUCATION. ADVOCACY. RESEARCH.
0 100% recycled paper
WATE,R QUALITY
SECTION
_i: . DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
U.S_ ARMY COE 404 PUBLIC NOTICE OR NATIONWIDE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW
vROJECT NAME:
COUNTY : 2
STREAM OR ADJ
BASIN:
PTION:
'404' PUBLIC NOTICE: (Y OR N)
NATIONWIDE PERMIT: (Y OR N) #

ASSIGNED TO:1?2?
DATE APP. RECD.: .: 41Q D S'"_2n (YY/MM/DD )
INITIAL REPORT: (YY/MM/DD) RECOMMENDATION:
FINAL REPORT: - 4 O (YY/MM/DD) (ISSi1?F?
WATER QUALITY CERT. (401)
CERT. REQ'D: (Y OR N)
IF YES: G AN SAL CERT:_ (Y OR N)
TYPE GEN: 24 INDIVIDUAL CERT:
(BULKHEA3, BOAT RAMP, ETC.)
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
TYPE OF DISPOSAL PROPOSED:
,1u"- 51982
(EXISTING, PROPOSED SEPTIC TANK, ETC.)
TO BE PERMITTED BY: (DEM, DHS, COUNTY)
IF BY DEM, IS SITE AVAILABLE AND PERMIT ISSUANCE PROBABLE? (Y OR N)
WATER/WETLAND FILL
AREA OF FILL: WATER:
WETLAND :
IS FILL ELIMINATING A SIGNIFICANT USE? (Y OR N)
DREDGING
IS DREDGING ACTIVITY EXPECTED TO CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF
RESOURCE? (Y OR N)
IS SPOIL DISPOSAL ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED? (Y OR N)
SEQUENCING
IS SEQUENCING REQUIRED? (Y OR N)
PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE? (Y OR N)
MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS? (Y OR N)
MITIGATION PROPOSED? (Y OR N)
f
cc: WaRO - Dorney - Central Files -.COE
C k?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
June 16, 1992
William Schimming
Manager, Environmental
Texasgulf, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Schimming
Affairs
27806
George T Everett, Ph.D.
Director
Enclosed is a copy of the bill for $ 37.15 for the Public
Notice for your project entitled Texasgulf Mine at Whitehurst
Creek, in Beaufort County. As you are probably aware, payment is
required by 15 NCAC 2H .0502(f). The check should be sent to me
and made out to the Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
Please call me at 919/733-1786 if you have any questions.
JRD/kls
Schim.ltr/JD/Vol.3
Enclosure
cc: Central Files
Sincerely,
?f.
Jo n R. Dorney
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900
Winston-Salem
919/8967007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27620-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Established 1909
WAS rsLV •°UA13y NEWS in the Origins! Washington
\ ,The Voice of
Jw toe Pamlico
The Washington News Publishing Co.
P.O. Box 1788 - 217 North Market Street
WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 27889
[phone]
ACCOUNT CLIENT
7 _:::1 015 - 00000
N.C. DIV. OF ENVIRON.MGT.
P.O. BOX 27687
WATER DUALITY SECTION
RALEIGH NC '27611-7687
PLEASE RETURN T OP HALF OF STATEMENT WITH REMITTANCE
THRU rlA I :-31 `92
STATEMENT DATE
MAY 29 -"921
ACCOUNT NO. CLIENT
7:-3:37 01'=1 - 0000
xx PRIOR BALANCE 67.7=
05/15/92 NPEIES PERMIT-POTTER OIL CO. L.E 0079:300 1 X 6.001 6.00 0.7 52.44
05/15/92 NPEIES PERMIT-CITY OF WASHINGTO LE 00793-38 1 X 9.501 9.50 3.7 5:3.0::
01/2.0/92 TEXASGULF CERTIFICATION LE: 0079358 1 X 4.251 4.25 E3.7 =s7. ](?
•%• x TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 12 40 .:3 c:
ADVERTISING TYPE CODES
TYPE DESCRIPTION
LO LOCAL DISPLAY
CO CLASSIFIED OISPUY
CA COMPASSAOS
C7 COMPASS INSERTS
LE LEGAL DISPLAY
IN INSERTS
CC CHURCH d CHARITY
CH CHURCH PAGE
CM COMMUNITY PAGE
CL CLASSIFIED UNE
AD SIZE CODES PAYMENT ST ATEMENI
LATE PAYMENT CHARGE is determined by applying a
L-LINES periodic rate of 1.5% per month, which Is an ANNUAL
PERCENTAGE RATE OF 18%, to the balance subject
W -WORDS to LATE PAYMENT CHARGE. The balance subject to
LATE PAYMENT CHARGE is the previous balance less
payments and credits made during the current billing
I-INCHES oeriod.
WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS
CURRENT 172.62
30 DAYS 67.7-l
60 DAYS
90 DAYS
120 DAYS
AMOUNT PAID
2' 40.:31,
CONTRACT EXPIRATION DATE I TYPE OF CONTRACT

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL Beaufort County
MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that TexasGuif,
I
d North Carolina
ncorporate
near Aurora, North Carolina, has ap-
plied to the NorthCarofina Division of Environmen-
tal Management for a Water Quality Certification
Pu Hsu Section 401 of The Federal Clean Wa-
-
t
l M
'r'
?
n
en
a
a
AC- gp
2EN N
CAC- pod
L4?QQ
t3
o1o9
<
ti
T

Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of

i
d
br
:
;
. ac
vity
orwhichtheiif is one
,
said county and state, duly cotrmiss
ought is to fiR'0.96 acres
pper of of Whitehurst rst CreekLpstream of stream pstrearn of
portion
qualified and authorized by law to admin-
SR 1941 in Beaufort County. TexasGulf plans to ister oaths, personally appeared Gene King,
temporan
sidevreplacethes
em side o o t then
effthe 700 we tract during mining mining and and then

who being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
restore the channel b approximately its existing lo- that he is the Advertising Director of the
cation after mining
The public is invited t .o comment on the above men-

,
Washington Daily Dews, a newspaper published
tioned application to the Division of Environmental issued and entered as second class mail in
Management Comments shall be in wfiting and
shall be received by the Division no later than June Washington, NC in said county and state; that
12,1992. Comments should be sent toN.C.Divison he is authorized to make this affidavit and
of Environmental Management, Water Quality
Planning, Post Office Box 29535, Raleigh, North
sworn statement; that the notice or other
Carolina 27626-0535 (919.733-1786) Attention: legal advertisement, a true copy of which is
John D vision ocopy the application is on file at
the Division office at at 1424 Carolina Avenue attached hereto, was published in the Wash-
,
Washington, North Caorfina 27889 (Washington
ington Daily News on the following dates:
DEM Regional Office, 919-946.6481) during nor-
mal business hours and may be inspected by the
G?
public.
George T. Everett, Director
.
. Met ..................... .
oZQ
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management .............................................
5-20 1 is
.............................................
and that the said newspaper in which such
notice, paper, document, or legal advertise-
ment was published was, at the time of each
and every publication, a newspaper meeting
all of the requirements and qualifications of
p Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of
North Carolina and was a qualified newspaper
'''' within the meaning of Section 1-597 of the
General Statutes of North Carolina.
1_:_• :` This. A ..day of ....... ..... ,19.1...
(Signature of pers king affidavit)
Sworn to and subscribed before me, a Notary
Public, this00 ...day of ....9-n .CW d.. ,19
'_?j A I
(No ar Public)
My. commission expires 1. J 1Y : Ai ' /. v%' .....

04/06/92
Mi's
•r .
13:20 U919 733 9959 iNu VhK wu hivvski.
_ N.C. DEPT. OF E?IVIROI?f1t?fEt?IT, HEALTH ,
3 AND NATURAL, RESOURCES
3 P.O. Box 27687
Ralcigh, N_C. 27611
Environmental Sciences Branch
FAX [phone]
TEI mOpY To: CH R - Yn / Tf`
FAX NUvMER:
7- ?X
LEU UU1
FRoM: C 3?
._rxO? ?3 1 6 0
No. OFpAGEs INc LuDINO THIs s171EET:
COMET'S:
04/06/92 13: 20 $919 733 9959 NU DhM W I hMbUl W--J UU?
0 nn FO
nLr U
0 MITIGATION PLATY FOR REPLAC ENT OF
S, 000 FEET OF CmitmLi2w fdHITEHURSTAD?a
INTRODUCTION '`
Texasgulf Inc-, assisted by the environmental consulting firm of C2R
Incorporated (CZR), is preparing a Draft. Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for
the continuation of phosphate missing within a defined 14,200-acre project area-
This DEIR is being prepared under the requirements. and guidance of the u.s_ Army
Corps of Engineers (COE), Wilmington District to support the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to be prepared by the COE relative to Texasgalf•s application
for a Section 404 permit to mine in wetlands- Input-from State and Federal
agencies and other groups and individuals has been received and evaluated
throughout the process, beginning with the scoping meeting in September 1988 and
continuing most recently with agency input on wetlands areas of special concern
and alternatives to be considered. Fortlons of the DEIR have been circulated
for agency review and comment and have been revised according to COE guidance.
The revised DEIR is planned for submittal to the COE in May 1992.
As the EIs process is proceeding, Texasgulf continues to mine in non-
jurisdictional areas in a southerly direction. The current mine operation 3s
located in the vicinity of Creekmur Road (SR 1942) just to the west of NC 306_
To continue mining through 1993 as the EIS/Section 404 permit- review p3^_oces$
continues, Texasgulf plans to move further south (see Figures I and 2)_ This
700-acre area involves no wetlands, but does involve about 0.6 acre of "craters
of the United States" and 0.96 acre of "waters of the State" in the'channelized
Whitehur6ainagebetween SA 3.941 and SR 1937 (see Figure 3). m ning through
4
this area would be permitted under Nationwide Permit 26 and the associated 401
Water Quality Certification.
As part of its aline planning for this additional 700-acre mine block,
Texasgulf has avoided all wetlands and the main downstream. portion of the
Whitehurst Creek system, including CAMA jurisdictional areas and wetland areas
(primarily bottoml.and hardwood forest and brackish marsh areas) associated with
the downstream system- The plans minimize impact to section 404 jurisdictional
04/06/92 13:20 W919 733 9959 1VG DhM WU raNVbL11
`aok; limiting the impact to 0.6 acre of w ers of the IInited States _ 21500
feet of G?te.[a eas. It is no practical for Texasgul o avoid this
1U n
stretch of C-ft`L ge, as t would disrupt the
and result in an economic impactlof over $15,000,000
alining sequence
to increased mining
costs and loss of ore reserves- Therefore, Texasgulf proposes to redirect the
xun-off from the primarily agricultural land headwaters of the Whitehurst system
through a ditch system along the outer perimeter along the west, south, and east
sides of the 700--acre block- The lower (downstream) portion of this redirected
G?C1
drainage would be designed and constructed to replace and improve the low quality
aquatic habitat now within the 5,000 feet of channelIzed drainage currently `_?'p.
between SR 1941 and SR 1937_ The redirected drainage would connect with the Ix
Whitehurst system at the same point at SR 1941 bridge (see Figures 1 and 3).
The specific plans and specifications for this system are contained in this
mitigation plan and in. the -Sedimentation and Erosion control Plan, Mine Permit
7-1 Modification/700-Acre Block for Texasgulf Inc.° prepared by Robert M. chiles,
P-E. * Wooil4e orl3l%A-_,4eaw% =n
'43. Zoo acre Moak 1x_ v,=&A-oc4 ??+?. `+ •
COOL
a
V W The ch enal W sectionAin question was channelized in 1948 and again in
41954, according to Soil Conservation Service records., The channel extends from
?e the bridge at SR 1941 upstream about 2,150 feet to where it splits, with the main
prong going in a southerly dS_rection for another 1,500 feet to where it crosses
under SR 1937 (and then into 3 field ditches, one going south, one going
southwest, and one going west) and with a minor prong to the west for 1,350 feet
where it crosses under SR 1937 (see Figure 3). The downstream 2,160-foot section
has 10 field ditches emptying into it from the south; four field ditches empty
into it from the north, but these have been truncated somewhat by the current
N`?2Amine block approximately -1,000 fee's to the north. The southerly prong has 10
• field ditches which empty into it from the west and three ditches which enter
a
from the east- The 1,350-foot westerly prong is a more narrow field-ditch type
?? drainage- it has four field ditches emptying into it along its south side and
six ditches emptying into it from the north- Flow from the northwest Whitehurst CA-41
drainage has been redirected around the current mine block into a sedimentation
04/06/92 13:21 22919 733 9959 INC DhM WU LNVbL11
]%nd just to the north (between the prong and the current mine block) and then
ip 'Y -^I
J-10 A
into this prong- r
t ? ,-- 0%F a-r -1'* ; "" 44 ?+?a+y ?t cw??te?l?r=??itle?l?
Gil %%4 apr ? LDe j%a;v aL ? . A CU roD)Nb Tb Z9 $Cfl 113tk ' j
l A.4 % tA CAV--?- TIM-aA93
The flow in t4ao^^°1!-' n between SR 1941 and SR 1937 is
intermittent- During summer months and during dry periods, there is little or
no flow, especially in the westerly prong. During these times, there may be some
stagnant pools located in the lower portion just upstream from the SR 1941
bridge- A video taken on 9 July 1991 by CZR Incorporated to show the "waters
of the United States" is indicative of this situation. During MR's field
dw*
activities from October 1988 through the and of February 1989, there was no flow
in this channelized section and no stand$.ng water pools except immediately
adjacent to the SR 1941 bridge. The flow conditions during the DEM sampling on W
The ch-P-11,zed section has scattered remnant trees and various shrub and
12 February 1992 as shown in cZR's video (copy provided to DEM) of the sampling
Lis indicative of wet season flow conditions- a&Q- Nc kcj ,"rciJ5 !rj V,
dMUAIW"?- ??I. p4aA;S /)A'cfjl
4a vine species owin along its banks- The banks are ver steep
?? ? gr g g y , and the average /
width of the vegetated stream corridor is about 30 feet. 42
,???? ?hiS ax'e8 fOr aqu?•r?=a--•:'•?°?raai-ri a7 •..` ?.ai i fo O The ?results of fish and macroinvertebrate sampling by DEM on 12 February 1992 are
contained in a DEM Memorandum dated 18 February 1992 to Steve Tedder from Ken
Eagleson 61-kcketl) '
MITIGATION CONC39PT AND DESIGN
C'VG1V-
To replace the channelized section of Fhitehurstndwa4aaga designated as
"waters of the State" between SR 1941 and SR 1937, Texasgu].f proposes to redirect
the flow of the Whi_tehurst Creek headwaters around the 700-acre mine blocks
west, south, and east perimeters and to construct an improved stream channeI and
buffered corridor along the east side of the mine block- Figure 1 shows the
700-acre mine block, its major components, the redirected flow around the
perimeter, and the section of mitigation channel and corridor along the east side
of the mine block. Figure 4 shows an enlarged site plan for the mitigation
:
{
?J ??i Tr 4-4J 9,S 7-
tit (7-1 --? v &IJ
o?
'; --? ?o?'-? s,4- ? ?.?,-?.? w ? ? ? ?..?--cam--??
7-0
/V1, l T G
TI Mrs- ?(? IT- /VL.,
%_

MAY-06-1992 08:53 FROM EHHR WASH REG OFFICE
TO:
TEtOtAC,)E{:
FRW.
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Deborah Sawyer
TO Zy1y'rsslssti 11.101
Post-it' brand fax transmittal memo 7501 Hof pae? ?
so
C C4?. ?r1n '?hrt
04pt. Phone
r?x#"!lq- -i33- l33B F;AX#gl9 ~37l
Terry Moore TM
David Gossett
4 May 1992
Mitigation Plan for Replacement of 5,000 Feet of Channelized
Whitehurst Creek
Texasgulf Inc.
Beaufort County
First it should be pointed out that the DCM has on several occasions,
including a memorandum to Floyd Williams dated 30 November 1991, stated that any
encroachment into permit required areas by Texasgulf within the EIS planning
area, during the EIS preparation process is very inappropriate. It is difficult
to comprehend how replacement: of 5,000 lineal feet of both waters of the United
States and/or the State of North Carolina can even be considered until the
environmental review is. completed. Texasgulf is proposing to do, by the
application submitted to your Division, the exact action that the EIS document
is addressing, but only after the completion of that document can the proposals
impact be thoroughly realized. Perhaps one of the biggest questions to be
addressed in the EIS process is that of, can a natural stream (waters of the
State/United States) be destroyed and then replaced, recreated or otherwise
mitigated for. In essence this action on Whitehurst Creek answers that question
and establishes the precedent.
One aspect of the specific proposal that was submitted to you which has
grave consequences is a statement on page 4 which states in part "that it is not
practical for Texasgulf to avoid this stretch of channelized creek, as it would
disrupt the logical mining sequence . . ." If this logic is used to allow
Texasgulf to mine through this section of Whitehurst Creek, what precedent will
be set as other creeks are approached. Permit decisions should be based on
environmental factors set forth by our regulations and statutes not by logical
mining sequences. Mitigation of a creek should not be allowed so that a logical
mining sequence can continue. Have other alignments been shown that would avoid
the creek? Of course not, because these will be submitted in the EIS which will
be forthcoming at a later date, which brings me back to my original point, that
this action should be withheld until the completion of the EIS document. The
document that has been submitted to your Division mainly addresses hydrologic
factors and only slightly addresses biological consequences of the proposal,
again a subject which should be addressed in greater detail when the EIS document
is completed.
It is this Divisions recommendation that the request for a 401
Certification be withheld, so that all permit requirements within the EIS area
which involve the mine advancement can be reviewed as one action at which time
any mitigation proposals can be reviewed as one entity and not in a piecemeal
manner.
cc_ Pros Pate
TOTAL P.01

May 7, 1992 e???
A° /V
MEMORANDUM nu1t?
To: Bruce Bolick
From: Cherri Smith
i
Subject: Mitigation Plan for Texas Gulf /Mine at Whitehurst Creek
All reviewers of this mitigation plan expressed concern over the
"serpentine" configuration of the , itigation channel. The previous
proposed channel represented a ecent attempt to temporarily
maintain the uses of Whitehurst reek. This present design does not
simulate a natural stream, and e all have serious doubts about
whether the ecological values f a natural stream will be maintained
with this system. Another co cern involves the hydrologic short
circuiting of this "serpentine" system. In other words, there is no
quarantee that water will not simply cut through the walls of this
series of east-west channels after heavy rains. Moreover, we could
10) . . . I . \ not locate similar "serpenti e" mitigation plans from other states.
able. Another specific
comment was made about when the mitigation area would be
planted. The area should e planted in the fall of 1992 not early
1993 as the plan states.
A concern was expressed at our last meeting that if the original
mitigation channel was constructed, eventually Texasgulf would be
required to obtain another 401 Certification to mine through it. The
401 Certification can be conditioned to allow mining through this
channel if it is needed avd-if the original Whitehurst Creek is back in
place.
VIN-

Another vital issue that must be addressed involves when the
original tributaries to Whitehurst Creek will be re-established. Some
relevant information was obtained from Florida. Their regulations
require the restoration or improvement of both the water quality
and type, nature, and function of the biological system present at the
site compared to those which existed prior to mining activity.
Achievable and reasonable time limits not to exceed five years are
included in the plan. This Division believes that five years is a
reasonable time limit for replacement of Whitehurst Creek after the
creek is mined. This limit will be a condition for 401 Certification.
Another condition will require that the reconstruction plan for
Whitehurst Creek be approved by the Division.
Based on the comments received, a provision must be included in
the hydrology plan to provide a minimum flow into the mitigation
channel at all times to support the ecological functions of the system.
During summer drought months, the sedimentation pond ui&C-O-Q1,
drastically affect the amount of water reaching the mitigation
channel. Therefore, a minimum release into the channel of one cfs
should be maintained. As discussed at our last meeting, this may be
achievable by diverting water around the sediment pond or by
groundwater pumping.
Some more specific information regarding why a predevelopment
hydrograph could not be produced is recommended. The Division
remains skeptical about this claim. Also, a brief explanation about
where water falling on this 700 acr tract is pumped (presumably)
would be helpful.
-
In s , the mitigation plan as proposed does not stand a &a-2 LO n?
chance 'n hell f being approved fo 401 Certification. w? `1
CavlCl.?ifM -
cc: Joh Dorney 6e-
Ja es Mulligan) Uj ?? D l, °u=}
J' mie Overton
Cvt
? ?ouf rea?
k
Q.
a ?b

(?f I
U//
c&&YV-OA

VIA '1114a,5z?
(76 ak av
tf(3- ?
VLQO-

u,qm

AI
$ Sf, o
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
May 7, 1992
Bruce Bolick
CZR Incorporated
4709 College Acres Drive, Suite 2
Wilmington, NC 28403
Dear Bruce:
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
All reviewers of the "Mitigation Plan for Replacement of 5,000
Feet of Channelized Whitehurst Creek" expressed concern over the
it serpentine" configuration of the mitigation channel. The previous
proposed channel represented a decent attempt to temporarily
maintain the uses of Whitehurst Creek. This present design does not
simulate a natural stream, and we all have serious doubts about
whether the ecological values of a natural stream will be maintained
with this system. Another concern involves the hydrologic short
circuiting of this "serpentine" system. In other words, there is no
quarantee that water will not simply cut through the walls of this
series of east-west channels after heavy rains. Moreover, we could
not locate similar "serpentine" mitigation plans from other states.
Another specific comment was made about when the mitigation area
would be planted. The area should be planted in the fall of 1992 not
early 1993 as the plan states. In summary, we urge Texasgulf to
return to their original plan.
A concern was expressed at our last meeting that if the original
mitigation channel was constructed, eventually Texasgulf would be
required to obtain another 401 Certification to mine through it. The
401 Certification can be conditioned to allow mining through this
channel if it is needed and after the original Whitehurst Creek is
back in place.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Another vital issue that must be addressed involves when the
original tributaries to Whitehurst Creek will be re-established. As
discussed in previous meetings, this Division believes that five years
is a reasonable time limit for replacement of Whitehurst Creek after
the creek is mined. This limit will be a condition for 401
Certification. Another condition will require that the reconstruction
plan for Whitehurst Creek be approved by the Division.
Based on the comments received, a provision must be included in
the hydrology plan to provide a minimum flow into the mitigation
channel at all times to support the ecological functions of the system.
During summer drought months, the sedimentation pond could
drastically affect the amount of water reaching the mitigation
channel. Therefore, a minimum release into the channel to maintain
base flow conditions is necessary. As discussed at our last meeting,
this may be achievable by diverting water around the sediment pond
or by groundwater pumping.
Some more specific information regarding why a predevelopment
hydrograph could not be produced is recommended. The Division
remains skeptical about this claim. Please have Robert Chiles call
John Dorney at 733-1786 to discuss this matter. Also, a brief
explanation about where water falling on this 700 acre tract is
pumped (presumably) would be helpful.
Finally, please expand the discussion on why Texasgulf has no
practicable alternative to mining south. This explanation can simply
be added to the introduction. Please call me at 733-1786 with any
questions.
Sincerely,

