20030447 Ver 1_Complete File_20041013

s
INCORPORATED
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1725
CONSULTANTS
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TO: Ms. Mary Alsentzer (PTRF)
Mr. John Dorney (NCDWQ)
Ms. Becky Fox (USEPA)
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness (PCS)
Mr. James M. Hudgens (CZR)
Mr. Scott Jones (USACE)
Mr. Tom Steffens (NCDWQ)
Mr. David M. Lekson (USACE)
Ms. Maria Tripp (NCWRC)
Mr. Mike Wicker (USFWS)
Dr. David McNaught (ED)
Mr. Ted Tyndal (NCDCM)
FROM: Samuel Cooper and Julia K. Berger
DATE: 12 October 2004
SUBJECT: See Below
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
Mr. David Moye (NCDCM)
Mr. Jimmie Overton (NCDWQ)
Mr. Richard Peed (NCDLR)
Mr. William A. Schimming (Potash)
Mr. Ron Sechler (NMFS)
Mr. Ross Smith (PCS)
Mr. Tom Walker (USACE)
Mr. Sean McKenna (NCDMF)
Mr. Bob Zarzecki (NCDWQ)
Mr. Terry Moore (NCDCM)
Mr. George House (PCS-Brooks Firm)
Ms. Kathy Matthews (USEPA)
Fkf-a:? 2- 0MR
D
0 C T 1 3 2004
® Attached via UPS
WETLANSAN SAURMWATERBRANCH
Copies Date Description
1 12 October 2004 Final Detailed Minutes of the 2 June 2004 meeting (13th }
1 7 October 2004 DRAFT Summary Minutes of the 2 September 2004 meeting
(15th)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED: ® For review ® For your information
REMARKS:
There were no edits made to the Attachments between the draft minutes and the final minutes for
the 13th meeting. Please refer to DRAFT Minutes for the 13th Meeting for Attachments.
PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS ON DRAFT 15TH MINUTES BY 27 OCTOBER 2004.
Signed:
Julia <. Berger
1061 EAST INDIANTOWN ROAD • SUITE 100 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5143
TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • [e-mail] • www.CZRINC.com
O
W O ?OO?MMO?i[1cOt1I000OtOrnN000fN0-?
p,*Wr?,M 0f?0000wo0w 01-0-tw N
00 00 O
r- 0
00 6N6N06 0;600010.-6 000NIl4 Or1-i r: O 6
C) O
O wool-Nrrrn r- dmml-mlt -0)
-NNM0 if) NN d
N co
0
t? N
P