Cherri Smith
cc: John Dorney
James Mulligan, WARO DEM
Jimmie Overton
May 7, 1992
MEMORANDUM
To: Bruce Bolick
From: Cherri Smith
Subject: Mitigation Plan for Texasgulf Mine at Whitehurst Creek
All reviewers of this mitigation plan expressed concern over the
"serpentine" configuration of the mitigation channel. The previous
proposed channel represented a decent attempt to temporarily
maintain the uses of Whitehurst Creek. This present design does not
simulate a natural stream, and we all have serious doubts about
whether the ecological values of a natural stream will be maintained
with this system. Another concern involves the hydrologic short
circuiting of this "serpentine", system. In other words, there is no
quarantee that water will not simply cut through the walls of this
series of east-west channels after heavy rains. Moreover, we could
not locate similar "serpentine" mitigation plans from other states.
Another specific comment was made about when the mitigation area
would be planted. The area should be planted in the fall of 1992 not
early 1993 as the plan states. In sunltnary, we urge Texasgulf to
return to their original plan.
A concern was expressed at our last meeting that if the original
mitigation channel was constructed, eventually Texasgulf would be
required to obtain another 401 Certification to mine through it. The
401 Certification can be conditioned to allow mining through this
channel if it is needed and after the original Whitehurst Creek is
back in place.
Another vital issue that must be addressed involves when the
original tributaries to Whitehurst Creek will be re-established. Some
relevant information was obtained from Florida. Their regulations
require the restoration or improvement of both the water quality
and type, nature, and function of the biological system present at the
site compared to those which existed prior to mining activity. _
Achievable and reasonable time limits not to exceed five years are
included in the plan. This Division believes that five years is a
reasonable time limit for replacement of Whitehurst Creek after the ?N
creek is mined. This limit will be a condition for 401 Certification.
Another condition will require that the reconstruction plan for
Whitehurst Creek be approved by the Division.
Based on the comments received, a provision must be included in
the hydrology plan to provide a rninimurn flow into the mitigation
channel at all times to support the ecological functions of the system.
During summer drought months, the sedimentation pond could
drastically affect the amount of water reaching the mitigation
channel. Therefore, a minimum release into the channel of one cfs
should be maintained. As discussed at our last meeting, this may be
achievable by diverting water around the sediment pond or by
groundwater pumping.
Some more specific information regarding why a predevelopment
hydrograph could not be produced is recommended. The Division
remains skeptical about this clairn. Please have Robert Chiles call
John Dorney at 733-1786 to discuss this matter. Also, a brief
explanation about where water falling on this 700 acre tract is
pumped (presumably) would be helpful.
Finally, please expand the discussion on why Texasgulf has no
practicable alternative to ruining south. This explanation can simply
be added to the introduction. Please call 1ne at 733-1786 with any
questions.
cc: John Dorney
James Mulligan, WARO DEM
Jimmie Overton
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
5 June 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cherri Smith
THROUGH: Roger Thorpe Regional Water' Quality Supervisor
FROM: ke-borah Sawyer )0"7?7
Environmental Technician
SUBJECT: Proposal for Approval
Mine Utility Corridor
Texasgulf, Inc.
Beaufort County
The above subject proposal has been reviewed by Jim Mulligan,.Roger
Thorpe and me. We have all agreed that this immediate advanced approval to
construct the mine utility corridor around the 700 acre 7-1 permit
modification area should be held in abeyance until a 401 Water Quality
Certification has been issued to the company. This office would further wish
to relay to you that a recommendation of denial for the 401 Water Quality
Certification for this 700 acre mining advance has been forwarded to the
Central Office. The regional office concerns have not been addressed by the
company.
If you have any questions or comments, please call this office. Thank
you.
.i G
W
Mr. John Dorney
June 23, 1992
Page 2
3. As we further discussed, it is more meaningful to
truncate the first condition at the end of the phrase
"within five years of mining through this stream "since
inclusion of the statement relating to three years mining
through the 700 acre block adds confusion to the more
precise requirement relating to the five year time
period.
4. With regard to Item 2, we discussed adding the phrase "in
the Whitehurst Creek channel" at the end of the existing
sentence.
5. With regard to proposed condition No. 3, deletion of the
last sentence beginning "Fluoride, which could
potentially leach . . . aquatic insects." would make that
condition more acceptable and meaningful.
6. With regard to condition No. 4, second paragraph, fourth
line, a better definition of taxa should be included
which would better define the species or genera that is
subject to this condition.
7. With regard to condition No. 5 beginning at the third
line at the end of the phrase 1700 acre block", Texasgulf
recommends that the remainder of this sentence read as
follows: ITEM may require Texasgulf make payments of up
to $1,000 per day from the existing DLR reclamation
bond". We appreciate your discussion with DLR regarding
this change. Furthermore, consistent with earlier
discussion, the reference to the three years of mining
through the 700 acre block should be deleted.
8. With regard to Item 6, at the end of the first line, the
words "Whitehurst Creek" should be added and the last
word of the second line "successfully" should be removed
to make this condition a clearer statement of intent.
I appreciate your consideration of these changes and also look
forward to a re-draft of the Conditions for Texasgulf's further
consideration. If you have any questions regarding this letter,
please advise.
Sincerely,
4,
,I,tn 'W. A. Schimming
WAS/re
d arc STArp ?y
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE
Division of Marine Fisheries
1424 Carolina Avenue, Washington, North Carolina 27889-1424
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
William T. Hogarth, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:

HROUGH: John Dorney

ike Streetp

M ? 7,,,l
- D W
0

THROUGH:
Jess Hawkins JUL 81992
FROM:
Cyk
Katy West/?
WETLANDS GV i'LL
WATER UALITY SE. _-
DATE: DATE: June 17, 1992
SUBJECT: 401 Certification - DEM IV 92039 - Texas Gulf Mitigation for
Replacement of 5,000 feet of Channelized Whitehurst Creek,
Beaufort County
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) has reviewed the referenced
document. Our concerns with the 700 acre mine advance were originally stated in
a 7 November 1991 memorandum to Floyd Williams, Land Resources. As was noted in
that memorandum, the 700 acre tract is contained within the broader study area
of the 20 year mine continuation. An EIS is being developed for this 20 year
mine continuation. It is unclear tome why new "permits" (401 certification) are
being considered by the Department for activities in this area, prior to the
issuance of the EIS.
The EIS process is intended to present a comprehensive set of information in
order to evaluate a set of project alternatives. The proposed mining in the
upper reaches of Whitehurst Creek should be evaluated in the holistic manner that
the EIS is intended to provide. It is our recommendation that the 401
Certification be held until the EIS is complete.
If DEM decides to proceed with the 401 Certification, the mitigation document
should be revised to address the points noted in a 4 May 1992 memorandum to you
from the Washington Regional 0 i.c Water Quality staff (see attached).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
P.O. Box 2188, Washington, North Carolina 27889-2188 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 ty-owl Division of Environmental Management
now
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor E
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
H N R
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 7, 1994
MEMO
To: Deborah Sawyer, WaRO
Jimmie Overton
Ron Ferrell
From: John Dorn I?F)
Re: Monitoring report
Whitehurst Creek relocation project
Texasgulf
Beaufort County
Attached for you review and comment is the latest report
from Texas Gulf on the Whitehurst Creek relocation project.
Please review and send any comments to me by 22 December 1994.
texgulf.mem
cc: Cherri Smith
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
v L
Texasg u If inc.
an elf aquitaine company
P.O. Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
November 22, 1994
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental
North Carolina Departmer_t
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Dorney:
RECEI°d
NOV 2 6 1994
ENVIgONMENTAL SCIEN""ES
Management
of EHNR
27607
W.A. Schimming
Manager
Environmental Affairs
[phone]
Water Quality Certification No. 2748 for the Upper Whitehurst Creek
relocation requires per-odic biological and chemical sampling and
annual reporting. Enclosed are four copies of the 1994 sampling
report, as required in condition No. 8 of the Water Quality
Certification.
In our last meeting at your office in Raleigh, there was a question
regarding the low pH values recorded during some late winter and
early spring samples. We are currently pulling together
meteorological data from days prior to each sample evert to see if
there are any patterns. We will forward that analysis separately.
If you have any questions regarding information presented in the
report, please call Jef= Furness or myself.
Sincerely,
W AA . Schimmi
WAS:JCF/re
Enclosures
pc: H. M. Breza/I. K. Gilmore (w/o encl) _
P. J. Moffett (w/o encl)
J. C. Furness (w/o encl)
12-01-004-26 (w/encl)
00-12-000 (w/o enc=)
Printed on
Recycled Paper
1
1 ?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
UPPER WHITEHURST CREEK
AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE AND FISH SURVEY
AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSES:
1994 MITIGATION CHANNEL REPORT
Prepared For:
TEXASGULF INC.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared By:
CZR INCORPORATED
4709 College Acres Drive, Suite 2
Wilmington, North Carolina
September 1994
1
1
1
1
1
Upper Whitehurst Creek
Aquatic Macroinvertebrate and Fish Survey
and Water Quality Analyses:
1994 Mitigation Channel Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
List of Tables .......................................................... iii
List of Figures ......................................................... iii
List of Appendices ...................................................... iii
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1
A. Purpose ................................................... 1
B. Project Site ................................................ 1
II. METHODOLOGY .................................................. 2
A. Macroinvertebrates ........................................... 2
B. Fish ...................................................... 2
C. Water Quality .......................................... .... 2
III. RESULTS ....................................................... 5
A. Macroinvertebrates ........................................... 5
B. Fish ...................................................... 5
C. Water Quality .............................................. 11
D. Recolonization ............................................. 11
IV. SUMMARY ..................................................... 15
i
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Description of conditions at stations in the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel
second-year (1994) macroinvertebrate survey, Beaufort County, North Carolina ....... 6
2 Taxa richness of macroinvertebrates (by group) for the upper Whitehurst Creek
mitigation channel second-year (1994) survey, Beaufort County, North Carolina ....... 7
3 Second-year (1994) macroinvertebrate survey of the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation
channel, Beaufort County, North Carolina ................................. 8
4 Second-year (1994) fish survey of the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel,
Beaufort County, North Carolina ....................................... 10
5 Monthly water quality sampling and analyses conducted in the upper Whitehurst Creek
mitigation channel by the Texasgulf Environmental Affairs laboratory ............. 12
6 Summary of macroinvertebrate recolonization of upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation
channel within the first two years 0 993-1994) ............................ 13
7 Fish recolonization of upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel within the first two
years (1993-1994) .............. ............................... 14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Paqe
1 Fish and Macroinvertebrate Sample Sites: Upper Whitehurst Creek Mitigation Channel 3
2 Monthly Water Quality Sample Sites: Upper Whitehurst Creek Mitigation Channel ..... 4
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Taxa Documented in Upper Whitehurst Creek 1992-1994

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
' This report presents the results of the 1994 aquatic macroinvertebrate and fish surveys
conducted by CZR Incorporated (CZR) for Texasgulf Inc. in the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation
channel as required as a condition of 401 Water Quality Certification No. 2748 issued on 30 June 1992
to Texasgulf Inc. by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) of the North Carolina Department
' of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
' This is the third report in a series for upper Whitehurst Creek, and is the second report
t on the aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish of the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel. The first
report presented the baseline condition in historical upper Whitehurst Creek based on 1992 surveys by
' DEM and CZR. The second report presented the first-year conditions of the upper Whitehurst Creek
mitigation channel based on 1993 surveys by CZR. This third report presents the second-year
conditions of the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel based on CZR's 1994 surveys, and
presents the recolonization to date based on the 1993 and 1994 surveys.
B. Project Site
A detailed description of the mitigation channel is found in Appendix B of the 1992
Baseline Report. The upstream end of the mitigation channel begins at the outlet of a sediment basin
' and continues for approximately 5,000 linear feet to join Whitehurst Creek on the west side of the
bridge on old SR 1941. The mitigation channel has a flat bottom approximately 10 feet in width and
' 2.5:1 side slopes. The slopes were vegetated with a mixture of Kobe lespedeza, German millet, and
Pensacola bahia grass in addition to various tree seedlings. Log/limb sections and leaf litter were added
' to selected spots in the mitigation channel in April 1993.

II. METHODOLOGY
A. Macroinvertebrates
Two monitoring stations were established in the mitigation channel in 1993 for
surveying aquatic macroinvertebrates. Station 1 is located above SR 1941 near the mouth of the
mitigation channel, and Station 2 is approximately half-way between SR 1941 and the sedimentation
pond (Figure 1). Sampling was conducted at these stations on 16 February 1994 and again on 20 July
1994. The sampling methodology is presented in the 1992 Baseline Report.
B. Fish
Two monitoring stations were established in in the mitigation channel in 1993 for
surveying fishes. Each station consists of a 600-foot stretch of channel marked by stakes at the
starting-, mid-, and ending-point. These two 600-foot stretches incorporate the macroinvertebrate
monitoring stations described above (Figure 1). The fish sampling methodology is presented in the
1992 Baseline Report.
C. Water Quality
Monthly water quality sampling and analyses were conducted by the Texasgulf
Environmental Affairs laboratory. These samples were collected from locations near the mouth and
near the middle stretch of the mitigation channel (Figure 2). Water samples were analyzed for
temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and pH while in the field , and for fluoride and total
phosphorus in the laboratory.
2

?? 11 W HITEHURST CREEK
II 0 500 1000
STATION 1
II OLD SR 1941 FEET
II ??
II
L ?=
all
II
cc
II
MINING BLOCK twill •
• Ilo
all
III
II w
IIa
II
II
II LL?
. 1
II
II
11
II
II
. II
II
II
II
II i7`
SEDIMENT BASIN
STATION 2
FISH AND MACRO INVERTEBRATE I
SAMPLE SITES
UPPER WHITEHURST CREEK
MITIGATION CHANNEL
OCTOBER 1993 SCALE AS SHOWN
CZR INCORPORATED
Environmental Consultants
4709 College Acres Drive
University Place Suite 2
Wilmington, NC 28403-1725
CP# 745.26 1 FIGURE 1
117i

r-
I

I

II „WHITEHURST CREEK
it 0 500 1000
MOUTH
OLD SR FEET
194
II
... -11
II
II
L - - =+1 II ?- -
MIDDLE
all "
?II
II
MINING BLOCK wII °
• 110
all cc
co
IIit W
Ila
II
II L
II
. 11
II
11
II
11
II
11
II
11 MONTHLY WATER QUALITY
II SAMPLE SITES
II
II UPPER WHITEHURST CREEK
MITIGATION CHANNEL
's OCTOBER 1993 SCALE AS SHOWN
CZR INCORPORATED
Environmental Consultants
II M.
4709 College Acres Drive
University Place Suite 2
"` S 11 Wilmington, NC 28403-1725
SEDIMENT BASIN CP# 745.26 FIGURE 2

III. RESULTS
A. Macroinvertebrates
' Water quality information and site descriptions collected during macroinvertebrate
sampling are presented in Table 1. A summary of macro i nverte brate taxa richness is provided in Table
' 2. The summaries are presented by major taxonomic groupings, with insects divided into orders and
other invertebrates divided into classes. A breakdown of macroinvertebrate taxa included within each
' of those groups along with relative abundances of the taxa within each sample is provided in Table 3.
I Forty-six macroinvertebrate taxa were identified from the upper Whitehurst Creek
mitigation channel during 1994, the second year after its construction. Twenty of these taxa were
documented in historical upper Whitehurst Creek during the 1992 baseline surveys. Nineteen of the
' other twenty-six taxa represent new additions to the fauna documented for Whitehurst Creek, with the
other seven new taxa documented during the 1993 sampling as well.
' B. Fish
A summary of the seasonal fish surveys is presented in Table 4. Six species were
documented from the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel during the second year after its
construction. Five of these species were among the nine fish species documented in historical upper
' Whitehurst Creek during the 1992 baseline surveys. One of these six species, the brown bullhead,
' represents a new addition to the documented fauna.

i

Table 1. Description of conditions at stations in the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel
second-year (1994) macroinvertebrate survey, Beaufort County, North Carolina. Winter survey
conducted 16 February 1994; summer survey conducted 20 July 1994.
Station 1 Station 2
Parameter
Winter Summer Winter Summer
Depth (m):
Average 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2
Maximum 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3
Canopy (%) 0 0 0 0
Aufwuchs heavy none none none
Bank erosion minimal minimal minimal minimal
Substrate (%):
Gravel 0 0 0 0
Sand 0 1 65 3
Silt 97 89 32 69
Detritus 3 10 3 18
Water quality:
Temperature (°C) 9.0 26.6 10.2 28.3
Conductivity 120 382 125 469
(/jvhos)
Salinity (ppt) 0.3 0 0.2 0
D.O. (mg/fl 14.6 NAa 13.2 NAa
pH 4.8 NAa 4.6 NAa
Water flow moderate none/pools moderate none
a Equipment malfunction, see Table 5 for other readings.
6

' Table 2. Taxa richness of macroinvertebrates (by group) for the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel
second-year (1994) survey, Beaufort County, North Carolina. Winter survey conducted 16 February 1994;
summer survey conducted 20 July 1994.

Station 1 Station 2
Total
Group Winter Summer Total Winter Summer Total Taxa
Crustacea 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
Ephemeroptera 1 2 2 1 2 2 2
Odonata 3 4 5 2 8 9 10
Hemiptera 1 2 2 0 5 5 5
Coleoptera 3 5 8 3 10 11 14
Megaloptera 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Diptera 2 3 5 3 6 7 10
Arachnida 0 1 1 1 1 2 2
Total taxa richness 11 18 24 11 34 39 46
EPT taxa richness' 1 2 2 1 2 2 2
' EPT taxa richness is a measure of the number of identified taxa within the Insect orders Ephemeroptera,
' Plecoptera, and Trichoptera.

' Table 3. Second-year macroinvertebrate survey of the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel, Beaufort County, North
Carolina. Winter survey conducted 16 February 1994; summer survey conducted 20 July 1994. Relative abundance
tabulated as Rare (1-2 specimens), Common (3-9 specimens), or Abundant (>_ 10 specimens). A dash (-) indicates that
' no individuals of the taxon were documented. An asterisk (*) indicates taxon in common with 1992 upper Whitehurst
Creek baseline.

f

7

Station 1 Station 2
Taxa Winter Summer Winter Summer
Crustacea:
* Astacidae spp. R C C -
* Ostracoda spp. - - - C
Ephemeroptera
* Caenis spp. R R C A
Callibaetis spp. - A - A
Odonata (incl. Anisoptera, Zygoptera):
Anax junius R R - R
Anomalagrion hastatum - - - R
* Enallagma spp. C A R A
* Erythrodiplax spp. - - R -
lshnura posita - - - R
* lshnura/Anomalagrion spp. - - - C
* Nannothemis bella R - - C
* Pachydiplax longipennis - R - -
Plathemis lydia - - - A
Libellulidae spp. - R - A
Hemiptera:
* Belostomatidae spp. - - - C
* Corixidae spp. C C - A
Mesoveliidae spp. - - - C
Naucoridae spp. - - - R
Nepidae spp. - R - R
Coleoptera:
Agabus spp. C - - R
Berosus spp. - A - C
Deronectes spp. A - - -
Deronectes/Hydroporus spp. R - R -
8

Table 3. (concluded)

Station 1 Station 2
Taxa Winter Summer Winter Summer
Enochrus spp. - R - -
Hydrochus spp. - - - C
* Hydroporus spp. - - - C
Hydrovatus spp. - R - -
* Laccophilus spp. - - - R
* Notomicrus spp. - - R R
* Peltodytes spp. - - - R
Suphisellus spp. - R R C
* Tropisternus spp. - A - A
* Uvarus spp. - - - C
Megaloptera:
Neohermes spp. - - - R
Diptera:
Anopheles spp. - - - R
Chrysops spp. - - - R
Culex spp. - - - R
* Dicrotendipes spp. A - - -
Goeldichironomus spp. - A - -
Larsia spp. - R - R
Microtendipes spp. - C - -
* Procladius spp. A - R R
* Simulium spp. - - R -
Orthocladiinae spp. - - C R
Arachnida:
Eylais spp. - R - R
* Tetragnatha spp. - - R -
Total taxa per station per season 11 18 11 34
Total taxa per station 24 39
Total taxa for 1994 46

Table 4. Second-year (1994) fish survey of the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel, Beaufort
County, North Carolina. Winter survey conducted 16 February 1994; summer survey conducted 20
July 1994. Length expressed as range in total length (in millimeters) of individuals (N) within sample.
Station 1 Station 2
Winter Summer Winter Summer
Species N (Length) N (Length) N (Length) N (Length)
Brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) 2(112-132) 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 0 (NA)
Pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus) 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 4(44-89)
Eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) 0 (NA) 18(10-31) 0 (NA) 63(12-47)
Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 1 (88) 5(37-61)
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 10(29-54)
Swamp darter (Etheostoma fusiforme) 1 (51) 0 (NA) 0 (NA) 1 (32)
Total species per station per season 2 1 1 5
Total species per station 3 5
Total species for second-year survey 6
10

C. Water Qualit
A summary of the monthly water quality analyses is presented in Table 5. This
summary includes data collected from November 1993 to August 1994.
D. Recolonization
' A summary of the macroinvertebrate recolonization of upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation
channel within the first two years (1993-1994) is presented in Table 6. A breakdown of
' macroinvertebrate taxa included within each of the groups presented in Table 6 is provided in Appendix
I A.
' Fifty-nine macroinvertebrate taxa are shown as documented from the upper Whitehurst
Creek mitigation channel within the first two years after its construction. The actual number of species
' documented is higher since the taxa presented are broken down only to the taxonomic level of effort
initially established by personnel from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management (DEM) during the winter 1992 baseline .
' survey of upper Whitehurst Creek. For example, since DEM identified taxa within the group Coleoptera
only to the generic level, the three species within the genus Tropisternus identified during the summer
' 1994 survey were lumped within the taxon Tropisternus spp. established by DEM.
' Representative taxa from nine of the eleven macroinvertebrate groups documented
' during the 1992 baseline survey, as well as an additional group, have been documented as recolonizing
the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel. Seven of the nine fish species documented in the 1992
baseline survey, as well as an additional species, have now been documented as recolonizing the upper
Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel (Table 7).