m, 4
W
°
?m
P w a
w
J I xO 0 O ? wO Z
g
? W

a U m o
W
a
0 UJ co 13 ?ag? o w ow p
Z
m o
co-)ow I-x 0? ?Q ° o\

A mNm V)< w LLJ
w
p
c

A 0 G _

O
0 a
4
LL. ?p LL. _j
5
W Q po m
O (,
W

A r r ° ° a I LL
i?
=) 1--m (nw
WU' O
Q?ZOZ
? ?
W?
<
j
P , h VII-Mn, O-? O Wp 07LLI0n I
3D Q?ZiIYEMW OUQma3o?apaO?=, Q
° ! r ° ° O Z z Q zm Ww1z Zm0 00 OU A A WMWMWax?aXZ0 a0:0:ZmXZzxz Ix ut z
° z omaWmmxv?ax5aau Ms(nFEM ato zz Q a g
.4 w kl
viaaa-zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz°zzz z°000000000 zz O
zzzz zzzz z 3
r ° A °° o Wamo555555H
5 5 r r m ; ° ° U ???l??1?l o?aaaaaaaaa a
z c? 3333333333 a 3»»»»> 3
°
°
a ° !? N `? r O m A O
O------1 .- r ?-- 4N
r ,, A • W NMd u7?01?000).-r r r r r r NNN
W
P r ° ° ° d • J
° r r ? ° ? ? a d
°
A ! r? ° b I i ° ?
P N 0 r, r r ? m ° °
a` y A ° 0 ? a 0 ? 0, ? + s
?0 mil v ! r r'y ? ' r
0 a 01 r A
? J y A
! ? A I co
A A N r r ' r A i A
? i ?`°• i+ r0 i° ° r A
A ° r 0
i
n r ° A ? N
A Ia
L, ! ,? A ? A 0 ° a y
y
A ?' t 0 ? r (?. a
° A ! CI iry
° ? ? A ; ° i Pd
I A 0
P
N '? OA y 0 ;?'?,Y r
r
° y r I P P, • P
A ! 0 N r ! ° ? 4 P
r
P ?' r r
?P ! ° ?a A? `?? y P
`N A i ?\ r rt0 co • • !
??AJp r ? r,
0 0 'm m A
CIO
0 r Ai ° ! a ! A:
C
°
0 r
F
IU6
Q
0
O
O
40
M
O
O) L'
Y<]N
0
N
lp V
n
N M
m m n
m W
N cc
m
^ co r N
m m
n
m\ m n m
?m
^ m mm n co
\
t2 an m
N ^ n
n V m m n m
n n ? n n m
m
to
N m co n
N
m m
In ^ N
mm
N W m l
N n
m m m, n
m 01
rn m
m
m m co
rn ^
1? m m
n ?
rn m co M
rn ?
m °i m rn ^
m m ? n ? n
?\ m
m
m n m
n to
N
co N m Ml N
m
m n m
0 N N
m m
m
m
m co n f f m
rn
LO
m ^ m
N
m n ? m
iy m ro
m
m m
m m ? m
N m n
m? N co
m m
O 0"WNNON-oOC-ONWOtnoo wow r N
O ONMOOfltpONOgNOMNNt0a1Ndt?7 O 00
0-ppp0
F to
lONt0w Itt ooOnNNMWNWN O
N N lO d• N N N - co
N tV
w t?!) <
Q
0 o 4 0 2 o o w
J z
m Wom O wm 0 I<-
0 z
w 03MQ '°a ow mN o m
a OvWj (nQ w wQ tea: V)
S mzWS w< WZO
MAcn??ooMQo t?0mzwx mg?
a?S -o w M o M o
N Q?jj F I
O Wj ?M p0 ZOZWm0U 0%w OWi W;
W6 0 wu w
z m-j w-m0mgQ- Li- maO?? DI o?o°H>
m z()z?UQ?IYm WaWWOUZ ZmmaanWOV I U)
z pJwmmm=Vd=5aaw ?W2ZQXZQoo m cr
0 mm =w0-=MCLw<Z Q
o
Z0000000000 Cl 0
?O•aIN ZZZZZZ zoacc 0000 0 Z
LAJ
Z LLJ o m--ri5:5 0 rij tz?i o ad oCLaILa? a
m c 3333333333x3» » » » > 3
0 I O -N4 ?CDN000)O?N
Z NMIt U) t01^000)-? - rte' NNN
O
M
N?
to
0

? d
a m
EE m ^
m O n
m ° n °(1n r?
`J m
o n
m N m
m N m n
m
co
N
P.
° N
?.
d•
m
N m m co O O
N
m
O
n m mm m m N ? ' ', ? d• rn
rn m m N ?
O 0? M m if1 m
?U/??()I rn m
VI ? rn rn ' m '-
m rn ^ m m O N' m m
?. O^ m 0? l ink O O
m N m rn \\\tLV\ °
rn N m n co to m m m c7
m m m
N m m rn m
N m N N
m m n U O
N
' m
m ro m m ^N
co m
m ? V ^ N .-
m
m co
n M n / m
O f
m n N m N
q rn m m . o
._ 1 m
1.1
W
a
0
11 °0041"?DtQ?aN?tONis1MON R w
+ a Q +? w
N a}o ? ? m
w
W Mk
8 MP v
z Wz
a $ , 02 d
m cr U
i 00 z
z
mQ_ °'
p Z ??J` W W (y?? y? [
A R F F ? ? ?5?30.?? ? _ = G t""
n°? a s ?? ?oooooooccc o? ? ??? ? W
« p R ^'E ^ A p ^ N ?3333333i33?3?]7??? ? N? O
? V! N
A a« e V Q
= F ^! s = « 0-N11):tAaPWQi?^?
NMMRfrOhaOa?.•?.-??.-?.-?NN
L = « A ! " A « O
« m
A a s ! S? a 8? « A C ?,
M ^ " a
• _
« F F
n a a ^; •
n = ' ^ W6
C ! E " + A n
a
- f O
! " p " A
^
eA
• a
e p
A ! « t3
A ! it
e p
« ! r
b " +
" s O
+
Y
n o A • A
.¦ ¦ . .A a A_ R
n ¦ _
u + • A ' a
s
! • E
!
•
a +
p O OOwoO?;moan ONOOCDtA0)0400f N M O
S 000 ?f-00NNInOfOOMOitIN601?r NOOfI? a M N C
00 N n NiN40; 000i0in N4W 000(0 00 4
8-0 0 Lr) p co rn 0) (D U) (D M M 0 0 0
N W
* OD NNin?NC NN - d O
M M tV N Q
e- ? ^ W
p it
A; J 0 w IL
A° 0 0 O 0 W j..cl
Z
m
m (a 83M2 ° aV m? ° z CL IL
n °w ww o ma
0
a p x tom QQ w w V
e o . p "?tn CK?0 I m? Mom O Zo dOC
r p.. "p d j °wW I Cw9 Gy/?(U?li I w? Z ali
n , "• e OJ w ?CntnrI W I .5°? ° wo ~oZ?°w g vW
Fl n 4>1 0: z° a tn?V 06: zw ?O_x 12> d16
W W
N ° W X03 4?2o1?ao°ap° a maiawm-I %
a o ° >° w°zaa?owiZMX 8 mwww°?z o z 3 °C 0 6
w a 3° amuJ ?mmxina xz xzA°0 % w d 0 0
p 0 z W O Itna Ma Q z Q =
r p r A u ° A e? 16; Ya°.a_c°°°oooo°° °zz° ° 3 V yyy O
s 00o amp °5ggsg <ao
r ? e 0 cai ow cr - W o aaaaaaaaa a n
r m .° z z ZW 0 3 3 a»»°»» 3 0 m
° r i+ N ? e P
p e I r N r
p
N
A A p O?NMdIA101?000?
NM,-t Ot0r0001r_r_-.-r•?.-.-?-.-N ON N
:'? a. ° e i P A N P
?
• o r
n e Fl A / A?A P ; 141 ' e IM6
A rV e A r h -'r V N p 0
`p, r p
1
r
i
N it 0 i?p e P ? ? P e
?
n ° ? n p p
r a
rp a k r p
J p
r °
° n ? Fl ? J r. i P r H '
N
e r ? P '
e
p A O.
P V
p ? r °n fe
r ?
n ° P p P
° ° . A r p L, f
e 1
A 0 ?J Li r Ip r ? p G
r
0
?C
???0 ONNN'fI±?F*
OI?WMf?aN? QFO,?Ot? O??C??I??
OCj4A??lgwdyQw*
?
? OOD

Od p+ iB M
?
w
? m
0
?j 8 8
W Z
ON
W@W
.R_00000 00 00 0000000
NM?hvft01,000???:.?-??o??NNN
D
O
a
I
u
a
e

f, N4 NC 8'CJ 72$RI rl%OW000NpNpNprMnN0? O O
t0 M M Q4lN^Q??O?OOO*O0 ?t(Ot?M0?001 N 0 w
M N ?n C%
a
w Z,
w < ZWO
LLJ o (D o ° Z ?QW
$wm °
0 g ao 8 mW 0 VO W?
rg a OP
M
w°°WO VV 00
z?zGS to
11
o n !j WN]OQ: ?QU lilNmZW C'F ZC O
P n P o° ? NVQO I mW ?? I J<
Z LO
P * A a a 0- °??F"°Z G7 0]Vl<OZ I W?(9
t
J Z?
GJ F il:
rdl 20 m444JJJ 9 2,8ZVZZ kalwZXZ
zz
w o xP°dm( ? 00- 0-0-v? xv=ia a Q°z
?
a o p I 44000000000
° N UUI RWtY COOOOOOOO 0 i? G
p . n a n a.' ° I). 0. a8WQ m 2 °zs5s ee p a
U 00 wz o aaaaaaaaa a n 0
s pp Z 2 2lYU d ]]]]]]]]] 3 D d m ,
a n P n ¢ n
O?Nr•'Md L0(01?NO) 0
N .-N
Nld io(0r, Go01' r -I - n- -- -NNN
a ,' p
t
t
f p r,.d n f t1
A
t a ° N
? p pr • :? ° p n r • n p a
p , ? ?a n a. f` r
r
p ? ° ° i
A ? ; .f r i P e i? ? t °
p p ? „ rP O , p
•° J t a
a n n ° n a
p t
,r
N °• ' d
p 1 ° ?
t n
• N ? ° N Nt
4
o
° ° p
r, • a a
e
n. p
P a
° f g 1°
P a
p
r p
n
r p
n •,. P
r =
p
r
all 0
8 9 8 02P9r 0000f 8S&8MNN"I 00fN0* N8 _0 ? u 0
O
N
??pp ??pp oopp ?p
pO Oi fN0 OtO?hr NOri&?NOON
t 3
I"
0
oD r N N if! d N N ? N ?
N N N N N 44 t?
>--- 1 O
w z S