11

7
CY)
CD
ca
X
CU
H
a?
L
N
c
c
ca
L
U
c
O
ca
rn
41
Y
CD
CL)
U
i-1
O
L
N
L
a?
Q
Q
D
U
L
C
-O
d
U
7
U
c
O
U
N
CU
N
cu
c
co
c
co
C)
c
C1
E
ca
y
co O
7 +,
Q Co
O
.n
C13 ca
3 ?
.-
y--
C Q
O -a
c
CU
Lo C
O O
>
t6 c
F- LL
O N .- d' •- s- M M M O
p N M 7 N N N d' LO M LC)
W O O O O O O O O O O
0- E
CL Q
O
D

L
. -
M
?-
N
00
O)
M
N N N N N d Ln M
O O O O O O O O O O O
E
y Lo Lo d' ? M n ?t ? ?
(n
p CO
O CO
O ?-
N CO
O Cl)
O O
7 N
Lo CO
q LO
O CO
O
Q 0
E O O O O O O O O O O
2
O U) a
~ O v M N It Lo N M m CO CO N
Z O
o M O N O O O r O O O
d E O O O O O O O O O O
Cfl M Cb d' 00 jC0 OA CO N Co
O Lo r, co 't Lo ( M CO 1, n CO

2
Q
L
7 00 Lo C3? CA CO Cfl r-: Cfl O r?
O Lo r- co It LO M co N n CO

O
a
I?
M
00
M
O
O
r-
LO
R t

r-
a rn o0 o0 rn : O Lo 6 Cb 6

o E
,
.
0--
0
o E
+L- 00 O 00 N M O -c N t
o 6 6 Cb 6 O Lo O O O
E r r r r
H -? O O ?- M CA N N M Lo N
-- N N N N N N M ?t M
~
U O L E
o

Z L
a

O
O
E CO
N Cb
N CA
N Cb
N O
M (?
N O
M
d
, m
M Lo
M
LU
? CD
?
O
?-
•-
00
N
?
00
?
CO
•-
I?
N
CA
N
M
N
I-
c U

LLI °
CL
L
W
O O CA N M 00 Co O M
N O
M M
N
LU E
N O d M r- O M M M M
LU O O O O O O O - O
Q V- N e-
O N
O M
O 4
O Lo
O CO
O r?
O 00
O
O Ch C'; 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
CA C) CA C) C) CA CA C) CA M
12
t,
,.1
Q

r.
c-

' Table 6. Summary of macroinvertebrate recolonization of upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation
channel within the first two years (1993-1994).

I

Number of Taxa by Group
Group 1992 Baseline Upper 1993-1994
Whitehurst Creek Mitigation Channel
Oligochaeta 3 0
Crustacea 5 3
Ephemeroptera 1 2
Odonata 9 11
Hemiptera 5 5
Coleoptera 15 18
Megaloptera 1 1
Diptera 17 15
Trichoptera 3 1
Orthoptera 1 0
Arachnida 1 2
Mollusca 0 1
Total 61 59
13

' Table 7. Fish recolonization of upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel within the first two years
(1993-1994).
C
C

C

r

Species Upper Whitehurst
Creek
Baseline (1992) Mitigation Channel
Years 1-2 (1993-
1994)
American eel (Anguilla rostrata) X
Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) X X
Brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) X
Pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus) X X
Eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) X X
Bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus) X
Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) X X
Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) X X
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) X X
Swamp darter (Etheostoma fusiforme) X X
Total Species 9 8
14

IV. SUMMARY
Sixty-one taxa of aquatic macroinvertebrates were recorded in the 1992 baseline survey, of
historical upper Whitehurst Creek whereas 59 taxa have been documented in the 1993-94 surveys of
the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel. To date, 25 of the 61 taxa (or 41.0 percent) of aquatic
macroinvertebrates documented in the 1992 baseline survey have been documented within the
mitigation channel. An additional 34 taxa of aquatic macroinvertebrates not documented in the
historical upper Whitehurst Creek have been documented within the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation
channel within the first two years since its construction.
Seven of the nine species (or 77.8 percent) of fish documented in the 1992 baseline survey of
historical upper Whitehurst Creek have been documented within the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation
channel. An additional species of fish not documented in the historical upper Whitehurst Creek has
been documented within the upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel within the first two years since
its construction.
15

APPENDIX A
' AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA
DOCUMENTED IN UPPER WHITEHURST CREEK
1992-1994
I1

C
C

d.
a7
7
N
rn
m
' Y
N
N
U
Y
7
L
N
L
a
a
C
a?
c
d
E
U
O
O
m
X
N
H
m
.a`
a
N
t
N
C
.O
U
ro
' U
f0
7
O
' X
C
N
a.
o.

a?
a?

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x
?ca D
?
c U
N o
Y

rn
r x x x x x

E

Co
E x x x x x x
(D
?' L :3
V)
U) U
U- p
O) C
? d
c X X X

V
CL
CL
(D E

E

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x
y U to
c
+
a

c
co
m M
d
3 c X X X X- X X X X X X
rn
a
a
.y

S.-

w a
a o. to

•C
°
CL
m
O

-

C Q
M N
y
Z3 C
a.
y a
N O.
a
tn

y
O a
N Q
Q
U a
vi N
k
w
y ro

O
.0 of
O a .
a
O
k
C

ro
m
'O Q

?
y
r
J
C C
k ro
C
Q
O
Q
C a
y
y
a
L
y
O ,
t m
a
U
y +
m
ro
i%
01 C
y a
O Q
j

p
C
N
R (13
V
O ca
`
N
O
?
N
x
to
?, E
Q y
U
C +
+
Q a
+
O y
U ro
U ro
C
C
U ro
C ?0
Q C
C C
C
0
F
- Q Q W W W v
f6
d
f6
N
co co
U O
N
+?+
o
U
+ca
E
m
C
O _tm 7 L
CL O
O
C9 O U
A-1

v
3
C
C
O
U
Q
X
O
CL
CL
Q
a?
E
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

aa) o
U) 4,
d a3
rn L
a)
C X X X X X

E
L r X X X X X X X X
r (n
+' U
LL C
O
M
O]
L
01 N
?= c X x x x x

L
j( N
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
a) U to
C N
L
?
f
6 r
m Y
L
? 3 c X X X

co y
C C 3
U

m y ?
c
v
a
a

a O

o
Q c
Q) C
C) ?o
z
Z3 a v
i
(D n a
y a
a a
y
y
C ig
j y
o v
m °
y

CL O

M
-0 N

CD
m

CL
y (D

m
'D

CL

N O

y

a v
i =
y c
o
0
m
10
co
y

X O
C ?, a) Q 7 y
O 'D
•? O O '00 C
m , y C
(
, C

`
°
(b y
z U
e
e
?n
0
0
a) y
? 7
co EL
(1) °
° -
>
Q
Q
m 2
a 2
o
?
- co 0 0 z z z
m a3
L
L

CL
7 Y

O i
_ Q
C
CL
N
0 O 2 U
A-2

1
1

n

v
a?
c
c
0
U
X
a
C
O
Q
CL

cu c E

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

-o t to
0 U
o
N
U)
It c6
rn rn L
rn c X X
a?
X X X X X X X X
L U)
yU
o
M M
rn N
C X X

j? (D
=
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

c ,.
=
m
m +; L

rn m
c
X
X
X
X
X
X
rn

Q

IL

)

L

)

a a

L a
a
U)

0)

CL

y

a

Q
D

CL a

y Q

co SF
N
co U)

to

j

co

a

Q y

y j

V

J

a o

y
h

o

'
y

°'

a

y

N

z

CL
c

6

v
a m c
4
v
y
y m
y ¢
O

y m
y c6
a
0
X p a a a a V O 4 c c
° i
` 0
o

I-
O
W >
Z ?.
Z >
Z >
I
Z
? m
o
a
°
a
m
ac
I,
J
m
U
U
f0
N
a
7 CL
O
y
O 0
0 U
A-3

a
N
C
C
O
U
' X
=o
c
a?
a
a

N
C ? X X X X X X X
m ?
c U
.0) o
m
rn ?
rn ? c X
_ N
C X X
i c En
NU

M
o
M
? "
>C X X

? N
E
X
X
X
U
CD t
o
c +?
._ i
75
m C
a
?
c
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
rn
O
7
CL
U)

CL a
a

y
CL
C
?

N
,.

a

•?
C

O
0)

? co
::3 CL
a

y
j

a

a

\
a a
V)
Iz
0
: y

U)
h Q)

y

y
O

y

,

O

p 0)

Q-

CO
CL
y
3
to
Q

O

V

a N

E
i a
a N
m
o y
4
m j
C a
vai ?0 J
3 a
ai
v ?0
5 O
U
y
l
N
C y
y Z
4 C
O y rm..
p C
C) w0.
O O
k i0,
O O
N .i„
O
O N
m
O api
? C
Q C
U C
U
U o
U C
U
U J
U V
Q o
U aki
Z i
J v ?4
Q m
f--
f6

N L
a
0 o
rn
`
co
'
°
0 +
C7 U ?
A-4

F

1
CIS

v
d
' o
c
C
0
U
X
C
N
a
a

CD _ x x x

-o t cn
U
U C
o
N O
U
d f0

rn
N
C

X

X

X

X

L
N
C13 e E X X
L

y U fn
LL C
O
fh
cn Co

? *' N
C
X
X
X

CL a = X X X X X x x
y U cn
C
N
U
L
p
(
m

> (D
CC_
X
X
x
x
X
x
x
x
r >

c ?

C
4
N
y
y
I
,

y
C
C
7
V)
oa.
C i
+m
4 Z
C
CC LL
,
o >., C: CL
10 co
w CL
cn CL
V) .-
. a.) I S
Q. co

IZ-

a

J

3

J
C
N
N
f) CL
p1 ?a

m .9

O
a
co
,

N J

O

1/1 C

C CL

C
C
m V j m j U O CL J O N y cri CO
m
Ei
m
Q
5
O- t
t
co `
o 0
- co
F y h h I U o o H U -, O W
co lC f0
41
O +d-'
C 't7 co

N
C
7 Y C
U t
U 7
O C t 2 O
(D _
O F- O Q
A-5

1
1

N
.a
U
7
C
O
U
' X
C
O
CL
a

`m c
N a?
E
E
O
i
or n

0 CD
a o `t
cn . -P
a' rn a?

C
Co

C d

E
E

0
N
L cn
+?
U) U
M CV) Lo

LL O
C
M
CD
M
M ?

M +' N
C
LO

O Nd E
d M
U cm
C
N ?
7
co
N
M N
Y
04
j
C
M CY)

R
X
O
C
O
a) (D

N
O_ N
CL
X X X
F- F- F-

C7 O
I- O
F- O
F-
A-6
$ Texasgulf inc.
December 1, 1994
VZ
V--'J RECEIVO
DEC U 71994
fIVVIRONMSIrAL sc,"ItEs
Ms. Deborah Sawyer
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Dept. of EHNR
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889-3314
Dear Ms. Sawyer:
During our meeting in Raleigh on September 19, 1994 on issues
surrounding the Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel, the subject of
low pH readings in the channel during certain months was discussed.
You requested information on precipitation and wind prior to and on
the sample days that the pH was below 5. 0, to look at potential
cause and effect. Attached is the precipitation data from those
days of sampling and the three prior days, and a summary of wind
data from the day of sampling and the previous day. I do not see
any obvious correlations at this point.
If you need further information, please let me know.
Sincerely,
C ??M;3
J h C. Furness
E ironmental Scientist
JCF/re
Attachment
PC: John Dorney, DEM, Raleigh (w/attach);
W. A. Schimming (w/o attach)
P. J. Moffett (w/o attach)
B. W. Bolick (w/attach)
12-01-004-26 (w/attach)
00-14-000 (w/o attach)
Phosphate Operations
P.O. Box 48
Aurora, NC 27806
Phone [phone]
eff
1
R
r
Meteorological Analysis of Whitehurst Creek Sampling Dates
Precipitation
Date (inches)

January 1993 10 0.13
11 0.02
12 0.18
13* 0.15
Total 0.48
February 1993 8 0.71
9 0.10
10 0.00
11* 0.00
Total 0.81
March 1993 6 0.01
7 0.00
8 0.00
9* 0.00
Total 0.01
April 1993 5 0.02
6 1.27
7 0.40
8* 0.00
Total 1.69
January 1994 31 0.67
1 0.00
2 0.00
3 0.01
Total 0.68
April 1994 3 0.00
4 0.00
5 0.00
6* 0.00
Total 0.00
Wind
Direction &
Speed (mph)
North 4-9
Southwest 6-13
North 3-6; East 2-7
North 4-15
Southeast, West Southwest 5-20
Northwest 6-14
North 9-18
North; Northeast 8-13
North 6-12
West; Southwest 6-15
East; South 6-11
South 6-19
* Sampling Dates
' Texasgulf in..
February 6, 1995

Ms. Cherri Smith
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Dept. of EHNR
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Re: Reclamation of Whitehurst Creek
Dear Ms. Smith:
ltcllilFO
Fie X91
pN` 3 't
144,1!_/V111
^ti CCC404
We have reviewed your response letter dated December 2, 1994, on
the subject of the ultimate reclamation of Whitehurst Creek. Thank
you for agreeing with the proposed "reclamation zone" for locating
the reclaimed Whitehurst Creek. As you know, the original plan for
the reclamation of Whitehurst Creek was approved by DEM with the
issuance of Water Quality Certification 2748 on June 30, 1992.
Texasgulf's letter of request to DEM on September 29, 1994,
outlined several modifications to this approved reclamation plan
which we believe would improve the reclaimed Whitehurst Creek
stream channel. In reviewing your response letter, we agree with
some of your provisions, however we disagree with others.
We agree with your substitute groundcover species list for the
wetter (lower) portions of the creek slopes. These species would
not be well adapted to the higher, well-drained slopes. We also
agree to commit to a percentage of balled and burlapped trees of
20%. This means that every fifth tree would be balled and
burlapped.
In our September 29 modification letter, we proposed covering the
channel bottom and side slopes with six inches of topsoil, and you
said that a deeper layer would be more beneficial. That may or may
not be true, however our currently approved plan requires no
topsoil at all on the channeS. sic:1e slopes. Therefore we believe
that what we have proposed is positive.
There are three other items that you suggested should be
incorporated into the reclamation plan. These include check dams
to promote flooding, increasing stream channel sinuosity, and
establishing riffles and pools within the stream channel. We
respectfully disagree with all three suggestions. We believe check AAO
dams would impede movement of aquatic organisms up and down the
creek channel, and add an artificial component to a system we are
attempting to make as natural as possible. Regarding sinuosity, we
are configuring the reclaimed channel approximately the same as the
original channel, and even had the original channel surveyed so
Phosphate Operations
P.O. Box 48
Aurora, NC 27806
Phone [phone]
_Di
V "ttS
1F
7?fiJ,
r
W,
Ms.Cherri Smith
February 6, 1995
Page 2 of 2
that we could approximate its configuration. Finally, we do not
believe riffles and pools to be appropriate since these are not
commonly found in the slow blackwater streams of the Coastal Plain.
Again, we do already have an approved reclamation plan for
Whitehurst Creek, and it does not include provisions for check
dams, sinuosity, or riffles and pools.
We believe that the proposed modifications (including lowering the
creek channel bottom to 0.5 ft msl with essentially no drop in
elevation along its length, which you did not comment on) will
improve the habitat for aquatic life over the original channel and
over the currently approved plan for the reclamation of Whitehurst
Creek. In fact, in the Tar-Pamlico Basinwide Management Plan dated
July 5, 1994, DEM listed this portion of the original Whitehurst
Creek channel as not supporting its designated uses (aquatic life) .
This determination was based on the February 1992 DEM biological
sampling of Whitehurst Creek, which, as listed in the basinwide
plan, was rated as poor for benthos. This sampling was conducted
prior to the issuance of the 401 Certification which required
mitigation.
We have developed a table comparing the various elements of the
reclaimed channel between the existing approved reclamation plan,
and our proposed design modifications (Attachment 1). As stated
previously, we also agree to use the DOT groundcover species on the
lower slopes and use 20% balled and burlapped trees.
We appreciate the opportunity to work through these modifications
with you and look forward toward reaching agreement in the near
future. If you have any questions please call me at 919/322-8249.
S'ncerely,
l (- /,?N/Vss
ffrcy C. Furness
Environmental Scientist
JCF/re
Attachment
pc: John Dorney, DEM, Raleigh (w/attch)
Roger Thorpe, DEM - WaRO (w/attch)
Ron Ferrell, DEM, Raleigh if
Tracy Davis, DLR, Raleigh It
Floyd Williams, DLR WaRO If
e'
Attachment 1
Comparison of Elements of Existing and Proposed
Whitehurst Creek Reclamation Plan
Element
Total Length
Channel Bottom
Width
topsoil
elevation
Side Slopes
Existing Approved
Reclamation Plan
5,000 feet
Proposed Design
modifications
5,000 feet
10 feet 10 feet
6 inches 6 inches
approx. original grade +0.5 ft. msl
slope 3:1
topsoil none
vegetated buffer 50 feet
Vegetation
herbaceous lespedeza, millet
and bahiagrass
trees/shrubs 4 species (sweetgum,
loblolly pine, black
willow and wax myrtle)
No size specification
Sinuosity approximately same
as original channel
Channel location approximately same
as original channel.
Riffles and Pools None
Rock check dams None
6 to 10:1
6 inches
100 to 150 feet
bahiagrass and legume
mix (alfalfa, ladino
clover and red top
clover)
10 species (bald
cypress, willow oak,
water oak, green ash,
swamp chestnut oak,
tulip poplar, sweetgum,
sycamore, red oak and
loblolly pine)
Bare root & balled
& burlapped
approximately same
as original channel
approximately same
as original charnel
with slight orientation
variance within the
"reclamation zone"
None
None
Proposed Design
Enhancement Factors
increase duration of
water in channel
2 to 3 1/3 times
flatter
better growing medium
2 to 3 times wider
better wildlife
forage
more diversity and
earlier shading
of channel
+? State of Norm Laroilna
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources / *7?
Division of Environmental Management
f James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor C
r Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary [D H N R
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P,E„ Director
December 2, 1994
To: Jeff Furness
Through: John Dorne
Jimmie Overto
From: Cherri Smith C-S
Subject: Reclamation of Whitehurst Creek
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has reviewed
your proposal for the reclamation of Whitehurst Creek. We offer the
following modifications and additions to this plan. We apologize for
the delay in providing these comments.
The proposed "reclamation zone" appears to have reasonable
boundaries. We assume that the restored segment of stream will
connect with the drainages upstream. The slope of the streambank
should be flat enough to enable overbank flooding. If the final slopes
are not flat enough for flooding to occur, check dams should be
placed within the channel to promote flooding. This provision is
necessary to avoid creating an incised ditch.
Please find the attached list of groundcover species that the
Department of Transportation uses for mitigation projects. These
mixtures of species are more appropriate in a wetland setting and
should be substituted in the revegetation plan.
You mention that at the DEM's request some larger trees will be
planted. Please specify what you are proposing as the proportion of
bare root seedlings to balled and burlapped trees. Moreover, the 6
inches of topsoil in the proposal is the minimum depth that is
acceptable. A deeper layer of topsoil would be more beneficial to 'the
establishment of healthy vegetation.
The plan should also include details on incorporating sinuosity to
the reconstructed stream channel. In addition, details on the
establishment of riffles and pools within the stream channel need to
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
4 .. 1
be addressed. These provisions are important for the creation of a
system that more closely resembles a natural stream than an
engineered ditch.
. Please call John or I if you would like to discuss these comments.
We appreciate your patience with our delayed response and will try
to be more prompt with this matter in the future.
cc: Tracy Davis, Division of Land Resources, Raleigh
Roger Thorpe, Divsion of Environmental Management, WARO
Ron Ferrell, Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh
I
,
Dept. Go.
Phoi)t: X
K-EDBFD PR?PARA'7`IOAI D S?' I . z S ax rr
1. Surface water control measures
2. Arcas to be seeded shall be ripped and spread with available topsoil 6" dccp. Total sccdl ed
prepared depth shall be 6" to &" deep.
3. Loose mc3s, roofs'and other obs: uc•IioPS shall be removed frotil the surface so tl-at they will •I?O t
interfere with establish-mrn and maJnwnance of•vegetation. Surfac-c for final ke.ulbed.preparation,
at finish grades shown, shall be reasonably smooth.
d. Provide agricultural lltne at rata rctluired to bring soil acidity to slightly acid - ph 6, according to
soil test report.
5. Lline and fertilizer shall be applied unifom?ly and rnlxM wills the soil during s,-c ixd preparation.
6, Apply 0-20-10 commercial fertilizer at die rate of 20 lbs/1000 sX for warm season mix (see
schedule),
Apply --20 cc-nmercial fertilizer a: the rate of 20 Ibs/1000 s,f. for cool season mix (see
schedule),
g. Apply 10-10.10 commercial fertilizer at the rate of 20 lb,0000 s,f. for tempoTL- cover crops. In
addition, provide 15 ibs/1000 s.f. of superphosphate,
0. The following is for the warm season mix:
a. All warm gmss seed shall be debearded or conditioned by brushing w create a product
nearly the same as debcarding. This does not apply to Swftchgrass,
b. Disc two times to break-up crop residue aad dirt clods prior to seeding,
e. Pack sail to create a fim-, seedbed with a culdpacker or roller.
d. If a rain shower should L-1 after ilia seedbed is prepared but befom plantln; break-tip any
crust formation.
e. Seeding shall be installed to a depth of V" utilizing a rangeland drill or co:wentlomd grass
drills. 'It is extrerncly important tbat seed oat 1 planted c3eener than ;7zA" depth, Do not
disc or harrow after seeding:. This will nut the seed too dean. A $rUon ; edcr will be
acceptable,
in. Surd in accordance with the fallowing schedule and application rates.
Wetland Areas
Dates T' s Rate
Apr. 1 - Jul. 15 Warm Sea--= Mix
Switc;ligrass. Cave-in-rock, Atamo g pis #/liar;, or + oz./10X) s,f,
smartwced 2 bulk #/acre or 1 oz.11000 s,f,
and
Japanese Millet or 20 lb/acre or lbs'1000 s.f.
Sorghum Sudan Grass Hybrids
G
(Mow prior to maturity)
7uly 16 - Sept. I Tempprary crop of Japanese Millet or 20 ]b/acre or ; 1'DsAOW s.f.
Sorghum Suda,-t Grass I ybrids
(To tad followed by permanent mixture)
FROM
08, 23,1994 A H1,17
1?C, 1
Sept. 2 - Nov. I C.001 Season Mix
Rced Canary Grass 12 bulgy 4/acre or
6 07.11040 s.f.
Smartwecd 2 bulk Kacrc or
1 oz.J1000 SS
Nov. 1 - March 31 Temporary Crop of Wheat 401105/acre
(To be followed by perntanent mixtOre)
11. Contractor shall Ix required to provide a permanent mixture according to the sci odule.
12. Temporary crops must L,,-- incorporated prier to secding of perna.-letttMixtures
P,
13. Cover crops or tempohry crops must be snowed at proper tir1C 'o prevent ate! h4ads from
maturing. Wheat may he harvested.
14, Clrass mix and temporv; r covers shall.b-_ mulched with straw applied a, the r<,te of 75 1bs to
lbs/IOW S,F. Use clear; Wltcat Straw.
15. If hydrosecdcd use YirLLn EMr Mulch.Mlly.
Note:
Seed and additional information for ft wetland Mix as well sz for ov.,cr gross a-cas play be
purchased from, but not limited to:.
Sharp Brouhcm Seed Com;:at?y
Rout- 4, Box 22,7 A
Clinton, 'Missouri 64735
phone [phone]
Contact- Jef Hodges
16. Yards and Golf Coursc iawm areas shall LV -etu:ned to existing condltlons and irass mixture
17. Wetlands cwssinbs shat: be covorcd with "Terra JutC', erosion Control 7Ctting c: equal imstal
manufacturer directions.
y
Ucal Distributor
Web Tee, Inc.
P.4. Box 240302
Charlotte, NC 28224
800-438.0027 or 704-552.6722