cn U
o ?- w ?- a ? p
z

? m
o lm CL
w o w ° ZD 4W
n m m $ +OW ° g 0 z 02 Tiv
N pp (S? W m m 4 Z
m '° ^ m w U t pCjm m? WU Q,Q1 O
C U i4?
m N
a : m ron u n j ~ N UROM W < O Oz
zg <
c< F ?°'?f7j< m hn Z W II W °U UW< W
??2 ayO? Z OW IOG ¢? J z
^ I ?0 3W? O m o Qcf) ° <V ma; ??o I 3 3
n e^ U W CIO) !E z iU WOZ2 BZz ??0: WaMz = o
b N M - I - A !
m m \?W2°o0°0000°O °XU=)I M(LA<z
n m to n' W Yaa_ nn-o-mo-mmmm 00000000 0 Q CO
W z z z Wam" °z g H?H O o o a a m W
? m? ? U 3 333333x3»»»»> 3 ° ? W
m
? ro ? n m ? O-NM?NfDI??OWO?N N O
m c m n n NMd u1?01n0001.-- - .-- -- -- -NNN
m. ?.
i?
90
m
N CI m..
m n
cn ca
m +
m co
m O
n n
b ? h

m n ?
nm m
? m? n
n u +

N
A

FI ^
n
N m n i?,. + e n
W
m n
ry
A
co
O

a °° m
n

n m
^
n O n y
IV n m
O m O lN,\
m n
n O ff'

go
n n
ro
to
?
C
m
1
{V
^ fD N m m P O C

y ^
K'
a co
m N co
n
w N y? m
m O O N
`It
j ~ m m °?
in
f m O
' N n
H
W 1p

... n _ ^

(
m] m n
N

N -
n „
n Y
A m m N
N
a ? N

m m
^ ?

N

n
m
c
b m co N
m p O C
W N co N
n n
m m n
N
N
m b
? N
m
^ n 41 n ,U ..

0 m n
m. n' ?' .n m
n O m
m
m n N O n
n n
m?
I??????pMfOCOONtN?^tppCNptNtM tG
g C,
I? AM'?Nt NO?O-.n b N
K'0 G
OD
0
Y.
8
8 gj ? W ? Z
51 C8
:23
N
lilts 0
ij 0y?W.-c?W ?dNmFIl LL
g m a?Ze I ao1
MMMIMMI? ?? ?WmeW o
MMMpa Z? ?p Z XZ ?j woe
_Z ?ff
?? ? ? y???0000000000 0000000000
ton am?
?-.02 C4 NNN