MITIGATION PLAN FOR REPLACEMENT
OF 5,000 FEET OF CHANNELIZED
WHITEHURST CREED
Prepared By:
TEXASGULF INC.
Aurora, North Carolina
CZR INCORPORATED
Wilmington, North Carolina
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
New Bern, North Carolina
16 April 1992

1
1
LIST OF TABLES
Table Pat
1 Comparison Between the Existing Channel and 9
the Proposed Mitigation Channel
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Mine Permit 7-1/Modification -- 700-acre Block Folded sheet
for Texasgulf Inc. in back pocket
2 Area of Texasgulf's Planned Mine Continuation 2
3 Aerial Photo of 700-acre Mine Block and 3
Surrounding Area
4 Whitehurst Drainage Diversion Channel and Folded sheet
Mitigation Channel Locations, Layouts, and in back pocket
Cross Sections
5 Enlargement of Whitehurst Drainage Mitigation Folded sheet
Channel System in back pock
6 Whitehurst Creek Watershed Above SR 1941 10
1

7

MITIGATION PLAN FOR REPLACEMENT OF
5,000 FRET OF CHANNELIZED WHITEHURST CREEK
Texasgulf Inc., assisted by the environmental consulting firm of CZR
Incorporated (CZR), is preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for
the continuation of phosphate mining within a defined 14,200-acre project area.
This DEIR is being prepared under the requirements and guidance of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE), Wilmington District to support the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to be prepared by the COE relative to Texasgulf's application
for a Section 404 permit to mine (excavate and fill) in wetlands. Input from
State and Federal agencies and other groups and individuals has been received
and evaluated throughout the process, beginning with the scoping meeting in
September 1988 and continuing most recently with agency input on wetlands areas
of special concern and alternatives to be considered. Portions of the DEIR have
been circulated for agency review and comment and have been revised according
to COE guidance. The revised DEIR is planned for submittal to the COE in May
1992.
As the EIS process is proceeding, Texasgulf continues to mine in non-
jurisdictional areas in a southerly direction. The current mine operation is
located in the vicinity of Creekmur Road (SR 1942) just to the west of NC 306.
In order to continue mining through 1993 as the EIS/Section 404 permit review
process continues, Texasgulf plans to move further south (see Figures 1 and 2).
This 700-acre area involves no wetlands, but does involve about 0.6 acre of
"waters of the United States" and 0.96 acre of "waters of the State" in the
channelized Whitehurst drainage between SR 1941 and SR 1937 (see Figure 3).
Mining through this area would be permitted under Nationwide Permit 26 and the
associated 401 Water Quality Certification.
As part of its mine planning for this additional 700-acre mine block,
Texasgulf has avoided all wetlands and the main downstream portion of the
Whitehurst Creek system, including CAMA jurisdictional areas and wetland areas
(primarily bottomland hardwood forest and brackish marsh areas) associated with

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
??ii?i{i?iiiiiEiii?i•:.11??"?1Jiiill??i=iiifl'iijl(?{it=di;??i?1?it?u?ll?i1)
!1`lil??t'ti?1a.?'.?'?? i :?:::?•. Ali:'?? ?t#? !c ?'.•?::.•.:: v °?,?? 1
• 11J. `- _
. r f•
{ 1
1 •
? .
1
.>* ,= it :' W? ?•?ti 1
, h .
oil
Ile
,?.. • i, /
i
bell
Y. .
r 1 '?1t ? , ?? 1 ?\
4 ?
J W •??• J
i ,
1 J• `
V ? ;? 1 t
,
1 ?
Figure 2. Area of Texasgulf ' s planted mine contin ation ?

3*. k
n
1
J '
O
Imo'
q Z m '?
m 3 70
3
N ?? V
z a
? ? z z
r
0
414
+l4 3 x u l W d? ? Fx ? 5tr}? ,:
p q? .? "r .,rte
Ar,
ti!
y }
r- ? 't m
7
. _ . ? ??• : ^.» .? ;,? ? ?, ? ® 'ice ?`'' m?? ? ? i
r > r
5 ;?.,?'P? ik4 ar'•"I?. "? ?"'°•`5???''wT.' p '? S? ?,
1

r

I
oc
..
t¢4 ?. r! y ?'t?Y' ,may ?{5?.j 't{v?SLf
m
+Jc 3 m
l ?I
C 0 T
QWO CC
m ?M W
amo
00.0
m
m
54
l ? ? ? -T do
??? S' x? ..•??, i.d."r ?• ? ?y^ f? . \? ova ''R E .?. ?"r'fi',.
c jig. ?r`';.4 ? \ a ?'•;. ?? 4 x.
?,` k t e5 C

`•s?
11

the downstream system. The plans minimize impact to Section 404 jurisdictional
areas, limiting the impact to 0.6 acre of waters of the United States in 2,500
feet of channelized areas. It is not practical for Texasgulf to avoid this
stretch of channelized creek, as it would disrupt the logical mining sequence
and result in an economic impact of over $15,000,000 due to increased mining
costs and loss of ore reserves. Therefore, Texasgulf proposes to redirect the
run-off from the primarily agricultural land headwaters of the Whitehurst system
through a canal system along the outer perimeter along the west, south, and east
sides of the 700-acre block (Figures 1 and 4). The extreme lower (downstream)
portion of this redirected drainage in the vicinity south of the bridge on SR
1941 would be designed (Figures 4 and 5) and constructed to replace and improve
the low quality aquatic habitat now within the 5,000 feet of channelized drainage
currently between SR 1941 and SR 1937. The redirected drainage would connect
with the Whitehurst system at the same point as the present drainage at SR 1941
bridge (see Figures 1 and 3). The specific plans and specifications for this
system are contained in this mitigation plan and in the "Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Plan, Mine Permit 7-1 Modification/700-Acre Block for Texasgulf
Inc." prepared by Robert M. Chiles, P.E.
The channelized section within the mine block was excavated in 1948 and
again in 1954, according to Soil Conservation Service records. The channel
extends from the bridge at SR 1941 upstream about 2,150 feet to where it splits,
with the main prong going in a southerly direction for another 1,500 feet to
where it crosses under SR 1937 (and then divides into 3 field ditches, one going
south, one going southwest, and one going west) and with a minor prong to the
west for 1,350 feet where it crosses under SR 1937 (see Figure 3). The
downstream 2,150-foot section has 10 field ditches emptying into it from the
south; four field ditches empty into it from the north, but these have been
truncated by the current mine block approximately 1,000 feet to the north. The
southerly prong has 10 field ditches which empty into it from the west and three
ditches which enter from the east. The 1,350-foot westerly prong is a more
narrow field-ditch type drainage. It has four field ditches emptying into it
4

1

1

along its south side and six ditches emptying into it from the north. The
majority of the field ditches emptying into the channelized section between SR
1941 and SR 1937 have been in place since the land was cleared for farming many
years ago; however, approximately 15 of the ditches were constructed or
redirected during clearing activities in 1989. In 1990, flow from the northwest
Whitehurst drainage was redirected around the current mine block into a
sedimentation basin just to the north of the westerly prong (between the prong
and the current mine block) and then into this prong.
From numerous on-site visits by CZR and Texasgulf personnel, flow was
observed to be intermittent in the channelized section between SR 1941 and SR
1937. During summer months and during dry periods, there is little or no flow,
especially in the westerly prong. During these times, there may be some stagnant
pools located in the lower portion just upstream from the SR 1941 bridge. A
video taken on 9 July 1991 by CZR Incorporated to show the "waters of the United
States" is indicative of this situation. During CZR's field activities from
October 1988 through the end of February 1989, there was no flow in this
channelized section and no standing water pools except immediately adjacent to
the SR 1941 bridge. The flow conditions during the DEM sampling on 12 February
1992 as shown in CZR's video (copy provided to DEM) of the sampling are
indicative of wet season flow conditions.
The channelized section has scattered remnant trees and various shrub and
vine species growing along its banks. The banks are steep and the average width
of the vegetated drainage corridor is about 30 feet. The existing fish and
macroinvertebrate resources were sampled by DEM on 12 February 1992, and the
sampling results are contained in a DEM Memorandum dated 18 February 1992 to
Steve Tedder from Ken Eagleson.
II. MITIGATION CONCEPT AND DESIGN
To replace the channelized section of Whitehurst Creek designated as
"waters of the State" between SR 1941 and SR 1937, Texasgulf proposes to redirect
5

the flow of the Whitehurst Creek headwaters around the 700-acre mine block's
west, south, and east perimeters and to construct an improved stream channel
' section in the northeast corner of the mine block. Figure 1 shows the 700-acre
mine block, its major components, the redirected flow around the perimeter, and
' the section of mitigation channel in the northeast corner of the mine block.
Figures 4 and 5 show enlarged site plans and cross sections for the mitigation
' channel system. Figure 4 (Section A-A) shows the cross-section profile of the
drainage canal around the west, south, and east sides of the mine block; this
' canal will flow into a 600-foot long and 75-foot wide sedimentation basin located
at the northeast corner of the mine block. Figures 4 and 5 show the layout and
' the cross-section profiles of the mitigation channel system flowing from the
sedimentation basin, back and forth in an east-west direction along the
' northeastern corner of the mine block, and then north into Whitehurst Creek at
the SR 1941 bridge. The 5,400-foot mitigation channel has been located within
' a limited area in the northeast part of the mine block so that future mining will
not interfere with this mitigation channel.
The diversion of the stormwater along the west, south, and east sides of
' the 700-acre mining block will be within a newly excavated channel that will
connect to a 600-foot by 75-foot sediment basin located at the northeast corner
of this mining block. The upstream end of the mitigation channel will begin at
the outlet of the sediment basin and continue for approximately 5,400 linear feet
to the existing channel on the west side of the bridge on SR 1941 (see Figures
4 and 5). As shown in Figures 4 and 5, the mitigation channel begins where it
connects to the sedimentation basin outlet and flows north, turns to the west
for about 1000 feet, turns back east for about 1000 feet, then back to the west,
back to the east, and finally back to west and then to the north into the
existing Whitehurst drainage at the SR 1941 bridge. The mitigation channel will
' have a flat bottom 10 feet in width and 2.5:1 side slopes. The excavated soil
will be placed within the mine operation area.
' At the downstream end of the mitigation channel at the SR 1941 bridge, the
existing invert elevation is at 0.5 feet ABV MSL. The invert in the mitigation

1

11

channel will rise to 2.0 feet ABV MSL in the first 400 feet similar to the invert
change in the existing channelized drainage being replaced. After this initial
rise in the invert elevation, the slope will be continuous from 2.0 feet ABV MSL
to 7.0 feet ABV MSL where the mitigation channel ends at the sedimentation basin.
To replace the standing water habitat found during low flow conditions in the
channelized drainage, two places in the last section of the east-west mitigation
channel will have the invert lowered one foot over a 50-foot length to create
two pools of standing water in low flow conditions.
Flow within the mitigation channel will be controlled by the invert slope
and the cross section of the channel. The flow velocity and depths will be
similar to that currently existing at the SR 1941 bridge. The sediment basin
upstream of the mitigation channel will prevent sediment from entering the
mitigation channel. The diversion canal that will be constructed around the
perimeter of the 700-acre mine area will be designed to include a control
structure near the entrance to the sediment basin to limit the peak runoff
velocity to approximately 2 feet per second in the mitigation channel. These
measures should enhance the water quality in lower Whitehurst Creek.
Construction of the mitigation channel system is planned for May and June
1

1992. The channel and adjacent slopes and spoil piles will be stabilized with
vegetative cover before redirecting water flow into the system (anticipated in
October 1992). This construction and stabilization will be concurrent with
initial preparation phases of the 700-acre mine block. The channel bottom will
be covered with approximately 6 inches of topsoil and will be stabilized with
the standard seed mixture (as presented in the Sedimentation and Erosion Control
Plan) of tall fescue, Robe lespedeza, German millet, and Pensacola bahia grass.
The excavation spoil will be stabilized with the standard mixture of tall fescue,
Kobe lespedeza, German millet, and Pensacola bahia grass. The 2.5:1 side slopes
will be vegetated with the same mixture, less the tall fescue and with a higher
rate of German millet. During early 1993, trees and shrubs will be planted along
the slopes adjacent to the stream. Quick growing, hardy species, such as sweet-
7

' gum, loblolly pine, black willow, and wax myrtle will be used. The areas between
the channel runs will be planted with the standard mixture.
The construction of the mitigation channel system will provide enhancement
' of habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial resources. A comparison between the
existing channel system and the proposed mitigation channel system is provided
' in Table 1.
III. HYDROLOGY
In response to DEM's request for hydrological information for the
Whitehurst Creek watershed upstream from SR 1941, a study was done by Robert M.
' Chiles, P.E., Engineers and Consultants, for Texasgulf in early April 1992. This
study, dated 16 April 1992 and titled "Hydrology Calculations in Support of
Mitigation Planning for Channelized Drainage Modifications in the Whitehurst
Creek Watershed Upstream of SR 1941," calculated watershed runoff volume under
' various site conditions and rainfall intensities. The Whitehurst watershed
upstream from SR 1941 was varied to reflect 1) the historical, pre-developed
' condition, 2) the existing (predominantly agriculturally developed) area, and
3) the existing area less the proposed 700-acre mine development block. The
watershed area and potential 700-acre reduction are shown in Figure 6.
Using Soil Conservation Service (SCS) methodology with various site data
and information from topographic maps, aerial photographs, and field surveys,
' Robert M. Chiles developed hydrographs for standard 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year
storm events. These were plotted in pairs to compare the existing 2,048-acre
' watershed and the same area less the 700-acre mine block, leaving a 1,348-acre
watershed. Also using SCS methodology, Chiles calculated runoff volumes for the
' standard 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year storm events for the historical watershed
(before agricultural development and ditching), for the existing watershed, and
for the existing watershed less the 700-acre mine block. Chiles also compared
each of these development stages as related to monthly runoff, using actual
8

t

TABLE 1
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE EXISTING CHANNEL AND THE
PROPOSED MITIGATION CHANNEL
Existing Channels Between
SR 1941 and SR 1937
Channel bottom width is approximately
10 feet in the main channel and
southern prong, and 4 feet in the
westerly prong. Channel bottom
substrate is primarily silt.
Length of 10-foot wide run is 3,650
feet, and of 4-foot wide westerly
prong is 1,350 feet. The area of
channel bottom is 0.95 acre.
In-channel litter consists of leaf-
debris and fallen tree limbs.
The current channel system, including
vegetated areas along the ditch,
averages 30 feet in width, consisting
of the stream and scattered remnant
trees with various shrubs and vines
along the steep banks. The
approximate area of the channel
system is 3.5 acres.
At present, over 35 field ditches
empty into the existing channels
between SR 1941 and SR 1937.
At present, only the redirected flow
from the northwest portion of the
Whitehurst drainage goes through a
sedimentation basin (located between
the westerly prong and the existing
mine, and flowing into the westerly
prong).
At present, only scattered wetland
plants occur in the channel. In the
main channel, scattered patches of
smartweed (Polvgonum sp.), rice
cutgrass (Leersia sp.), bur-reed
(Sparganium americanum), Ludwigia
sp., and wool-grass (Scirpus
cyperinus) have been observed. In
the westerly prong, wool-grass, cat-
tails (Tvnha Bp.), and Juncus sp.
have been observed.
Mitigation Channel
Channel bottom width will be
approximately 10 feet. Channel
bottom will be topsoil stabilized by
vegetation prior to flow.
Length of 10-foot wide run from the
SR 1941 bridge to the settling
sedimentation basin is 5,400 feet.
The sedimentation basin is about 600
feet long and 75 feet wide. The area
of the mitigation stream channel is
1.1 acre.
Cut log/limb sections will be placed
in the channel; leaf litter will be
placed in selected spots.
The set-aside mitigation area will be
an approximate 4.5-acre area in the
northeast corner of the 700-acre mine
block. The mitigation channel bottom
will be about 10 feet wide, and the
banks will be at a 2.5:1 slope,
stabilized with an initial planting
of millet and lespedeza, and later
planted with wax myrtle, black
willow, sweet-gum, and loblolly pine.
The excavated spoil will be
stabilized with herbaceous planting.
No field ditches will empty directly
into the mitigation channel.
With the flow redirected around the
700-acre mine block, all of the
runoff from the upstream Whitehurst
drainage will flow into the
sedimentation basin at the upper end
of the mitigation channel, resulting
in improvement of water quality.
Initially (prior to water flow
redirection into the mitigation
channel), the channel will be covered
with approximately 6 inches of
topsoil and stabilized with a mixture
of herbaceous species. Once flow
begins in this channel section (in
October 1992), these plants will die
off and natural succession of wetland
plants will begin to occur.
9

i
i

i

t

FIGURE SIX
10

f rainfall from 1978 (which was considered an average year on a total rainfall
basis).

The main conclusion from the study was that removal of the 700-acre mine
block from the Whitehurst Creek watershed upstream of SR 1941 will decrease the
storm water runoff currently entering Whitehurst Creek; and that this reduction
' will lower the quantity of runoff to near that expected from the predeveloped
(or natural) condition of this area.

The mitigation channel will be constructed with a cross section and invert
' slope similar to that of the existing drainage upstream of the SR 1941 bridge
over Whitehurst Creek. The calculations of channel flow show that the flow
conditions through the mitigation channel will be comparable to those through
the existing drainage channel.

7
11
Texasgulf Mine Continuation
ACTID-88-0449
Additional Information Needs for Consistency Review
NC Division of Coastal Management
May 9, 1994
The following is a list of further information needs identified to date during our
consistency review of the proposed Texasgulf mine continuation plan. This information is
necessary for us to develop the State's position on project consistency with the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program. This list is intended as an addendum to all of our previous
comments, and should not be viewed as a substitute for past communication and requests for
information regarding the proposed mining continuation. This list also complements reviewer
comments, forwarded to the Corps of Engineers and to Texasgulf in April, 1994, which also need
to be addressed. Please be aware that as our review of the proposal is not yet complete, further
additional information needs may be identified.
Alternatives Analysis
* The present alternatives analysis is inadequate. Alternatives, especially B, E, and "No Action"
need to be revaluated. Other new alternatives should be explored. The emphasis should be on
avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. Alternatives for other production rates and
strategies, including 5 year and 10 year plans should be considered.
* The environmental cost of resources lost and/or impacted needs to be considered in the
alternatives analysis in addition to monetary costs in order to fully weigh the benefits of each
alternative.
* The feasibility and environmental impacts of alternative mining methods needs to be addressed
in greater detail. Also advancements anticipated in technology should be discussed.
* The adequacy, use and effectiveness of the buffer zones as proposed and their effectiveness
in protecting the AEC's has been questioned. Further consideration must be given to buffer zone
uses, and wider buffer zones need to be considered.
* A map showing Texasgulf landholdings in Beaufort and Pamlico Counties is needed to allow
complete evaluation of alternatives for Texasgulf mine expansion.
* A map of sufficient scale to locate the alternative proposals in relation to the Town of Aurora
is needed to determine project consistency with the Town of Aurora Land Use Plan.
f
lr*k
0- Mitigation Plan

* Texasgulf must develop and obtain state approval of a detailed mitigation plan if wetland
impacts cannot be avoided. Mitigation means avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, and
compensating for unavoidable impacts. The current restoration and creation plan is inadequate
and cannot be considered compensatory mitigation at this time.
The mitigation plan fails to avoid and minimize impacts while attempting to rely primarily on
reclamation and creation as compensatory mitigation. Wetland creation, as a form of
compensatory mitigation, is appropriate only when restoration is not feasible. Several state
agencies have expressed their willingness to participate in the development of such a plan. A
performance bond should be included as part of the plan agreement.
* Areas and acreage that will be used for restoration efforts must be defined. Specific locations,
quantities of restoration versus creation, and timetables for restoration should be included.
Portions of the 1050 acres of prior converted farmland to be restored to wetland should be
identified.
* The spatial relation and contiguity of the restoration sites at the landscape level need to be
detailed in order to assess their ability to provide wildlife corridors and other ecological
functions. The relation between restoration sites and drainage basins must be clarified in order
to determine whether the sites are located within the same drainage basin.
* Planting of natural assemblages of species that are appropriate for hydrologic regimes of
individual restoration sites, rather than random mixtures, may be more successful in wetland
restoration efforts. Plans for restoration should consider this option.
* More detailed discussion and documentation pertaining to the long and short term
establishment of wetland hydrology and success of wetland vegetation planted on the
clay/gypsum spoil is required to fully review proposed future reclamation work. Reports from
peer review of research results on existing reclamation sites should be provided. Criteria for
evaluating restored sites should be included in the documentation. The possible presence of
heavy metals in the spoil material used in areas reclaimed, and impacts thereof on wildlife and
other natural resources, should be addressed.
* The long term future of reclamation sites is not clear. Reclamation plans, like mitigation
plans, should include provisions for long term maintenance and monitoring so that any impacts
on coastal resources can be assessed, and for chances of success to be optimized.
* Water control structures (flashboard risers) will be used to adjust the hydrologic regimes of
the restoration sites. The plan should include the installation of permanent structures after the
appropriate hydrologic regimes for the sites are determined. A discussion of what will happen
to the flashboard risers after the required monitoring period needs to be included.

Other Concerns
* An analysis of impacts on land and water uses and natural resources of the coastal zone is
necessary to complete our consistency review. The analysis should address impacts with a
cumulative ecosystem approach that considers all characteristics, processes, and features of the
system as a whole. Impacts on existing land uses, impacts on drainage basins, and impacts on
adjacent Areas of Environmental Concern by drainage basin removal, "utility corridors", and
hydrologic modification must be addressed in the analysis. For example, "utility corridors" which
include dikes that completely restrict surface flow and to some extent groundwater flow will be
built adjacent to CAMA jurisdictional estuaries. Such extreme modifications will undoubtedly
impact the downstream estuaries. How will the marshes on Jacks Creek, Jacobs Creek, and other
creeks affected by the proposed mining advance respond to "utility corridors" and the removal
of up to 80% of their respective drainage basins? (using Alt. B as an example)
* Further discussion of impacts on the estuarine system, particularly on water quality and
fisheries resources, is necessary to fully assess the results of these impacts on the system.
* A detailed discussion and supporting information (studies and other documentation) is
necessary on the short term and long term impacts from drawdown of the Castle Hayne Aquifer
I
on water supply and wetlands. Analysis of impacts incurred to date due to past mining activities,
and future impacts for each alternative considered should be included.
* Impacts on hydrology, fisheries, and other coastal resources resulting from the interruption of
drainage patterns and removal of drainage basins are not adequately addressed. Further
discussion and documentation of impacts from past mining operations on other creeks such as
Long Creek and Short Creek should be provided.
* "Best Management Practices" and measures proposed for sedimentation and erosion control
must be described for the proposed operations.
* The federal and state listed threatened shrew subspecies Sorex longirostris fisheri has been
potentially identified at the site. In order to fully address wildlife concerns, Texasgulf must
investigate this further. If this mammal's presence is confirmed, appropriate steps to avoid and
minimize effects of the project should be included in the plan.
MEMO
a.
TO:

DATE: 3/Z ?0
SUBJECT:
i
+r( oT 1 N C L-%-kDr &Y-I COST 70 3atrGc. tn1?- CS+s (T

2
v ,arc c't`j ?L Swsg ??a5 ?43?w
?-
3?) cc
From:
$ A-AJtv-wNLI..y
L) t2rVt?w P(ZbC* 4D
t F LA N S A--,-I$, FA.,C 1?-` \- cN ? O K- Ja N 9 - (L 0 K P&M1?'r
1"
4
y:_ o North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources ??
?ed on Recycled Paper
'? aunnvw?', l

for 401 Certification
In response to your application for a 401 water Quality Certification
for the 404 Permit for your mine expansion, please be aware that DEM cannot
issue a 401 Certification until the EIS is completed. We have concluded that
this is appropriate because: 1) the information in the EIS will be essential
for our final 401 decision and 2) federal regulations preclude regulatory
actions which might bias the choice of options until a final EIS is prepared.
Please notify us when the EIS is finalized and the Record of Decision is
complete. After that time, we will complete action on your application.
Also we have decided to defer to the Corps of Engineers with respect to
the economic analysis of mining alternatives. Please keep us informed of any
additional information that you send to the Corps of Engineers in this regard.
We have asked the Corps to keep us informed of their analysis of the economic
practicability of alternatives.
Finally we have commented to the Corps on the Draft EIS (attached). We
will continue to send you copies of those comments. Please be aware that if
the Final EIS does not adequately address the issues we have raised, you will
be required to respond to those questions before a 401 Certification can be
issued.
We look forward to continuing to work with you on the alternatives
analysis and mitigation plans. Please call Mr. John Dorney of my staff at
919-733-1786 if you have any questions.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
WIFFAA
ID F== F=1
Mr. Bill Schimming
Manager
Environmental.Affairs
Texasgulf, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, N.C. 27806
Dear Mr. Schimming:
Re: Texasgulf request
mine expansion
Beaufort County
DEM #94053
94053.1tr
cc Hugh Heine, Corps
Dave Lekson, Wash
Jim Mulligan, DEM
John Dorney
Central Files
Sincer ly,
Stev W. e der, C of
Wat r Q li y Sec on
of Engineers Wilmington
ington Field Office COE
Washington Regional Office
P?
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Y - VAI __VF
Health and Natural Resources A*,*
Division' of Environmental Management -A
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor CC
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 19, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO. Melba McGee
Off ice of Policy Devel ' ment
FROM: Steve Tedde
SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft EIS for Texasgulf 404 Permit Request
Attached are water quality-related comments on the Draft EIS for the Texasgulf 404 permit request.
One set of comments is from the Water Quality Section's Wetland and Technical Review Group and the
other is from the staff of the Washington Regional Field Office. Please submit these comments to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for consideration in development of their final EIS.
cc: Debra Sawyer
John Dorney---_ .
Greg Thi,6
Jim Mulligan
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
f ,
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
April 14, 1994
To: Steve Tedder
Through: Boyd DeVane6-l
Greg Thorpe
From: John Dorne5?
Subject: Review of Texasgulf Draft Environmental Impact Report
The Wetlands and Technical Review Group has reviewed the
January 1994 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the
Texasgulf, Inc. Mine Continuation in Aurora, NC. The comments
outlined below are the result- of our review of this document as well
as extensive field work in May 1993. Please keep in mind that the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) cannot issue a 401
Water Quality Certification until we receive the Final Environmental
Impact Statement.
Permit Time Frame
The Wetlands and Technical Review Group believes that
Texasgulf s choice of a 20 year horizon for developing mining plans is
an excessively long period of time. During this time frame, changes
in technology and the economy can potentially alter the appropriate
conditions of a permit. For a project of this magnitude, it seems more
practical to issue the 404 Permit/401 Certification in increments of 5
or a maximum of 10 years to allow for amendments of these permits.
Alternatives
The DEM has defered the economic analysis of this DEIS to the
COE. To this end, please keep us informed of any additional
information on economics or changes in the COE's interpretation of

this information. In light of the COE's findings to date that
Alternatives D and E are economically feasible, there is a need for an
expanded alternatives analysis of mining scenarios that may also be
economically feasible.
1. "No Action Alternative" - The "no action alternative", which
involves only mining upland areas, has not been thoroughly
examined in the DEIS. This alternative should also be presumed
economically feasible unless the COE's economic analysis proves
otherwise.
2. Modification of Alternative B - The DEM has developed
another alternative as a result of extensive field work in May
1993. This effort involved use of the "Third Version: DEM
Wetland Rating System" to determine wetland values on the
proposed mining site. As a result of this effort, we are proposing
that the COE investigate another alternative that is a modified
version of Alternative B. This alternative is obviously only an
option if the alternative of "No Action" or Alternative E is proven
not economically viable by Texasgulf to the satisfaction of the
COE
In general, our field work involving freshwater wetlands
showed that riparian systems, streamhead hardwood and
bottomland hardwood forests are most important for water
quality, water quantity, aquatic life, and wildlife habitats. 'The
values of brackish marsh communities are well documented and
these communities are protected under the LAMA.
This modification of Alternative B, therefore, involves avoiding
all of these critical wetland types and providing an adequate
buffer to protect these areas from adjacent mining activities. A
300-foot buffer was chosen based on the scientific literature and
best professional judgement. Work by Phillips (1989) on the coast
of North Carolina suggests that a 300-foot riparian buffer is
necessary to filter runoff for all soil types and roughnesses. In
New Jersey, in sensitive resource areas, development of any
intensity is not permitted within 300 feet of any wetland.
Moreover, work by Golet (1976) suggests that leaving a 300-foot
buffer of forested or otherwise natural vegetation adjacent to a
wetland is important to maintain the habitat value of that
wetland. Brown et al. (1990) determined that riparian wildlife
buffers should be at least 300 feet to be effective travel corridors
and habitat. In North Carolina, Brinson et al. (1981) found that a
zone as large as 600 feet within a stream or open body of water

appears to be the most heavily used by terrestrial wildlife. In
light of the intensity of a phosphate mining operation which
essentially removes entire watersheds and replaces the
watersheds with substrate which will have unknown hydrologic
behavior, it is the belief of the Wetlands and Technical Review
Group that the largest, yet still reasonable buffer size of 300 feet
should be chosen.
The green shaded areas on the attached map were determined
by drawing a 300-foot buffer along the edges of creeks and
brackish marsh communities. Where no creek boundary was
present but there was a bottomland hardwood system or a
streamhead hardwood forest, this buffer was drawn from the
edge of that system to 300 feet on either side.
If the green shaded areas are preserved and Texasgulf
maintains the hydrology of the streams, there should not be
substantial degradation of water quality or aquatic life in the
streams or wetlands.
Mitigation
1. Mitigation Plan - Since a complete mitigation plan is not
included in the DEIS, the DEM recommends that a detailed
mitigation plan be prepared and submitted as a supplemental
document for review by participating agencies and the public
prior to the submittal of the Final EIS. This plan should also
include realistic estimates of the cost of mitigation since the
practicality of the mining alternatives may 'vary depending on
these costs. The DEM is planning to work with Texasgulf, the COE,
and other agencies to develop this draft plan for public review.
2. Performance Bond - The mitigation plan should include
provisions for a performance bond from Texasgulf to insure that
wetland mitigation will be done in a timely manner.
3. Mitigation Schedule and Criteria - The DEM will work with the
COE, Texasgulf, and other agencies to develop a mitigation
schedule and success criteria. These criteria should be
enforceable through the performance bond.
Operational Considerations
Texasgulf must make provisions to insure that the hydrologic
functions of unimpacted wetlands and streams are protected from
. s • .
adjacent mining activities. Maintenance of the current hydrologic
balances in these streams will be required. Texasgulf should propose
a methodology to maintain this hydrology.
We appreciate another opportunity to comment on the DEIS. We
have devoted substantial staff time evaluating Texasgulf s mine
continuation to provide a thorough evaluation of the existing wetland
resources on this property. If you would like to discuss any of these
comments, call me at 919-733-1786.
LIST OF REFERENCES
Brinson, Mark M., B. L. Swift, R. C. Plantico [and others]. 1981.
Riparian ecosystems: their ecology and status. U. S. Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-81/17.
Brown, Mark T., Joseph Schaefer, and Karla Brandt. 1990. Buffer
Zones for Water, Wetlands, and Wildlife in East Central Florida.
The Center for Wetlands. University of Florida. Gainesville, Florida.
Golet, Frank C. 1976. Wildlife wetland evaluation model. In: Larson, J.
S. (ed.). Models for assessment of freshwater wetlands. Publication
No. 32. Water Resources Research Center. Univ. of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Phillips, J. D. 1989. An evaluation of the factors determining the
effectiveness of water quality buffer zones. r. Hydrol., 107: 133-
145.
cc: Jim Mulligan, Washington Regional Office
Bill Schimming, Texasgulf
n: I
A r
7
N
?m w s
zo

p C w
-
_

O
N In
j
J

oK N a
.r F Q

'Z W

U vi
W v,
!n ?
g
p
Y

LL

o ?
N
U
N
M v ? n ?g o
r O
ui V
i?

A ? b
UL

A ° n

LL A f
o
Z?
°z
O 'o n % n h

W m
\
?
W
a
m ?
N CL
a a
t'
4
!2 5 0: 0 \
U. t2. 8
K O °
O
r -4 L%

?1
<
O
v
CL
3 ? ??
E! CL
0 o
S
IA

4
Y. 3
F O I ?„ C7 ° G m
.S< I I ? W H W C Z
p G Z W 1 0 4
a: a
m ?`
? Is
'
?
XN N
m Og a O
.0 C: M
?W
4

Z a om
nZ.a?oai?Yc7i<
o m c c a
u
W

.- N n v vi m a m a ^? ?- m ?
I?
I
LL
Q
I
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
8 April 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Boyd DeVane
Program Planning Unit
K2- _
THRU: r-Jim Mulligan
Regional Supervisor
Washington Regional Office
THRU: Roger Thorpe {{???"`
Water Quality Supervisor
Washington Regional Office
FROM: Deborah Sawyer ,Q Le,&, a-,- ? ?
Environmental Technician ?_.
Washington Regional Office
SUBJ: A-95 Review
Project #94-0531
DEIS for the Texasgulf Inc. Mine Continuation
Beaufort County
The above subject document has been reviewed by this office. As required
by the NEPA process, we offer the following comments on this draft document:
Page 1, 1.4 Major Conclusions, paragraph 2: The Texasgulf, Inc. Company
(hereafter referred to as the Company) states that the impacts of the plant need
not be addressed because the "plant can function independently of the
mining/milling operation". This is stated as possible because BPL content raw
rock from Morocco can be brought in. This is true; but there are different
concerns with the imported rock. Morocco rock may be higher in toxic
constituents (such as Cadmium or Radon). An investigation is necessary to
determine the difference in toxic constituents of imported rock and rock mined
at the Beaufort County facility. These toxic constituents may increase
contaminants which must be treated by the Company to prevent discharge into the
air and water.
Page 2, 1.4 Major Conclusions, paragraph 1: The Company has determined that a
20 year permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is necessary, "as agreed to
in the initial scoping process". The Division of Environmental Management
(hereafter referred to as DEM) was not subject to this agreement. The Company
should supply the DEM with information supporting the conclusion that a 20 year
permit is necessary so that a determination can be made as to an expiration date
for the Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
Page 2, 1.4 Major Conclusions, paragraph 1: The Company states that the recovery
factor of the phosphate ore is about 21%. Technical advances in gravel fraction
recovery may increase recovery up to 10%. The Company should investigate this
technology and supply the DEM with information concerning feasibility.
Page 2, 1.4 Major Conclusions, paragraph 2: Due to increased production rates
at the present Company facility, is the 52 year Skelly and Loy phosphate recovery
scenario accurate? Is the timeframe less than 52 years now?
MEMORANDUM
Page 2
8 April 1994
Page 3, 1.4 Major Conclusions, paragraph 3: The Company should explain the
reasoning of why alternative E is a non-continuous mine advance (disjunct);
therefore not being economically feasible, yet Alternative B is considered as
being economically feasible even though mining east of Highway 306 is proposed
in both Alternatives. The only difference is that in Alternative E, mining is
proposed in the non-jurisdictional areas west of Highway 306 which is adjacent
to the present mining activity. If the Company continues to mine this area
(Alternative E) adjacent to the present mining activity, then later moves the
mining equipment across Highway 306 to continue mining the eastern section, there
appears to be no difference relating to the subject of Alternative E being non-
continuous and therefore not feasible when Alternative B will have to make the
same movement of equipment.
Page 3, 1.4 Major Conclusions, paragraph 5: The Company should provide more
information supporting the claim of higher phosphate reserve losses for
Alternatives D and E as compared to B (Alternatives A and C are understood).
Page 4, 1.4 Major Conclusions, paragraph 2. The Company should explain why the
costs of mining Alternative B are acceptable whereas the costs of mining
Alternative E are not acceptable. The western section (west of Highway 306) is
being mined presently, therefore the ore must be of a quality which makes it
advantageous to mine. This non-jurisdictional section of land is part of
Alternative E. Also, the same tract of land east of Highway 306 is proposed to
be mined under both Alternatives B and E. The difference is that Alternative B
proposes to mine further east, impacting more wetlands and waters of the State.
Page 10, 2.3 Permit Actions Required: The Section 401 Water Quality
Certification review process cannot begin until the NEPA process is complete.
After the completion of the NEPA process, the Company should submit the
application for the Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Upon receipt of
said application, the DEM will make a determination as to completeness. After
the application has been accepted as complete, the DEM will either issue or deny
the request for the Certification within 130 days.
Page 13, 3.1.2.2 Borehole Mining: The Company should supply adequate studies and
information to determine the feasibility of borehole mining as an alternative to
present mining techniques.
Page 15, 3.3 No Action Alternative: The Company should investigate this
Alternative further. How long can the Company mine in the area west of Highway
306 which is adjacent to the present mining activity? Are there any other large
tracts of land which are non-jurisdictional in the immediate area that would make
it feasible for the Company to consider a "No Action" Alternative?
Page 18, 3.4.2 Alternative B - (Proposed Action), paragraph 1: The statement
"but excluding all natural tributaries to the landward. extent of CAMA
jurisdictional areas" should be discussed with the DEM for changes in the
statement. After a field examination of the creek areas by DEM staff, several
areas of "natural tributaries" were noted and discussed with staff of the
Company. These areas should be designated on the Final EIS.
Page 19, 3.4.2 Alternative B - (Proposed Action), paragraph 6: The Company
proposes to compensate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands through mitigation.
A complete mitigation plan is not included in the DEIS. The DEM recommends that
a supplement to the DEIS be prepared and submitted for review prior to the
submittal of the Final EIS. This will enable review agencies to comment on this
preliminary document prior to the submittal of the Final EIS which will contain
the final mitigation proposal.
MEMORANDUM
Page 3
8 April 1994
Page 19, 3.4.2 Alternative B - (Proposed Action), paragraph 7: The Company
should include the information which determined that there would be "increased
potential for water quality impacts on a short-term basis (three to six months)".
The' information should include: what impacts; determination of "three to six
months of impact", long-term, secondary impacts; "temporary drainage area
reductions", and "loss of wildlife resources". The Company states in this same
paragraph that there will be "depressurization of the Castle Hayne Aquifer which
would unavoidably affect nearby private wells." The Company should supply
information to the DEM determining what impacts, if any, this depressurization
of the Castle Hayne Aquifer will have on adjacent and nearby wetlands and
streams. Information concerning the drainage of the surficial aquifers should
be included also.
Page 20, 3.4.3 Alternative C, paragraph 5: The Company states that mitigation
costs for mining alternative C are estimated at 3.3 million. The DEM requests
information in relation to what mitigation is proposed, how much mitigation (i.e.
number of acres), 'and how cost was estimated. This information should be
supplied in supplemental document for review prior to the submittal of the Final
EIS.
The DEM requests of the Company to submit another alternative utilizing most of
the acreage of Alternative C but excluding the CAMA jurisdiction and the areas
of special concern. This alternative should include the number of years required
to mine this area. Additional acreage west of and adjacent to Hwy 306 may be
proposed to complete a 20 year mine advance proposal.
Page 21, 3.4.3 Alternative C, paragraph 3: Information should be supplied to the
DEM explaining "temporary drainage area reductions, loss of wildlife resources,
and increased potential for water quality impacts on a short-term basis (three
to six months)." This information should include an explanation as to what is
temporary (timeframe), how much reduction, what losses, what water quality
impacts (and where these impacts may occur), and how the timeframe of three to
six months was derived. Secondary and/or long-term effects should also be
evaluated.
Page 21, 3.4.3 Alternative C, paragraph 4: The Company states that
"depressurization of the Castle Hayne Aquifer will unavoidably affect nearby
private wells." The DEM requests information concerning what, if any, effects
this depressurization will have on adjacent or nearby waters and wetlands.
Potential drainage of the surficial aquifer should also be evaluated.
Page 23, 3.4.4 Alternative D, paragraph 2: Review of this Alternative D versus
Alternative B shows similarity with the exception of eliminating some areas of
special concern. The DEM requests information from the Company concerning the
estimation of a "substantial increase in total operating costs." Is this
"substantial increase" in excess of the operating costs of the preferred
Alternative B or the present operating costs? The DEM also requests information
of the estimation of mitigation costs. This information should include; what is
being mitigated, how and how much is being mitigated for, and how costs are
estimated. This information should be supplied in a supplemental document prior
to the Final EIS.
Page 23, 3.4.4 Alternative D, paragraph 3: The DEM requests information
concerning temporary drainage area reductions (what, where, how much, timeframe
of "temporary"), loss of wildlife resources, (what, where, and how much), and
increased potential for water quality impacts on a short-term basis (what
impacts, how timeframe of three to six months determined, and what secondary or
long-term impacts).
MEMORANDUM
Page 4
8 April 1994
Additional information should be submitted to the DEM concerning the effects to
waters and wetlands, adjacent and nearby, of depressurization of the Castle Hayne
Aquifer. Effects from drainage of the surficial aquifer should also be included.
Page 24, 3.4.5 Alternative E, paragraph 3: The Company states that mining west
of Hwy 306 can be performed for ten (10) years in non-jurisdictional areas of
this alternative. The remaining ten (10) years is proposed in a portion of the
previously owned NCPC tract east of Hwy 306. The DEM requests information
concerning how many more acres of non-jurisdictional areas west of Hwy 306 can
be mined, in addition to areas 1-10, under Alternative E and how many additional
years of mining this will allow. This effort may minimize impacts to wetlands
east of Hwy 306 further than proposed. If the non-jurisdictional sections, in
addition to areas 1-10, are disjunct from the proposed or present mining
operations, supply a map showing these areas in relation to the proposed and
present mining operations.
Page 24, 3.4.5 Alternative E, paragraph 4: The DEM requests the Company to
explain fully why this alternative will require "a substantial increase in total
operating costs.
The Company should also supply information to the DEM concerning the estimation
of mitigation costs. Since the DEM has not reviewed, to date, the mitigation
proposal; information on how, how much, and where mitigation will be performed
should be submitted in a supplemental document for review prior to preparation
and submittal of the Final EIS.
Page 24, 3.4.5 Alternative E, paragraph 6: The DEM requests information
concerning how much reduction in drainage area and the timeframe of the immediate
and long-term effects of said reductions; what, where, and how much loss of
wildlife resources; what, where, and how much increased potential for water
quality impacts on a short-term basis there will be. Additionally the DEM
requests information concerning the water quality impacts of secondary and long-
term effects, as well.
The Company should supply the DEM with information concerning the effects to
waters and wetlands, adjacent and nearby, of depressurization of the Castle Hayne
Aquifer. Also, information should be submitted concerning the effects of
drainage of the surficial aquifers to waters and wetlands. Temporary and
long-term effects should be investigated.
Page 25, 3.5 Economic Evaluation of Alternatives, paragraph 2: The Company
estimates mitigation costs in all alternatives. The DEM requests that a
mitigation proposal be submitted as a supplemental document prior to the
preparation and submittal of the Final EIS. It is difficult to evaluate the
proposed mitigation costs without a mitigation proposal.
Page 26, 3.6.1.3 Projected Reclamation, paragraph 1: The DEM requests that the
Company supply information concerning how the interruption of the drainage to
South Creek and the Pamlico River-will impact these streams during the proposed
mining and the secondary or long-term effects of this interruption.
Page 27, 3.6.2.2 Avoidance: The DEM requests that the Company investigate the
feasibility of total avoidance and supply this information to the review agencies
and the public.
Page 27, 3.6.2.2 Avoidance, paragraph 2: The DEM requests of the Company
literature support of the 400 foot and 200 foot setbacks which were incorporated
as avoidance measures to "prevent impacting estuarine shorelines and adjacent
wetland areas."