D
F
oc
99
c
e

p ©© I.MMIP. 00 8p") .-0*:w ?to00N O M 1"11
8 O O NI?N?OpO ?Oq 17(7p!•-?O (gC!kq?fI N S
co O00dCNN?NM O^? N L Q 10
Cli M M N cV N
L&J W Mr
P P A u N H V
I O W 0 a F?
Z a
A • Y QQ0m a WCD O Z
ago
9 g ° P m q
8 9u m? oon lx 6RmzH UW m2 Q O WO? L) O?
° r o A A 0 w :3 ? FOW O?Naw V' 2 5 I?' ?
9 QoQ?Zv?
ZV 90 ~(?f }IQ aOZ- z
a f n O 3>V =W?OWffi xZ? 19WZ XZOXZ M Z ?' O
W O ?O 0 m? 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0: 0 a W W
z xw o 0 W xvla 2-a <z
' a _
• ¢ 000 O 0 H O
A ? ( W Ulan- 000000000 O U
a u u w cr
O aae aaaaaa a
A z z zo: u a»»»» > 3 d m Q,
I
t op , , Pp
° n f d • A NMd'IC1?01?0001?.^-?M-??????NNN ((yy?? a'
0 r p : ¢ pr P
A
A r A P O ?. t
+.. A P f 5 L
n 4
p • N + r n ? 0
P A? ? n. P ? f? p i
r ? Q
f ° f + i
FO :A r. p
n °
P
° °rp p P , ro? ? n n
¢ n
f
p ? A
rf
n 0 A 1 °
P ? 0 ? .III
n
•
A d
N ? P, P
A
° r R
? ? r n P
n P pA ?
•
A A t I'M , P A A
? r
A f r
r ', ` f n
A i. Z
P r ; • ' ? ° C A f f
r ?
0
C f ', T
r C
A
o 0
pp?p??y?y NM?pQ pp ppff M? ?p ? a
S 8 g 0fp0?NIn1?C?000tt010N4MWNif GOryd ItNApp?
a W
r NN?dNN N o Q d
N N N N ? ?? a C
Lai
F aIs
m F,^ g Z?W>o U
n u ? p
U5 Z
q n Mf A W }!1 ' 0.7 z
H LL7 L
p n a W° 8 0 °'
g gwg ° U a LLI o
° z
m m n n n a ^ ?? GJ? 0 Q
Z IL
z
n n A ^ mm < m m m O W mw 41 WW W c? m? a <
Z!- QO }? ?Z F ILz
m„ a a cN a W W cy?a Z ? I wgg 3 3 a
tl NF?3 Z W D O
? U WHO EZ°a ZO° J? I
Q
n n° ^ C m w p UVZ
z 3? Y m a I? U y N
w O 11ILL)? c
Q$ ?Z°ZZwW°z? z H N
o 0 0 o°W Wpmww m09=8a ME Q. xr=na?Ma ?z % % Q 3 < 00
aiaa-ccocccccco co oncccccc ° c m ..
W
D
?q n n ° ® ® mw w. a .?_»__» :3
A m 0...
m pp
n `? 0•-NMd?IItpl?pp01
m NMd IfItO1- 00 01.-?.-.-.--?..-. NC " N
NN
m m
A n
A CO, m
w
A °i m n
m
m m. ? '. n n N
m
tl n
n Q
to
n- m ? ^ nt m
m
f m
n to
n a N n' ? ? n m n
m A
n ?
A
N ? n A O
tl
m m n
n p n
n n` ? ? m
n n
ar A O
n u n
tl m n n? n n
n m
co
?v n
m^ n lml m Nj,_.?N n
m n q0 1UJ (' A
N m m m O
m n
n (? p? Am m n n n n. O :O O..
pp m
r ?, _. Ml N O n
to n p
n ? m n o
N m M n A.. ?_ ? ? N
m W n p N'•
m N m Ln Go
n n O
b m a A co n n ?:.n
n n A n ? n
N
m n n
? m n n n in
m n
m m ? n
? o m
A n - n.
n _ ? n
In n cca
s +?8 8$OD 00 fl ?
ad r d +
a
z
a
WE Ws W 1s
?? _o cooooooc a o00 0
NM+N?OPEOO/?????+..:tOrOD?NNN
D

a
In
li
O
0

,C
ZR 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
INCORPORATED WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1725
/IRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
MEMORANDUM
TO: See Distribution
FROM: Samuel Cooper, Julia Berge
DATE: 12 October 2004
RE: Minutes of the 2 June 2004 meeting for the PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation
permit application review.
1 The 13th meeting for the review of PCS Phosphate's Mine Continuation permit
2 application was held at the Washington Regional Office of the North Carolina Department of
3 Environment and Natural Resources on 2 June 2004. The following people attended:
4
5 Tom Walker - USACE
6 Brooke Lamson - USACE
7 Mary Alsentzer - PTRF
8 Larry McSwain - PTRF
9 Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate
10 Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate
11 Tex Gilmore - PCS Phosphate
12 George House-PCS/Brooks Firm
13 Sean McKenna - NCDMF
14 David Moye - NCDCM
15 Terry Moore - NCDCM
26
16 John Dorney - NCDWQ
17 Jimmy Overton - NCDWQ
18 Tom Steffens - NCDWQ
19 Maria Tripp - NCWRC
20 Mike Wicker - USFWS
21 Richard Peed - NCDLR
22 Samuel Cooper - CZR
23 Julia Berger - CZR
24 Jim Hudgens - CZR
25 Becky Fox - USEPA, via speaker phone
27 The meeting began at 10:10 and followed the agenda shown in Attachment 1. Mr. Walker
28 opened with an agenda overview and description of hoped-for accomplishments for the day's
29 meeting. First item under review was the length of permit and Mr. Walker indicated that the
30 Wilmington District has been in conversation with EPA and others and the Corps has issued
31 permits, at least in the Jacksonville District (Florida), with lifetimes of greater than 20 years. He
1
1061 EAST INDIANTOWN ROAD • SUITE 100 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5143
TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • [e-mail] • www.CZRINC.com
ti
32 pointed out that expanding the scope would limit concerns over Piecemealing of the project
33 however, he acknowledged that discussions of Piecemealing typically center around projects
34 involving impacts much less temporally separated than those under consideration. Mr. Walker
35 did acknowledge that management of many aspects, including mitigation related items, may be
36 more difficult with a longer permit.
37
38 Mr. Wicker indicated that he likes the longer time period but wondered if the permit was for
39 40 years, for instance, would avoidance areas be avoided forever? Mr. Walker replied that
40 avoidance would be avoidance within the project area specified for this permit action. Mr. Smith
41 clarified that PCS would accept avoided areas within the permit project area but does not want a
42 longer permit timeframe to limit PCS' ability to expand the project area in the future. Mr. Wicker
43 commented that a longer permit would seem to embrace the NEPA process instead of just
44 delaying impacts and that a longer permit is probably a better permit. Mr. Walker stated that in
45 this scenario, PCS could move to other areas outside the current project area but would not
46 reapply to impact previously avoided areas.
47
48 Mr. Moore questioned how the process would accommodate advances in either mining
49 techniques and/or mitigation design. Ms. Lamson pointed out that some tension exists between
50 the advantages of long-term planning and the possible disadvantages associated with short term
51 and/or current knowledge being tied to the future. She gave the example that future advances in
52 mitigation techniques may not be captured if upfront mitigation is employed.
53
54 Mr. Walker said that the permit conditions could be written with windows requiring new
55 techniques to be evaluated at periodic intervals, although any mitigation which had received final
56 approval/signoff from all necessary agencies would likely not be revisited nor required to be
57 changed to reflect new methods etc. Mr. Moore stated that CAMA permits are good for three
58 years and renewed after two years and that CAMA would be looking for some language in a
59 longer permit that would allow for review to capture advances in technology.
60
61 Mr. Wicker reiterated the point that if PCS did mitigate in advance of impacts, then they
62 would not be required to change their methods, but if they don't mitigate upfront they may have
63 to accommodate new rules and new methods.
64
2 10/12/2004