MEMORANDUM
Page 5
8 April 1994
Page 28, 3.6.2.3 Minimization, paragraph 3: As stated previously under the
comments for the various alternatives, the DEM requests further information
supporting the determination of the protection from adverse impacts to waters and
wetlands associated with mine dewatering of perimeter ditches.
Pages 25-31, RECLAMATION AND MITIGATION: The DEM requests that the Company
supply as much information as possible for the following concerns:
* success of wetland creation or restoration efforts in reclaimed mine
areas which utilized the clay/gypsum blend as substrate (other areas of
the U.S. or world).
* impacts to natural wetlands and streams adjacent to or nearby the mine
area during the mining operation (i.e. drainage and depressurization).
* impacts to natural wetlands and streams adjacent to or nearby the mine
area after the area has been reclaimed by filling with the clay/gypsum
substrate. Will this substrate allow the hydrology to be the same as in
the pre-mine condition or will the hydrology be eliminated or impacted
due to the placement of non-hydric soils in the reclaimed areas?
* impacts to waters and wetlands of contaminants found in the clay/gypsum
blend (i.e. cadmium, radon etc.)
This information should be submitted in a supplemental document for review prior
to the preparation and submittal of the Final EIS.
Pages 74-77, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES - OPERATIONAL ALTERNATIVES: The DEM
recognizes the efforts of the Company to supply information concerning the
effects of drainage and depressurization of the mine to the surrounding areas
based on information at the present mine area. The DEM, however, does request
information concerning the potential impacts to wetlands east of Hwy 306. This
area contains vast acreages of various types of wetland communities, as well as
numerous streams. Is the finding of "no significant. impact" to the hydrology of
these sensitive areas, if the canal system is constructed maintaining a 10 foot
depth in the overburden, based on well sampling of the areas west of Hwy 306?
Is there any literature or studies which will support this determination of other
mine areas (i.e. Florida, Morocco)? Will the close proximity of the mine pit to
these sensitive wetlands and streams affect the success of the canals to maintain
the hydrology? Is there a recommended buffer area between the mine" and the
wetlands and streams? Can a model be performed to demonstrate whether hydrologic
functions will be protected? Will this model need to be based on site specific
criteria?
Page 77, 5.2.1.1 Topography and Physiography: The Company states that
recontouring of the topographic features of the mine impact area will occur
during the land reclamation phase which is eight to 12 years after the initial
impact. The Company further states that existing topographic features will be
permanently lost. The DEM requests that the following information be included
in the Final EIS:
* What will be the impacts to surface waters due to the interruption in
natural drainage patterns and changes in the water balance during the
mining phase?
* What will be the long-term impacts post-mining?
* How will the topography be restored post-mining?

MEMORANDUM
Page 6
8 April 1994
* Will the restored topography simulate the previous topography pre-
mining?
Page 85, 5.2.2.6.1 Alternative A: The Company states that the "drainage area
reductions are considered temporary and would occur gradually as the mine
advances over a period of 20 years." The Company further states that the
hydrology of adjacent wetlands would be impacted. What is the long-term effect
of this temporary reduction in drainage? Can the natural drainage patterns be
restored?
Page 86, 5.2.2.6.2 Alternative B, paragraph 1: The Company states that
"temporary drainage area reductions" for this alternative will be 4% for
Whitehurst Creek, 80% for Jacks Creek, 75% for Jacobs Creek, 76% for Drinkwater
Creek, 65% for Tooley Creek (WRC-PNA), 83% for Huddles Cut and 58% for Huddy Gut.
The Company further states these drainage area reductions are "considered
temporary" and would occur gradually as the mine advances over a period of 20
years. The following information is requested by the DEM:
* What will be the total impacts to wetlands and streams of these drainage
reductions during the mining phase?
* What will be the long-term total impacts to wetlands and streams of
these drainage reductions post-mining?
* How long will it take the hydrologic regimes to be restored post-mining?
* What potential impacts to water quality will there be during the dike
construction phase? Is it possible to increase the protection from
these impacts beyond Best Management Practices?
Page 88, 5.2.2.6.3 Alternative C, paragraph 1: The Company states that there
would be temporary drainage reductions of 87% for Porter Creek, 55% for
Whitehurst Creek, 28% for Bailey Creek, and 5% for Durham Creek. The DEM
requests of the Company to submit information of the same concerns as stated in
5.2.2.6.2 Alternative B.
Page 89, 5.2.2.6.4 Alternative D, paragraph 1: The Company states that there
would be temporary drainage reductions of 24% for Whitehurst Creek, 89% for Jacks
Creek, 79% for Jacobs Creek, 77% for Drinkwater Creek, and 62% for Tooley Creek
(WRC-PNA). The DEM requests of the Company to submit information of "the same
concerns as stated in 5.2.2.6.2 Alternative B.
Page 91, 5.2.2.6.5 Alternative E, paragraph 1: The Company states that there
would be temporary drainage reductions of 58% for Whitehurst Creek, 37% for Jacks
Creek, 2% for Jacobs Creek, 3% for Drinkwater Creek, 13% for Tooley Creek
(WRC-PNA), and 30% for Bailey Creek. The DEM requests of the Company to submit
information of the same concerns as stated in 5.2.2.6.2 Alternative B.
Page 92, 5.2.2.7 Flood-plain: The DEM requests of the Company to explain further
the following:
* Total impacts to waters and wetlands during the mining phase
* Total impacts to waters and wetlands after the completion of the mining
phase
* How long will it take to restore the floodplain through the reclamation
process?
ge 7
April 1994
'Pages 100-106, 5.2.2.10 Wetlands and Open Waters (Section 404 Jurisdictional
Areas : The DEM rated various wetland systems within the five (5) alternatives.
The Company should consider these ratings for the impacts to wetlands and
incorporate them under the mitigation proposal. The Company should further give
explanation of the following:
* Define "short-term", give timeframe
* Determine how impacts from reduced drainage area will impact the
wetlands
* Support determination that depressurization of the Castle Hayne Aquifer
and drainage of surficial aquifer will not impact adjacent and nearby
wetlands and waters.
The aforementioned comments are requested by DEM of the Company to quantify and
qualify the impacts to waters and wetlands of the State by the proposed mining
activity. The DEM requires this information to determine which alternative is
recommended for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The Final EIS will
be reviewed for changes in the DEIS. The request for a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification will be reviewed after the completion of the EIS process.
?i
! State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources - • o
Division of Environmental Management
mmF
James B. Hunt, Jr., , Secretary E H N F1
Jonathan B. Howes, SecreLata
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 20, 1994
To: Preston Howard
r
From: MMM
I*>
Through: Steve Tedder ?06
Greg Thorpe &? ' l ?
Boyd DeVane 6 D
Re: Meeting with Steve Levitas regarding Texas Gulf
Steve Levitas has scheduled a meeting with various Division staff to discuss EHNR's
position on the Texas Gulf permit application. The meeting is scheduled for 26 July at 4:30
pm in 14th floor conference room. Apparently he wants to talk to all concerned Division's to
get a departmental position. I'll plan to be there but believe that a DEM meeting would be
useful first. Please advise.
texgulf.met
cc: Cherri Smith
Ron Ferrell
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
SUMMARY OF MAJOR DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STAFF
DISCUSSION AND WRITTEN COMMENTS WITH TEXASGULF PERSONNEL
REGARDING THE PROPOSED MINE EXPANSION AND DRAFT EIS
DEM, water Quality Section
July 26; 1994
I. On-site impacts (primarily wetlands)
a. Economic analysis - initial analysis by Corps of
Engineers, EHNR review/confirmation needed.
b. Alternatives
1. Alternatives B, C, D, and E - more complete
explanation needed.
2. Modification of Alternative B - add 300 foot buffer
to wetlands associated with streams. Mine through
hardwood flat area.
c. Mitigation
1. Performance bond.
2. Mitigation plan submitted for agency/public review
before final EIS.
3. Mitigation site location, schedule and criteria -
need to be developed with agencies.
4. Sequence - restoration of 1:1 (acres) upfront,
remainder concurrent with or soon after (within 5
years) mining. Focus on riparian systems.
5. Focus on restoration rather than creation.
Preservation (as part of a mixture with further
restoration and creation) may be an acceptable
option after 1:1 (acres) mitigation is
accomplished.
II. Off-site impacts (primarily streams)
a. Downstream hydrology - maintain current hydrological
balances to protect stream uses.especially regarding
the PNAs. Monitoring and modeling needed.
b. Riparian buffers
III. Other Major Issues
a. Permit Time Frame - 401 Certification incremental,
renewal (every 5 years?) with assurances for Tg.
Coordinate with mining permit if possible.
b. No 401 decision until EIS done.
C. Topographic changes - ensure longterm landscape
stability. Build a tall ridge rather than raise entire
landscape 30 to 40 feet.
tgpos.mem
s •
SUMMARY OF MAJOR DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STAFF
DISCUSSION AND WRITTEN COMMENTS WITH TEXASGULF PERSONNEL
REGARDING THE PROPOSED MINE EXPANSION AND DRAFT EIS
DEM, Water Quality Section
July 26-1994
I. On-site impacts (primarily wetlands)
a. Economic analysis - initial analysis by Corps of
Engineers, EHNR review/confirmation needed.
b. Alternatives
1. Alternatives B, C, D, and E - more complete
explanation needed.
2. Modification of Alternative B - add 300 foot buffer
to wetlands associated with streams: Mine through
hardwood flat area.
C. Mitigation
1. Performance bond.
2. Mitigation plan submitted for agency/public review
before final EIS.
3. Mitigation site location, schedule and criteria -
need to be developed with agencies.
4. Sequence - restoration of 1:1 (acres) upfront,
remainder concurrent with or soon after (within 5
years) mining. Focus on riparian systems.
5. Focus on restoration rather than creation.
Preservation (as part of a mixture with further
restoration and creation) may be an acceptable
option after 1:1 (acres) mitigation is
accomplished.
II. Off-site impacts (primarily streams)
a. Downstream hydrology - maintain current hydrological
balances to protect stream uses especially regarding
the PNAs. Monitoring and modeling needed.
b. Riparian buffers
III. Other Major Issues
a. Permit Time Frame - 401 Certification incremental,
renewal (every 5 years?) with assurances for Tg.
Coordinate with mining permit if possible.
b. No 401 decision until EIS done.
C. Topographic changes - ensure longterm landscape
stability. Build a tall ridge rather than raise entire
landscape 30 to 40 feet.
tgpos.mem
0
SUMMARY OF MAJOR DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STAFF
DISCUSSION AND WRITTEN COMMENTS WITH TEXASGULF PERSONNEL
REGARDING THE PROPOSED MINE EXPANSION AND DRAFT EIS
DEM, Water Quality Section
July 26-1994
I. On-site impacts (primarily wetlands)
a. Economic analysis - initial analysis by Corps of
Engineers,.EHNR review/confirmation needed.
b. Alternatives
1. Alternatives B, C, D, and E - more complete
explanation needed.
2. Modification of Alternative B - add 300 foot buffer
t-o wetlands associated with streams: Mine through
hardwood flat area.
c. Mitigation
1. Performance bond.
2. Mitigation plan submitted for agency/public review
before final EIS.
3. Mitigation site location, schedule and criteria -
need to be developed with agencies.
4. Sequence - restoration of 1:1 (acres) upfront,
remainder concurrent with or soon after (within 5
years) mining. Focus on riparian systems.
5. Focus on restoration rather than creation.
Preservation (as part of a mixture with further
restoration and creation) may be an acceptable
option after 1:1 (acres) mitigation is
accomplished.
II. Off-site impacts (primarily streams)
a. Downstream hydrology - maintain current hydrological
balances to protect stream uses.especially regarding
the PNAs. Monitoring and modeling needed.
b. Riparian buffers
III. Other Major Issues
a. Permit Time Frame - 401 Certification incremental,
renewal (every 5 years?) with assurances for Tg.
Coordinate with mining permit if possible.
b. No 401 decision until EIS done. .
C. Topographic changes - ensure longterm landscape
stability. Build a tall ridge rather than raise entire
landscape 30 to 40 feet.
tgpos.mem

0
SUMMARY OF MAJOR DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STAFF
DISCUSSION AND WRITTEN COM49NTS WITH TEXASGULF PERSONNEL
REGARDING THE PROPOSED MINE EXPANSION AND DRAFT EIS
DEM, Water Quality Section
July 26; 1,994
I. On-site impacts (primarily wetlands)
a. Economic analysis - initial analysis by Corps of
Engineers, EHNR review/confirmation needed.
b. Alternatives
1. Alternatives B, C, D, and E - more complete
explanation needed.
2., Modification of Alternative B - add 300 foot buffer
to wetlands associated with streams: Mine through
hardwood flat area.
C. Mitigation
1. Performance bond.
2. Mitigation plan submitted for agency/public review
before f'nal EIS.
3. Mitigation site location, schedule and criteria -
need to be developed with agencies.
4. Sequence - restoration of 1:1 (acres) upfront,
remainder concurrent with or soon after (within 5
years) mining. Focus on riparian systems.
5. Focus on restoration rather than creation.
Preservation (as part of a 'mixture with further
restoration and creation) may be an acceptable
option after 1:1 (acres) mitigation is
accomplished.
II. Off-site impacts (primarily streams)
a. Downstream hydrology - maintain current hydrological
balances to protect stream uses.especially regarding
the PNAs. Monitoring and modeling needed.
b. Riparian buffers
III. Other Major Issues
a. Permit Time Frame - 401 Certification incremental,
renewal (every 5 years?) with assurances for Tg.
Coordinate with mining permit if possible.
b. No 401 decision until EIS done.
C. Topographic changes - ensure longterm landscape
stability. Build a tall ridge rather than raise entire
landscape 30 to 40 feet.
tgpos.mem
0
SUMMARY OF MAJOR DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STAFF
DISCUSSION AND WRITTEN COMMENTS WITH TEXASGULF PERSONNEL
REGARDING THE PROPOSED MINE EXPANSION AND DRAFT EIS
DEM, Water Quality Section
July 26;-1.994
I. On-site impacts (primarily wetlands)
a. Economic analysis - initial analysis by Corps of
Engineers, EHNR review/confirmation needed.
b. Alternatives
1. Alternatives B, C, D, and E - more complete
explanation needed.
2. Modification of Alternative B - add 300 foot buffer
to wetlands associated with streams. Mine through
hardwood flat area.
c. Mitigation,
1. Performance bond.
2. Mitigation plan submitted for agency/public review
before final EIS.
3. Mitigation site location, schedule and criteria -
need to be developed with agencies.
4. Sequence - restoration of 1:1 (acres) upfront,
remainder concurrent with or soon after (within 5
years) mining. Focus on riparian systems.
5. Focus on restoration rather than creation.
Preservation (as part of a mixture with further
restoration and creation) may be an acceptable
option after 1:1 (acres) mitigation is
accomplished.
II. Off-site impacts (primarily streams)
a. Downstream hydrology - maintain current hydrological
balances to protect stream uses.especially regarding
the PNAs. Monitoring and modeling needed.
b. Riparian buffers
III. Other Major Issues
a. Permit Time Frame - 401 Certification incremental,
renewal (every 5 years?) with assurances for Tg. -
Coordinate with mining permit if possible.
b. No 401 decision until EIS done.
c. Topographic changes - ensure longterm landscape
stability. Build a tall ridge rather than raise entire
landscape 30 to 40 feet.
tgpos.mem
SUMMARY OF MAJOR DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STAFF
DISCUSSION AND WRITTEN COMMENTS WITH TEXASGULF PERSONNEL
REGARDING THE PROPOSED.MINE EXPANSION AND DRAFT EIS
DEM, Water Quality Section
July 26;-1994
I. On-site impacts (primarily wetlands)
a. Economic analysis - initial analysis by Corps of
Engineers,.EHNR review/confirmation needed.
b. Alternatives
1. Alternatives B, C, D, and E - more complete
explanation needed.
2. Modification of Alternative B - add 300 foot buffer
to wetlands associated with streams: Mine through
hardwood flat area.
C. Mitigation,
1. Performance bond.
2. Mitigation plan submitted for agency/public review
before final EIS.
3. Mitigation site location, schedule and criteria -
need to be developed with agencies.
4. Sequence - restoration of 1:1 (acres) upfront,
remainder concurrent with or soon after (within 5
years) mining. Focus on riparian systems.
5. Focus on restoration rather than creation.
Preservation (as part of a mixture with further
restoration and creation) may be an acceptable
option after 1:1 (acres) mitigation is
accomplished.
II. Off-site impacts (primarily streams)
a. Downstream hydrology - maintain current hydrological
balances to protect stream uses.especially regarding
the PNAs. Monitoring and modeling needed.
b. Riparian buffers
III. Other Major Issues
a. Permit Time Frame - 401 Certification incremental,
renewal (every 5 years?) with assurances for Tg.
Coordinate with mining permit if possible.
b. No 401 decision until EIS done.
C. Topographic changes - ensure longterm landscape
stability. Build a tall ridge rather than raise entire
landscape 30 to 40 feet.
tgpos.mem
SUMMARY OF MAJOR DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STAFF
DISCUSSION AND WRITTEN COMMENTS WITH TEXASGULF PERSONNEL
REGARDING THE PROPOSED MINE EXPANSION AND DRAFT EIS
DEM, Water Quality Section
July 26, 1994
I. On-site impacts (primarily wetlands)
a. Economic analysis - initial analysis by Corps of
Engineers,.EHNR review/confirmation needed.
b. Alternatives
1. Alternatives B, C, D, and E - more complete
explanation needed.
2. Modification of Alternative B - add 300 foot buffer
to wetlands associated with streams: Mine through
hardwood flat area.
C. Mitigation
1. Performance bond.
2. Mitigation plan submitted for agency/public review
before final EIS.
3. Mitigation site location, schedule and criteria -
need to be developed with agencies.
4. Sequence - restoration of 1:1 (acres) upfront,
remainder concurrent with or soon after (within 5
years) mining. Focus on riparian systems:
5. Focus on restoration rather than creation. .
Preservation (as part of a''mixture with further
restoration and creation) may be an acceptable
option after 1:1 (acres) mitigation is
accomplished.
II. Off-site impacts (primarily streams)
a. Downstream hydrology - maintain current hydrological
balances to protect stream uses.especially regarding
the PNAs. Monitoring and modeling needed.
b. Riparian buffers
III. Other Major Issues
a. Permit Time Frame - 401 Certification incremental,
renewal (every 5 years?) with assurances for Tg.
Coordinate with mining permit if possible.
b. No 401 decision until EIS done.
c. Topographic changes - ensure longterm landscape
stability. Build a tall ridge rather than raise entire
landscape 30 to 40 feet.
tgpos.mem

Ce
G..
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
j &T"?
Health and Natural Resources "
Division
YA
of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E H N R
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E„ Director
July 20, 1994
To: Preston Howard
From: John Dome q>
Through: Steve Tedder
Greg Thorpe
Boyd DeVane
Re: Meeting with Steve Levitas regarding Texas Gulf
Steve Levitas has scheduled a meeting with various Division staff to discuss EHNR's
position on the Texas Gulf permit application. The meeting is scheduled for 26 July at 4:30
pm in 14th floor conference room. Apparently he wants to talk to all concerned Division's to %
get a departmental position. I'll plan to be there but believe that a DEM meeting would be
useful first. Please advise.
texgulf.met
cc: Cherri Smith
Ron Ferrell
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 509k recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
July 18, 1994
Colonel Robert J. Sperberg
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
AA*4
- agook )21
Agillibuldmold ft?tkm???
ID EHNFi
2 01994
REFERENCE: ACTID-88-0449 Texasgulf Mine Expansion, Beaufort County, NC
Dear Colonel Sperberg:
The State of North Carolina has reached the end of its allotted review time pursuant to
15 CFR 930.63(a) for Corps Public Notice Action ID No. 198800449, notice for the permit
application by Texasgulf, Inc. to expand mining operations over the next twenty years in Beaufort
County, NC. This large scale project will impact many resources of the coastal zone and the
proposal has raised many complicated environmental issues and concerns. By letter of April 12,
1994, we extended our review an additional 90 days pursuant to 15 CFR 930.63(b). We provided
you and Texasgulf with comments received as of that date and identified additional information
needs from Texasgul£ The state also provided the applicant with a list of specific information
needs, which we forwarded to you on May 12, 1994.
At this time Texasgulf is still developing their response to our information request, so we
still do not have sufficient information to fully evaluate the proposal for consistency with the
North Carolina Coastal Management Program. Therefore, we cannot agree with the applicant's
determination that the proposal is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management
Program. Specifically, the proposal is inconsistent based on insufficient information (15 CRF
930.64(d)). The state will continue to work with the Texasgulf in their efforts to resolve the
issues associated with this project. When the Texasgulf has provided the information requested,
we will be happy to reconsider our position.
A copy of this letter will be mailed to the applicant to serve as our formal notice that we
have found the proposed activity inconsistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management
program. It will also serve as notice that this finding may be appealed to the Secretary, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. The appeal must be filed within 30 days of receipt
of this letter and must specifically address the applicant's belief that either (1) the activity is
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
I
consistent with the objectives of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, or (2) the activity
is necessary in the interest of national security.
Should either you or the Texasgulf have questions regarding our finding or the appeal
procedure, please contact Mr. Stephen B. Benton or Ms. Caroline J. Bellis, Division of Coastal
Management, at [phone].
Sincerely,
Rog N. checter
CC: Preston Pate, Assistant Director, NC Division of Coastal Management
Terry Moore, NC Division of Coastal Management, Washington
Floyd Williams, NC Division of Land Resources
Sara Winslow, NC Division of Marine Fisheries
Franklin McBride, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
John Dorney, NC Division of Environmental Management
Rudi Scheiner, Wilmington District Army Corps of Engineers
Chrys Baggett, NC State Clearinghouse
Melba McGee, NC Office of Policy and Development
W.A. Shimming, Texasgulf, Inc.
MEMO DATE: ?Z'?- 3
TO: SUBJECT:
C} W t ?L
Ce-? z -ate rv G- VtA- c i Z &A-r/ dvIl1 f LEV AA
94,
6-4
1i,f 21 l
l(33x L wM?

From:
??, srnre4
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources printed on Recycled Paper
? w;,wNds-
SENT ?Y:Wilmington District
.1-,
Regulatory Branch
Action I.D. 198800449
5-1 -94 8 51 ; USAUt-Keg, brancn-+ d91911331335V;; z
V `rug-'/ ?
S
0_1
April 12, 1994
X IV ./
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
Texasgulf, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Dear Mr. Furness:
?V4
Please reference the March 2, 1994, meeting between the Corps of Engineers
and Texasgulf, Inc., held at the Wilmington District Office. In attendance at
this meeting were Dr. Wayne Wright and Messrs. David Franklin, David Lekson, and
Hugh Heine, of the Corps, yourself, and Messrs. Tom Regan, Bill 9chimming, Pete
Moffett, Rann Carpenter, and Mike Gwynn, of Texasgulf, and Messrs. Jim Hudgens
and Bruce Bolick, of CZR Environmental Consultants. The purpose of this meeting
was to discuss the framework under which a mitigation plan for Texasgulf might
be developed in accordance with the February 7, 1990, Corps of
Engineers/Environmental Protection Agency Mitigation Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA). This correspondence responds to issues that arose during the meeting and
to your letter dated March 14, 1994, concerning the same subject.
Mitigsl.ion definitions.
You define "Up-front" as "mitigation construction complete prior to wetland ?e"
disturbance." We disagree. we believe that a wetland must meet success criteria and be functioning as a wetland before it can be considered to
constitute up-front mitigation. Some types of habitat systems may function very
quickly; others may require a considerable amount of time. Time requirements
can be addressed by adjusting ratios. See ratios discussion below.
You define "on-site" as "within the same DEM sub-basin unit (03-03-07)."
We are concerned that in this case, use of the DEM sub-basin unit is
inappropriate due to its geographical location relative to the Pamlico River.
We believe that only the southern portion of the DEM sub-basin, i.e., the
portion on the south aide of the river, should be used. Consideration of the
north side of the river should be confined to sites that are located immediately
adjacent to the river. We believe that initial and primary efforts to locate
mitigation sites should be within these portions of the unit. Further
considerations may include opportunities that are available both upstream and
downstream of the plant, also preferable on the south side of the river. In any
case, the most advantageous sites should be utilized that beat benefit the
resources of the Pamlico, River. Accordingly, we will remain receptive to any
p. areas that best accomplish this goal. Further discussion on on-site versus off-
site mitigation is provided in our ratios-section below.
Mitigation guidelines.
1
The Wilmington District Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines
(12/8/93) were developed to provide a,guide for the development of hardwood
wetlands. These guidelines are not intended to apply to all habitat types, even
though the general principles do apply. We believe that any discussion
regarding these guidelines should be habitat Specific. What may be appropriate
for one habitat type may not apply to another. The followinq comments apply to
your proposals to modify these guidelines. All of our comments are couched
relative to hardwood watland mitigation.
SENT BY;Wilmington District ; 5-18-94 ; 8:52 ;
t
-2-
USAGE-Reg, Branch- 89197331338;#; 3
We disagree with changing the 12.5 percent threshold for meeting the hydrology
success requirement. We believe, that under reasonable average
climatic conditions, meeting the 12.5 percent hydrology criterion during one
growing season is sufficient to satisfy tho success requirement for the
hydrology parameter. Modifying this threshold will be considered on a cage by
case basis, but will require increasing the number of growing seasons in which
the threshold must be met. This obviously will require longer term monitoring
and will lengthen the time involved for all parties. It will be incumbent upon
you to prove to our satisfaction on a particular site that something less than
12.5 percent will guarantee success.
The 20 percent per species limit was intended to allow for the development
of a diverse hardwood habitat that would likely support more diverse faunal
populations, we must look at the target habitat, i.e., the habitat that one is
trying to develop (replace), before evaluating whether this limit is
inappropriate. If the target habitat is a cypress/tupelo swamp, then adjusting
the limit is appropriate. If the target habitat is a diverse oak/hickory
forest, then adjustments would appear to be inappropriate.
As stated in the meeting, your source for planting materials located in
South Carolina would be acceptable.
The sample plot requirements were established as a general guideline. We
will work with you on acceptable requirements that are tailored to your
situations and that satisfy our need to assure that mitigation goals are indeed
accomplished.
This also applies to reporting requirements. Even though we are somewhat
flexible on this issue, reports must be complete, and submitted in a timely
fashion.
The final disposition of mitigation sites is a major issue. Our ultimate
objective is to achieve long-term protection for the mitigation sites that may
ultimately be developed. Proposals that satisfy this and may be acceptable, but
will likely require more specific discussion.
Although performance bonds have not been mentioned and do not appear in
your outline, they are a possibility and should not be ignored.
Credit for existing matland restoration and creation projects.
This is a very difficult issue to respond to without looking at the
specific types of wetland habitat mitigation that will ultimately be required.
The list of mitigation projects that you provided are in various stages of
development with varying levels of success. We believe that if functioning
wetland mitigation is available, the mitigation may be used to offset losses of
a similar wetland type that exhibits comparable wetland functions. To
reiterate, factors to be considered include type, stage of development relative
to functions, level of success, location, and habitat type being compensated
for.

SENT BY:Wilmington District ; 5-18-94 ; 8:52 ; USAGE-Reg. Branch- 6919'/33133;ti 4
-3-
Additional State requir&m*nts.
At this time we can not predict what the State may require. However, to
help preclude potential future conflicts, we are willing to include the State in
mitigation discussions at the earliest possible time to improve the opportunity
for a mitigation plan that will satisfy both Federal and State interests.
Ratios,
We have no met requirements for ratios. Our intent will be to use ratios
to assure that impacted wetland functions are being adequately compensated.
This may include consideration of risk, time lag considerations, location, and
types of habitats being developed. We are not overly concerned with off-site
mitigation, as long as it is within a reasonable distance from the impact area
and would benefit the Pamlico River syatem. This being said, we recommend that
all appropriate mitigation that is available in the immediate locale of the
impacts (the portion of the sub-basin discussed above) should be utilized before
going to more remote areas, we are concerned with mitigation that is not in
place and functioning (up-front). The time lag to develop certain wetland
habitats, such as some of the hardwood systems, must be dealt with in some
manner and ratios are a reasonable way to accomplish this.
Thank you for your continued cooperation. If you have questions regarding
our comments, please contact Mr. David Lekson, Washington Regulatory Field
Office, telephone [phone] or Mr. David Franklin, Special Project Manager,
at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Copy Furnished;
Mr. Pete Moffett
Taxasgulf, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Bcf.
CESAW-CO-EW/LEKSON
CESAW-PD-E/HEINE
MUSE FILE ! tg.16
CESAW-CO-E/F K N//4811/A4J
CESAW-OCIrINII
CESAW-CO- / NER
CESAW-CO-E WR
MAIL /
CESAW- COjE / ILES
SENT. BOilmington District ? 5-18-94 ; 8;b1 ? U5AUL-Ke9. branch- H1Vjj133uvii 1
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL HEADER SHEET
Fa um of urt laam. m AR 26.11. No praM"nj pricy a Od6C4
COM
OFMAN& OFFICE or-mm TELEPHONE FAX NO.
8YM901. (AUTOVONICommj (AUfOVONICanm.)
fRO?
TOs
:7-b ?ti ?orti•
mAsmicATm PiiECEDENCE NO, PAGES OATE•TIME MOI?f?M YEAR RELEASER'S SIONATUFIE
fkwjLg"
He?dsrl / / ? ? / 1`
RFau?RICB
Ag
-
8pao• Below for cammun/eado"m caMr? UN Only
OA FOAM 391", JUL 90 OA FOAM 20is t, AM ?219 OSSOLM

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
April 14, 1994
To: Steve Tedder
Through: Boyd DeVane
Greg Thorpe
From: John Dorneq
Subject: Review of Texasgulf Draft Environmental Impact Report
The Wetlands and Technical Review Group has reviewed the
January 1994 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the
Texasgulf, Inc. Mine Continuation in Aurora, NC. The comments
outlined below are the result of our review of this document as well
as extensive field work in May 1993. Please keep in mind that the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) cannot issue a 401
Water Quality Certification until we receive the Final Environmental
Impact Statement.
Permit Time Frame
The Wetlands and Technical Review Group believes that
Texasgulf's choice of a 20 year horizon for developing mining plans is
an excessively long period of time. During this time frame, changes
in technology and the economy can potentially alter the appropriate
conditions of a permit. For a project of this magnitude, it seems more
practical to issue the 404 Permit/401 Certification in increments of 5
or a maximum of 10 years to allow for amendments of these permits.
Alternatives
The DEM has defered the economic analysis of this DEIS to the
COE. To this end, please keep us informed of any additional
information on economics or changes in the COE's interpretation of
W %
this information. In light of the COE's findings to date that
Alternatives D and E are economically feasible, there is a need for an
expanded alternatives analysis of mining scenarios that may also be
economically feasible.
1. "No Action Alternative" - The "no action alternative", which
involves only mining upland areas, has not been thoroughly
examined in the DEIS. This alternative should also be presumed
economically feasible unless the COE's economic analysis proves
otherwise.
2. Modification of Alternative B - The DEM has developed
another alternative as a result of extensive field work in May
1993. This effort involved use of the "Third Version: DEM
Wetland Rating System" to determine wetland values on the
proposed mining site. As a result of this effort, we are proposing
that the COE investigate another alternative that is a modified
version of Alternative B. This alternative is obviously only an
option if the alternative of "No Action" or Alternative E is proven
not economically viable by Texasgulf to the satisfaction of the
OOE
In general, our field work involving freshwater wetlands
showed that riparian systems, streamhead hardwood and
bottomland hardwood forests are most important for water
quality, water quantity, aquatic life, and wildlife habitats. .The
values of brackish marsh communities are well documented and
these communities are protected under the LAMA.
This modification of Alternative B, therefore, involves avoiding
all of these critical wetland types and providing an adequate
buffer to protect these areas from adjacent mining activities. A
300-foot buffer was chosen based on the scientific literature and
best professional judgement. Work by Phillips (1989) on the coast
of North Carolina suggests that a 300-foot riparian buffer is
necessary to filter runoff for all soil types and roughnesses. In
New Jersey, in sensitive resource areas, development of any
intensity is not permitted within 300 feet of any wetland.
Moreover, work by Golet (1976) suggests that leaving a 300-foot
buffer of forested or otherwise natural vegetation adjacent to a
wetland is important to maintain the habitat value of that
wetland. Brown et al. (1990) determined that riparian wildlife
buffers should be at least 300 feet to be effective travel corridors
and habitat. In North Carolina, Brinson et al. (1981) found that a
zone as large as 600 feet within a stream or open body of water

appears to be the most heavily used by terrestrial wildlife. In
light of the intensity of a phosphate mining operation which
essentially removes entire watersheds and replaces the
watersheds with substrate which will have unknown hydrologic
behavior, it is the belief of the Wetlands and Technical Review
Group that the largest, yet still reasonable buffer size of 300 feet
should be chosen.
The green shaded areas on the attached map were determined
by drawing a 300-foot buffer along the edges of creeks and
brackish marsh communities. Where no creek boundary was
present but there was a bottomland hardwood system or a
streamhead hardwood forest, this buffer was drawn from the
edge of that system to 300 feet on either side.
If the green shaded areas are preserved and Texasgulf
maintains the hydrology of the streams, there should not be
substantial degradation of water quality or aquatic life in the
streams or wetlands.
Mitigation
1. Mitigation Plan - Since a complete mitigation plan is not
included in the DEIS, the DEM recommends that a detailed
mitigation plan be prepared and submitted as a supplemental
document for review by participating agencies and the public
prior to the submittal of the Final EIS. This plan should also
include realistic estimates of the cost of mitigation since the
practicality of the mining alternatives may vary depending on
these costs. The DEM is planning to work with Texasgulf, the COE,
and other agencies to develop this draft plan for public review.
2. Performance Bond - The mitigation plan should include
provisions for a performance bond from Texasgulf to insure that
wetland mitigation will be done in a timely manner.
3. Mitigation Schedule and Criteria - The DEM will work with the
COE, Texasgulf, and other agencies to develop a mitigation
schedule and success criteria. These criteria should be
enforceable through the performance bond.
Operational Considerations
Texasgulf must make provisions to insure that the hydrologic
functions of unimpacted wetlands and streams are protected from
r .
adjacent mining activities. Maintenance of the current hydrologic
balances in these streams will be required. Texasgulf should propose
a methodology to maintain this hydrology.
We appreciate another opportunity, to comment on the DEIS. We
have devoted substantial staff time evaluating Texasgulf's mine
continuation to provide a thorough evaluation of the existing wetland
resources on this property. If you would like to discuss any of these
comments, call me at 919-733-1786.
LIST OF REFERENCES
Brinson, Mark M., B. L. Swift, R. C. Plantico [and others]. 1981.
Riparian ecosystems: their ecology and status. U. S. Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-81/17.
Brown, Mark T., Joseph Schaefer, and Karla Brandt. 1990. Buffer
Zones for Water, Wetlands, and Wildlife in East Central Florida.
The Center for Wetlands. University of Florida. Gainesville, Florida.
Golet, Frank C. 1976. Wildlife wetland evaluation model. In: Larson, J.
S. (ed.). Models for assessment of freshwater wetlands. Publication
No. 32. Water Resources Research Center. Univ. of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Phillips, J. D. 1989. An evaluation of the factors determining the
effectiveness of water quality buffer zones. J. Hydrol., 107: 133-
145.
cc: Jim Mulligan, Washington Regional Office
Bill Schimming, Texasgulf

i
N
Jm LLJ Y
.. h
Z? LJ

Q ? ?n
~ O
N N
w

N
om °
?I a
-j x
G W c
rC co
v

t. /
/ a
o
q ? f ry. „si N W
h 9 ` f
0
sY t?.-.
N
M ? h
I
h
° h
L
O n G''
r ` n „ n
a
o o m
U m W W m \ ^ ?\
w
w ? a a
Xx m r gyp-- gyp- J\ ?\?\\\n J
W O 7 y p Y W W ? YZ? ,?l c
0W I g
U K Cj lOi d = p p ?`,
W O
O Q ? 1 W ~? 6> W ? •'?G
° o Z w c? a 2
w U o a o a o a p p Q }_ o W z a
z v o o v o a z. s d d h a ti 3 p a
lJJ I c? ?
l i ? ,

,
Texasgulf ,nc.
May 27, 1994
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Dept. of EHNR
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dorney:
JUN L WETE.Aaz__,4
WATER U$
hank you and the other DEM staff for attending the interagency wetland mitigation
T
planning meeting held at Texasgulf on May 17. 1 appreciate DEM's participation in the
discussion and the staff's willingness to be open and express opinions and comments
regarding wetlands mitigation at Texasgulf.
As you recall, one of the issues discussed was the designation of an area that would be
considered "on-site". Texasgulf proposed DEM sub-basin 03-03-07 for being "on-site",
however after agency discussion, it was concluded that the sub-basin boundary went too far
north and east. I stood at the screen at the front of the room and held the pointer in an
alignment that the agency personnel present all seemed to agree was about right. Based on
that consensus, and after studying the map further, we have revised the boundary for on-site
mitigation to that shown within the yellow boundary on the attached map. This boundary
includes most of the drainage of Pantego, Broad, and Pungo Creeks as they drain into the
western side of the Pungo River.
So as to make progress in our specific mitigation plan to be presented in the final EIS, we
are requesting DEM's written concurrence that the area within the yellow boundary on the
attached map be designated as "on-site" for the purposes of wetland mitigation. If you have
any questions regarding this request, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
? (Y ?,L.ithfss
J rey . Furness
Environmental Scientist
JCF/re
Attachment
PC: Jim Mulligan/Roger Thorpe/Deborah Sawyer, DEM-WaRO (w/attch)
15-04-005-06-01 (w/attch)
00-14-000 (w/o attch)
Phosphate Operations
P.O. Box 48
Aurora, NC 27806
Phone [phone]
elF
am
ar
'S

aungq uaw'.
T U
(pes!ne)j)
Bead uo!Je6!j!W el!S-up
o-£o-co u!see-qnS W3a
papn!Oul puBI !BUO!I!ppd ---- yes
o-co-co u!see-qnS W3a
pue to lozoeo 1!un ,
016010apAH •S•!D•S•n
A3>l

j ?I
41W
Vll? f I

TflE NEWS & OBSERVER
SUNDAY, MARCH 13,1994
I advise and enjoin those who direct the paper
in the tomorrows never to advocate any cause for personal
profit or preferment. I would wish it always to be "the tocsin"
and to devote itself to the policies of equality and justice to the
underprivileged. If the paper should at any time be the voice
of self-interest or become the spokesman of privilege or selfishness
it would be untrue to its history.
- from the will of Josephus Daniels, Editor and Publisher 1894-1948
elf s 'makeup'
Texas
The green tinge Texasgulf Inc. is trying to give its image can't disguise
the history of pollution problems at its Aurora operation - Exhibit A
against its plan to mine 3,000 new acres of protected wetlands.
exasgulf Inc.'s recent ad-
vertising makes the big
phosphate firm sound like
the greenest environmental
knight since John Muir. But the
record shows that Texasgulf acts
like a good green citizen only when
and where public opinion and regu-
lators compel it.
. As the Army Corps of Engineers
weighs letting Texasgulf mine an-
other 4,600 acres near Aurora,
including 3,000 acres of federally
protected wetlands, it must re-
member that record. It must ignore
Texasgulf's spurious eco-preening
- and heed the sound, reasoned
environmental concerns raised by
the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation.
It's true Texasgulf hasn't recent-
ly been charged with the gross,
in-your-face air pollution violations
that once typified its Aurora opera-
tion. And the firm is finally recy-
cling wastewater - as much each
day as the city of Charlotte uses -
that for years carried into the
Pamlico 3,000 pounds a day of
phosphorus, plus other junk.
But these changes arose mainly
from pressure - regulatory, envi-
ronmentalist and public. Not until
the state whacked Texasgulf with
big-headline fines did the firm get
serious about cutting its air toxics.
Not until research spotlit the dan-
ger to aquatic creatures did Texas-
gulf get busy recycling, not dump-
ing, wastewater.
Texasgulf says the "most cost-
effective" way to develop its new 1
stretch of phosphate lands is one f
that would destroy all but six acres
of the tract's 3,075 acres of protect-
ed waters and wetlands. Any less
destructive option would reduce
profits. But as long as reasonable
profit still ensues, what's the mat-
ter with that? Where is it written
that it's OK for a corporation
mining nonrenewables to maximize
short-run profit without taking ac-
count of long-run costs?
No one wants to stop phosphate
mining at Aurora, but Texasgulf
has several alternative ways to do
its 20-year expansion. The most
sensible is to mine only the upland
acres for about 10 years, during
which economic or technological
changes might reduce the risk or
end the need to mine wetlands.
Texasgulf implies that anything !i
less than the high-profit option will
put at risk the 1,200 jobs and $50
million payroll it brings poor little
Beaufort County. Hogwash. Texas-
gulf is big business: annual sales
$3.5 billion. The record shows it can
and will adapt to environmental
realities when it has to - and still
make plenty of money.
[)0(J
n