L
65 Mr. Walker replied that the first permit had a staged mitigation approach and that maybe that
66 would be good to repeat for this permit. Mr. Steffens reminded the group that within a 40 year
67 permit, rules and laws are bound to change, not to mention the group of reviewers, and there
68 must be an opportunity for interim reviews. Mr. Wicker said these windows need to be defined at
69 the beginning of the permit process; he does not want a 50 year permit with deferred mitigation.
70 Mr. Walker stated that it is common practice with 404 permits for mitigation to be concurrent with
71 impacts, so it shouldn't be a problem. Mr. Smith wanted to clarify that changes in rules/laws
72 might also benefit the applicant and that it is not just a one way street.
73
74 Ms. Lamson asked the group what kind of review they would like. Mr. Moore suggested
75 every decade. Mr. Furness said there are two parallels that provide an opportunity/example: a)
76 the current 401 certification does have a 10-year review condition to demonstrate to DWQ that
77 no change in technology has occurred that would reduce impacts and b) a mine permit with DLR
78 is only good for 10 years anyway, before it needs to be renewed.
79
80 Mr. Walker stated that the group needs to establish what aspects would be revisited during
81 this periodic review. He suggested current mining technology, mitigation technology, mitigation
82 success, and rules and regulations as some items to consider. He stressed that the group must
83 anticipate and be responsible for compiling this list. Mr. Furness stated that it sounds like the
84 review process could result in a refinement of activities that were permitted. Ms. Lamson
85 indicated that this process sounds very reasonable, but the team would need to decide what is
86 examined and how often these issues would be reviewed.
87
88 Various members expressed concern about not wanting to create a situation where PCS
89 escapes by being "grandfathered". Mr. Walker said that the agencies would need to work
90 together to develop a periodic review that will best address agency concerns, including CAMA
91 and 401 issues, as well as changes in buffer rules, and clarify retroactive issues.
92
93 Mr. Wicker said that he wanted to avoid PCS being able to exploit the benefit of time
94 through their understanding of "rate functions and business practices", items about which
95 agencies are typically less aware. He said that he would like to create incentives for upfront
96 mitigation such that they would be in PCS' best business interest. He said it very likely might be
97 to PCS' benefit to do mitigation upfront as ratios could be higher later.
3 10/12/2004
98
99 Mr. Hudgens stated that the pattern is set already with the last permit where PCS
100 demonstrated their good faith by taking considerable risk in putting a whole lot of mitigation in the
101 ground upfront. Mr. Wicker said he is not convinced that PCS' past mitigation has been of any
102 benefit to the environment of North Carolina. Mr. Dorney thanked PCS and CZR for all the
103 upfront mitigation done in the last permit process. Mr. Dorney said mitigation success is a
104 different matter but he wanted the group to know that DWQ is grateful and that PCS is about the
105 only entity in the state to have done this.
106
107 Ms. Berger allowed that it would probably be a natural outcome of the process anyway, but
108 that permit conditions regarding the periodic review should clearly state a time frame for the
109 agency comment period during review windows.
110
111 Mr. Smith asked how the Wilmington District would conceive of this list and wondered if a
112 draft could be generated now. Mr. Walker asked if by "now" Mr. Smith meant this team process
113 or by 11:00 today. Then Mr. Walker stated that between today and the next team meeting (14
114 July) the agencies would meet regarding this list and a list of procedures about how agencies will
115 weigh alternatives. He wasn't asking for input now, he wanted people to begin consideration of
116 what to include.
117
118 Mr. House wanted to know if "when and where" were going to be permitted but "how and
119 what" is going to be left somewhat open to this decadal review process. Mr. Wicker said that
120 what he had said earlier might have been misunderstood and acknowledged Mr. House's prior
121 demonstrations of dexterity with language. Mr. Wicker said that he is cautious by nature and he
122 doesn't want the environment to be on the short end of the stick. He just wanted to be clear that
123 once mitigation is successful that there is closure.
124
125 Ms. Lamson said that maybe the permit could be written so there is a requirement phase
126 and an incentive phase, i.e., that by first/every 10 years, x acres at y success criteria must be in
127 place but that the applicant can do more at current ratios ahead of the 10-year schedule.
128
129 Mr. Walker summarized the previous discussion by saying that no one minds looking at a
130 longer than 20 year plan in its entirety for a permit as long as there are windows for review at
4 10/12/2004
131 some intervals agreed upon by the group. He said through a sequenced timing of mitigation,
132 with as much up front as possible, the plan should be worked out to the satisfaction of agencies.
133 He also said that accommodating changes in regulations and rules may be a bit more
134 problematic. Mr. Overton and Mr. Dorney agreed.
135
136 Mr. Walker then inquired whether the Purpose and Need statement needs to be revised. He
137 asked should reference to "20-year" be removed so that it would read "economical mining of
138 resource that's available" or something like that? Mr. Smith said that PCS would begin some
139 sequencing alternatives right away. Ms. Lamson remarked how different the tables are this time-
140 last EIS it was the agencies who were arguing for long-term planning and the PCS position was