0
Tim Valentine was there.
you, Congressman Valentine,
ive always stood fast for North Carolina, for our state's
and industries and workers. And you've delivered.
ve face another difficult test. A cigarette tax increase
)uld wipe out 30,000 North Carolina jobs ... on farms ...
cries ... in every business in our state.
ys ago, 17,000 people who make their living from
traveled to Washington to speak out against this
Lx. And there you were, carrying the message of
ping men and women of North Carolina.
you for speaking up for North Carolina.
??rrwo!?
T
AC
The Tobacco Action Coalition is an association of tens of
t --, ' "ire irnd a!z^?2szr?? ,.dn,rF. .., ..1..,.._ 4-4. ,... -4 1_
Jam
ENVIRONMENTAL I
DEFENSE FUND
APR 99 North Carolina EDF
NT. 128 East Hargett St.
Raleigh, NC 27601
Fax: [phone]
April 21, 1994
Colonel George'L. Cajigal w ,
District Engineer - MA°f,
U.S.,Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
..Wilmin ton N.C. 28402-1890
RE: Draft EIS Texasgulf Inc. Mine Continuation.,„:;:
Dear Colonel Cajigal=
Please enter into the public record for the above-referenced
matter the following comments of the North Carolina Environmental
Defense Fund.
These comments are based upon my work since 1985 related to
the subject tract, first in my capacity as Resource Protection
Branch'Chief for the N.C. Division of-Coastal Management, then as.
Special Projects Group Leader for the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management (DEM), then as Director of the.
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study (APES), and finally as Senior
Scientist for the North Carolina Environmental Defense Fund. I
have worked on the Texasgulf.facility.and surrounding lands'.in
great detail, conducting technical analyses of Clean Water Act-
related issues (NPDES permitting and wetland permitting) ,and
impacts of changing water quality in the Pamlico River.- I was -a
primary author of the first major DEM publication on water .
quality-concerns in-the Pamlico River system, and deeply involved
in the design of the current nutrient reduction strategy for that
basin. I also developed the integrated nonpoint source pollution
control/wetland restoration approach which is included in the
APES Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Proper
management of Texasgulf's extensive'holdings on the.Pamlico_River
is critical to the long.-term.health of this most important
estuarine system.
I base my comments on over ten years.of'scientific work on
the function, values and management of wetland systems: I have
conducted technical research on North'Carolina wetlands.since .
1976, and am the author of numerous technical and popular
publications on wetlands. I hold a Ph.D.`degree'in Biology from
the,University of North Carolina.at Chapel Hill, earned by
conducting research on the biology of North.Carolina'wetland
systems. My current interests and research focuses on the
National Headquarters
257 Park Avenue South 1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W. 5655 College Ave. 1405 Arapahoe Ave. 1800 Guadalupe
New York, NY 10010 Washington, DC 20009 Oakland, CA 94618 Boulder, CO 80302 Austin, TX 78701
n [phone] [phone] [phone] [phone] [phone]
?`V/ 160% Post-Consumer Recycled Paper
Colonel George L. Cajigal
April 13, 1994
Page 2
restoration of degraded wetland systems for water quality
protection.
I have visited the facility and the subject lands on
numerous occasions over eight years, both as a state official.
discharging my official duties, and as a staff,member of the
Environmental Defense Fund working on waste discharge and wetland r es
issues related to the facility. I also participated in an in-
depth field.evaluation with state officials of wetland functions
and the draft DEM wetland ranking system on the lands at issue in so ins
the draft EIS. rre-.-?

other commenters have addressed the need for strict e-?ierfi.
sequencing with respect to proposed activities in wetlands at
Texasgulf. We concur with the analysis of this issue prepared by
the Southern Environmental Law Center for the Pamlico-Tar River.
Foundation. Clearly, strict sequencing is required in this case.
Losses of wetlands must be avoided where practicable, minimized
where not practicable, and mitigated only where unavoidable. A
supplemental DEIS is necessary to present a thorough analysis of
a full range of. alternatives, including a true "no action"
alternative; certainly, the Final EIS (FEIS) should include such
a-thorough analysis. If a.true."no action" alternative is
adopted, then the mitigation-related comments below become moot.
My other comments pertain to the nature of the mitigation
program required of Texasgulf once losses have been irreducibly
constrained. Because of the extremely important and sensitive
nature of the receiving waters adjacent to Texasgulf lands, a
usual approach to mitigation .(i.e., an ad hoc arrangement
developed by the perpittee largely in response to cost)' is
unacceptable. The kind of landscape modifications proposed at
Texasgulf will cause significant short and long-term degradation
which must be accounted for in the design of mitigation plans.
I'have conducted initial discussions with Texasgulf,
including Vice President for Phosphate. Operation Tom Regan, about
Texasgulf's approach to wetlands, and an integrated mitigation
scheme for this critical region. Basically, the idea would be
for Texasgulf to sponsor the preparation of a .regional wetland _
restoration/mitigation plan for the South Central,Pamlico,
targeted on pollution control and other wetland-related.. -
environmental,outcomes. Ti,:?xasgulf's mitigation plan, if one is
required once losses are unavoidably constrained, then would be
linked to and provide the principal impetus for this overall
plan's implementation. Mr. Regan seemed agreeable in principle
to this approach, if agency staff would agree that it fulfilled
the company's mitigation obligation.. State officials have also
Colonel George L.' Cajigal
April 13, 1994
Page 3
reacted-,positively. The opportunity to develop such a plan is.-
further discussed later.
The DEIS is totally inadequate in its treatment of
mitigation planning for this permit. The likely effects of
mitigation gone awry are too serious to leave the details to the
permitting process. The mitigation-related material presented in
the DEIS is sparse enough that no objective technical assessment
of the feasibility or adequacy of,the.mitigation proposed by
Texasgulf is possible.
The serious nature of the changes in the landscape
contemplated by Texasgulf must not be underestimated. Phosphate
mining and subsequent manufacturing requires the disposal of
large amounts of solid process wastes (principally gypsum,
calcium sulfate, contaminated with trace constituents
concentrated from the original ore, including some
radioisotopes):.; At Texasgulf,,this material is combined with
phosphatic.clays (so-called "fines" or "slimes") and disposed of
on'"mined-out" land. Once capped, these areas take on an
elevation much greater than before mining (to accommodate the
increased-volume represented by the gypsum). Therefore, the
aftermath of decades of mining on the subject lands will be a
totally artificial landscape of much greater topographic relief
than before mining.
.Once reclamation is completed,.those lands will be subject
to enhanced erosion due to the artificially large topographic
gradients involved, necessitating careful planning to prevent
covering soil and then waste gypsum/phosphate fines blend
material from migrating downgradient with stormwater. Without
proper watershed management, this material. might even move
offsite, constituting a delayed direct discharge.of process
wastes. At a minimum, sediment mobilization will be enhanced,
resulting in higher than normal sediment loading to receiving
waters. Management of the site in a totally vegetated condition
would undoubtedly slow the pace of such erosion, but cannot by .
itself.achieve a long-term solution.
It is likely that careful design of. ponds and wetlands on _
the resultant landscape could contain much of the eroded material
for `long periods of time, if they were designed for that purpose.
On"the other hand, moving sediment would.likely threaten the
integrity of those wetlands unless accounted for in their design-,mining nature of the watersheds involved should be''
Thus, and shown to maintain adequate levels of
water quality protection for the long-term before the activities
involved are permitted.
Colonel George L. Cajigal
April 13, 1994
Page 4
Wetlands constructed on the tract itself after mining should
likely be viewed as pollution abatement mechanisms for pollution
associated with the permitted activity. The long-term integrity
of those wetlands is essential; their functionality may well be
threatened both by their artificial nature and by the artificial
watersheds in which they reside.
The outcome of creating wetlands on such a landscape is
uncertain. Wetland creation is at best an art, particularly for
forested wetlands like those now and originally,on this tract.
This nebulous state provides substantial: additional reason to
emphasize avoidance and minimization in this and all wetland
disturbing projects. Careful planning about water.movement in
the artificial soil strata which would underlie wetlands created
on a reclaimed landscape, and sediment fluxes on this landscape
would be necessary before one could confidently predict that such
wetlands would persist. Moreover, substantial periods of time
are necessary for the development of natural vegetative cover,.
and for effective water and pollution handling patterns to
develop. (These concerns are much greater in the case of created
wetlands than restored ones.)
The uncertain outcome of this process suggests that
compensation offsite to supplement wetland creation to achieve
normal watershed function onsite is essential to-provide an
adequate level of protection for the Pamlico River, and the
certainty of:adequate wetland replacement for wetlands allowed to
be degraded or destroyed
.The clear guide for,the process should be no reduction in
wetland function or value at any time during the process. That
is, wetland restoration offsite should be sufficiently advanced
'to constitute a plus on the'wetland value ledger equal or greater
than any given minus at the time such a loss is allowed.
Moreover, the location of the offsite "pluses" should be
carefully chosen , not only to maximize likelihood of persistence
and functionality, but.also to maximize the pollution reduction
potential from other portions of the basin. It is likely
possible to design an integrated wetland restoration plan for
existing hydric soils (degraded wetlands) throughout the
immediate Texasgulf-influenced watershed that can achieve net
wetland enhancement and a net improvement in pollution control at
- all times during the mining process. Such a plan would require
careful design, strict implementation and extensive monitoring to
be successful. The plan should target wetland creation to
maintain a viable landscape on the mining site and restoration to
offset wetland value lost during preparation`.of the site for
mining and mining itself.
r _
Colonel George L. Cajigal
April 13, 1994
Page. 5 -
If any alternative is allowed which results in wetland loss,
then the mitigation plan associated with that loss should be
designed during the EIS process to demonstrate that the required.
mitigation is technically feasible. Similarly, a showing that a
sustainable landscape without unacceptable pollution levels.can
be achieved on the mined-out areas must be made at the EIS stage.
These issues are simply too important to leave to the permitting.
process. Once adequate plans are designed and approved,
requirements to implement those plans should become conditions of
the permit.
I.also recommend that comprehensive monitoring be conducted
on.the performance of restored and created wetlands involved in
the final mitigation plan, and that approval be granted for any
allowable wetland fill in stages so that the success of previous
mitigation activities can be considered in the permitting
-process. At any point when wetland losses exceed wetland gains,
future losses should be disallowed until additional gains are
available to offset prospective losses. The. experience in 7
Florida and elsewhere suggests that simply assuming that required
mitigation plans will be implemented is naive, and that
implemented-plans will function as intended is hopeful at best.
Finally, I suggest that the wetland "problem" at Texasgulf
may really.be_a.n opportunity. All of the options presented in
the DEIS would result in major wetland losses that would have to
be mitigated. If it is clearly demonstrated that less damaging
.options are not feasible, it may be the case that substantial
mitigation work will be necessary, once appropriate mitigation
ratios are applied. This mitigation burden, then, could.provide
the basis for developing an integrated wetland management plan...
for the entire South Central portion of the Pamlico River Basin.'
Government agencies at all levels should work to assure that
whatever mitigation plan is ultimately approved is fully
integrated, providing an important model for offsetting wetland
losses in critical estuarine watersheds elsewhere.
My comments can be summarized as follows:
1) Mitigation planning is appropriate only in the context.of
unavoidable and minimized wetland losses. All of my comments on
mitigation are predicated on the presumption that appropriate
sequencing takes place.
2) Mitigation proposals presented in the DEIS are grossly
inadequate. No assessment of their adequacy or effectiveness is-
possible. The sensitivity and value of the receiving waters
makes comprehensive analysis of all mitigation,plans essential.

Colonel George L. Cajigal
April 13.,. 1994
_
Page ,6
3) A complete analysis of a full list of alternatives, and
complete mitigation plans should be presented in a supplemental
DEIS and then in the FEIS.
4) An approvable mitigation plan must be integrated and tied to
acceptable control of water-pollution from the subject tract and
its watershed.. Texasgulf should prepare a plan for lands under
development for mining and for reclaimed, artificially elevated
lands after mining that protects offsite water quality values for
the long term.
5) An approvable mitigation plan must feature restoration offsite
and creation onsite such that no, net losses of wetlands function
or value occurs at any time during the mining process.
6) An approvable mitigation plan must account-for uncertainty in
wetland restoration and creation processes, and must include
adequate performance monitoring and safeguards.' The plan should
become part of the permit if and when issued.
7) Because of its proximity to an estuary of national value and
concern, any Texasgulf wetland mitigation plan should be held to
high standards. If properly designed and implemented, this plan
could become a model for other projects near sensitive estuarine
waters..
Thank you or the opportunity to comment on this critical
DEIS. I look forward to the production of a more expansive
mitigation plan, and am available for discussion of the concepts
provided here.
Sincerely,
Douglas N Rader, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
cc. Mr. Tom Regan
Dr. David McNaught
Mr. Preston Howard
Mr. Lee Pelej

Statebf North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Hdaith and Natural Resources • •
D+.isign of Coastal Management rr
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor now jiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ID E H N R
Roger N. Schecter, Director
?Mrlv1
June 10, 1994
Mr. Jeffery C. Furness
Environmental Scientist
Texasgulf, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Dear Mr. Furness:
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the recent
interagency meeting concerning Texasgulf's plans for mitigating the
wetland impacts associated with the proposed mine advance. It was
very informative for me since I personally have not been closely
involved in detailed discussion of that subject.
Your recent letter to me asked for the Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) to endorse consideration of mitigation within the-
modified boundaries of the Division of Environmental Management's
(DEM) sub-basin 03-03-07 as being "on-site". I have considered the
discussion at our earlier meeting, discussed your proposal with
various staff of our Division and concluded that we cannot concur
with your proposal.
Your proposal to mine approximately 3000 acres of wetlands from the
Hickory Point area will remove them from the headwaters of various
small tributaries of South Creek and Pamlico River. While
replacing the lost wetlands within the designated sub-basin may
maintain a wetland balance within that sub-basin, it will not
adequately offset the potential impacts to water quality within the
smaller watersheds. DEM developed the sub-basin designations for
reasons unrelated to implementation of any mitigation requirements.
We feel that using those designations for that purpose neither
provides adequate resource protection, nor, is consistent with what
DCM attempts to achieve with its mitigation policy and review of
mitigation proposals through the federal consistency process.
DCM is working on a program of advanced identification of wetland
areas that have been previously impacted with the goal of
identifying areas that may be good candidates for mitigation using
P.O. Box 769, 3441 Arendell St., Morehead City, North Corolino 28557 Courier i11-12-09
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equo' Opportunity Affifrn&ive Action Employer 5096 recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
'A ,I
restoration techniques. our approach in this program has been to
identify hydrologic units within discreet drainage basins. These
units are much smaller than the sub-basins established by DEM, are
being identified specifically to foster good planning for
mitigation and are much more appropriate to use than the sub-basins
for that purpose. We will be glad to provide you with the mapping
that has been completed for the Hickory Point area if it will be of
assistance.
This Division has no preconceived notion about the merits of any
wetland mitigation your company will propose. We will continue to
cooperate in every way possible with the development and review of
those plans. However, we cannot agree with your proposed
designation.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at any time if you wish to
discuss this matter with me further.
Sincerely,
Preston P. Pate, Jr.
Assistant Director
cc: Roger Schecter
Terry Moore
bcc: Steve Benton, DCM/Raleigh
Ron Sechlar, NMFS/Beaufort
Jim Mulligan,DEM/Wilmington
John Dorney, DEM/Raleigh
David Dell, USFWS/Raleigh
David Franklin, COE/Wilmington
JUN 1 3 1994
H REG OFFICE
J! W ?I6,
St of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William T. Hogarth, Ph. D., Director
Jeffrey C. Furness
Texasgulf, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Dear Mr. Furness,

09 June 1994

Post-It- brand tax transmittal memo 7671 p 8 •
7b
r ism.
J/

pePt_ Phone #
Fox w ? Fex 0 ?
This letter is in response to your 27 May 1994 correspondence regarding the term 'on-
site'. At the 17 May 1994 meeting Texasgulf proposed to use the DEM Sub-Basin 03-03-07 as
the area in which all mitigation activities would occur and to call this area 'on-site'. My
impression was most agencies felt the Sub-Basin was too large and should be constricted in the
direction you've indicated on the map enclosed in your 27 May letter. I don't think there was
a consensus on the exact boundary for the mitigation area.
To call this broader mitigation area 'on-site' to me misconstrues the normal meaning of
'on-site'. 'On-site' to me means the project area or very near to the project area. Mitigation
area is a more appropriate term.
The concept of upfront mitigation requires that initial mitigation activities must occur
outside of the project area, but does not exclude follow-up restoration/mitigation in the project
area. From the standpoint of the 'on-site' fishery resources, the Division of Marine Fisheries
would like to see restoration/mitigation activities that emphasize the restoration of hydrology and
habitat at the project site.

Sincerely,

Katy West
Biologist, Central District
Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue. Wosnington, North Corolino 27889 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affi motive Action Employer
TO 19197331338 P.01
X4V?••
C>?HN1?
TOTAL P.01

JI

p ?
q'
°&tCao
"c
__CAR
l ( p
jQl-
CLWO b (QiP (?
ri1c4 SI ??
k/
1A 6A 1\G?a I\/IV? 67?i?iA T P
0
&j4
OA ,....,, ? )fiOnLf
,
svi
±-

J
- , 1
ck&
- 1---- ---- ¢?-- 1
gal
C ?p ???" "c1 Q ? t
f WVIA I

0
tGN,r?ue?
_, ------------
_
o_
64
--- ayr-
h A
i . " ter.` V ?._.-..
?i
O
n
VV\
_--
4j Q)<o
V?? V?A-crAJ aitkl 110aldA
will 6ua?_
VvIi
R 1
K
D
AGENDA
Texasgulf Wetland Mitigation Interagency Meeting
May 17, 1994
1. Introduction
II. History of NCPC Tract
III. Wetland Types in Alternative B
IV. Existing Wetland Creation/Restoration Projects
V. Mining and Reclamation .Operations
VI. Discussion on Specific Mitigation Terms and Concepts
epku,,hrwuOG maa J-CU'A ?ry9 da?
cip? be?B° d
4 vj
6K
w
/lI?'1?/1 F QrL GAN ZA 77 OrJ l?/fdN
I?JW 49
32z - 9239
7e M4AGK ,vas dam 3 zz - ?y
411'
5g ?o
? ?=C??11(J ? 322^ 82??Z
?a??,? ?ran.?c(+? (?S'r4c? l9/0) 2s/-f?9S2

1719 7'.33 ZZ73
DCy?n
? o- z s

C/)?? ??? zero N aro a? '>><
O -1 O
C: CD CD ? O
Q O -t O • t t t _ : ?:z ::..:z::::
CD 0 CD 0
C'D
77
CD
W CD
1
f

\0 00 00 00

W U N
00

•
?'
•'
?
M co

' •w't y- amt wr??y.1 n?'t P w

O°
:i.
!.
'
.
';:
"w"t go
•
}
fir `? ?+ 5 . o
:::
.'•

(D O O. ?+
CD (D
Q.

nt :?:M1
CD CD fD [ `
x e..
CA '0-
'o CD x w•:$t;
fD r+
y
I- y"
* ° fD C
CD fD
11, -0 CD
E;
d 0
Z goo CD CD 8
_p '-1•
06
co n co :C4 pn
w co
G' c0, 6' , Qq ' C1 °' G' y Q. to 7r <
w 0 CO co %0 CA
El
te pr
• 0
0 0 C '
' p ° ° y
C
D f
D r
r
O
z CD w
CD O O. 0 -1. = " M =r
CD W CD '0
co CD
&n cz
En o W

C) CD cr G
-j -0
CD (A CT
CD

CD CD

ZC/ zw w CD Cl)
.
5
CD 5
CD o y ao w a cD 5. w
::t 5. : >t <s
OQ CD (7. CD CD

CA

0
(IQ
w
44 CIO
0

o

0 C,
co
W
cD
?. "
" 8

e r
.

cD
,::.;..
CD
;:<{ ,.
t
1.y?
? ri X
1
r+ .
cc
??!!
C y C 3
] `. y
CA rA o
r 1 p. CA y
?- ;• •}.
ca C,)
0 CD

H
.CrQ
to
a
y
9.
v.
n
a

a
C'D c? a o
9 .

C 'Go
C
D
o CD
?.
N N
M'i
?O ?L7 ?D ?p "o

N N VI l / S{:r^;::

yyam1?..,:.;;:;:}:•}:

1 .h..,.,
?•?ri}}}fir+r'.
CO W

CL Cl.

.
•..
..
:
r
N A7 (S ?? !!(
?
{..ti.
:
.,?
CD co CD co

Nil

,11
0

0 0 0 cn
!
(V !
CD !!
CD

rir::•rrY!'

'

(D
Q.
CT
O a.
CD ZI
C3. CD f/J
G. "?{ C9
urn:;,
;.:

'- O O Q On
O
r-y O(Q .-y OrQ rn dQ Q
?
o M ?-
•
ly, 1"1• rf ?y E? r
t2
'' rr •'•'
:
'•}•yrVw{
04 a4 a? y r
CD (IQ a4
a. a a. ca' . a 0, ?-3 w a

(D CD 0 co

s

i
GAi 4--c ? n ?- MIN
? -
P-0 l r"
i
e
a
t
PA
P i?
-- _?? AMA .,.

v

?tl ---/lno,?ua
f1 T ?????
1

a

A d o --r l
l