141 considering shorter time frames. She reminded PCS that sequencing must show minimization
142 and avoidance.
143
144 Mr. House remarked that there will be many permutations of alternatives. Mr. Furness said
145 alternatives will be different years but include the entire project area. Ms. Lamson said maybe
146 there won't be as many alternatives as Mr. House thinks. Mr. Smith said maybe large scale
147 limiting factors will reduce the number of alternatives which provided the perfect segue to PCS'
148 presentation on Cones of Depression.
149
150 Mr. Smith introduced Tex Gilmore, PCS Chief Geologist and Superintendent of Mine
151 Planning who presented a PowerPoint show on Split Pit Depressurization and shared the results
152 of an evaluation of six different split pit scenarios in the NCPC and the Southern Area
153 (Attachment 2). A cone of depression is created from each pit and depending on distance
154 between the pits; the cones may or may not overlap. In combination with depth to the aquifer,
155 the distance between pits dictates the cone definition and distance of effect. The evaluation was
156 completed in 2002 by Leggette, Brashears and Graham and did not include the Bonnerton area.
157
158 In order to access the phosphate ore body which is buried under an overburden of -100 feet
159 of material, Mr. Gilmore stated that groundwater must be lowered and controlled during mining to
160 maintain safe dry conditions. Influx of groundwater can be catastrophic as it can create
161 instability in the highwall. Dry mine-pit conditions are necessary to provide stable slopes for
162 equipment, to improve stacking characteristics of spoil, and to reduce dilution of ore. He showed
163 a slide of the typical geologic section for the area, showing the relationships of the overburden to
5 10/12/2004
164 the ore and to the underlying Castle Hayne aquifer, drawing attention to the eastward downdip
165 direction of the regional geology. As a result of the dip, the Castle Hayne aquifer is found deeper
166 underground in the NCPC area compared to the Southern Area (and Bonnerton), and is deepest
167 in the northeast portion of the NCPC tract. Mr. Gilmore said the depth of the aquifer directly
168 affects the cone of depression created with depressurization.
169
170 He told the group that PCS has numerous wells scattered over several counties that have
171 monitored effects of depressurization since the 60s. This database gives PCS a solid
172 understanding of the long-term patterns, behavior, and tolerances of the aquifer as it relates to
173 PCS depressurization activities. The phosphate ore body lies directly above the cap rock that
174 pressurizes the Castle Hayne aquifer. However, the bottom 10 feet of resource must be left
175 undisturbed and unrecovered in order to maintain integrity of the aquifer. Operating under
176 Capacity Use Permit CU 1003, PCS is limited to withdrawal of no more than 78 million gallons of
177 water per day. A total of 9 million gallons per day of the permitted amount is dedicated to the
178 processing requirements of the chemical plant, reducing the daily withdrawal limit for the mine
179 operation to 69 million gallons per day.
180
181 Drawdown models were used and calibrated for split pit mining locations that varied from
182 three to eight miles apart in the six scenarios evaluated as follows:
183 ? Scenario 1 - northeast corner of NCPC Alt 1A and the northwest of Southern Area
184 (S33)
185 ? Scenario 2 - north end of existing mine permit 7-1 and the northwest corner of S33
186 ? Scenario 3 - south end of existing mine permit 7-1 and the northwest corner of S33
187 ? Scenario 4 - northeast corner of NCPC Alt 1A and the north central area of S33
188 ? Scenario 5 - south end of existing mine permit 7-1 and the north central area of S33
189 ? Scenario 6 - south end of existing mine permit 7-1 and the northeast corner of S33
190
191 Mr. Furness informed the group that when PCS first opened NCPC under the current permit,
192 Block 26 in the east edge of Bonnerton was being finished up at the same time. This was the
193 first split pit mine at the Aurora facility and the pits were 2.5 miles apart. The first slide showing a
194 cone of depression demonstrated this 2001 - 2002 split pit with roughly circular concentric
195 isolines showing depth to the potentiometric surface of the aquifer and a cone of depression
g 10/12/2004
196 measuring approximately 25 miles at its widest point. Mr. Gilmore indicated that the typical
197 diameter of the cone of depression effects has been 17 to 18 miles.
198
199 Results from each evaluation were displayed showing the pumping adjustments necessary
200 to insure that 10 feet of material remained above the mine floor at both pit locations of the
201 scenario in order to maintain pressure head in the aquifer. The scenario results are summarized
202 in the table below:
203
Split Pit
Scenario Million
gallons/day Pumping centers
distance apart - Cone of depression
diameter at widest point
1 90 8 miles 35 miles
2 82 7 miles 34 miles
3 70 5 miles 29 miles
4 93 7.3 miles 37 miles
5 75 4 miles 31 miles
6 73 3 miles 31 miles
204
205 As shown in the above table the only areas that can be simultaneously depressurized within
206 the permitted CU limits are the south end of NCPC and the northern most corridor of the S33
207 (Scenarios 3, 5, and 6). Important conclusions of the evaluation demonstrate that increased
208 distances between pits; 1) decreases the amount of overlap of depressurization cones thereby
209 increasing the diameter of the overall effect of depressurization and 2) increases the amount
210 needed to be pumped from each area to achieve a safe drawdown level for mine operation.
211
212 During Mr. Gilmore's presentation, Mr. McSwain asked about mitigation for salt water
213 intrusion and said that he had read/heard that the levels in the Castle Hayne aquifer were
214 dropping. Mr. Gilmore replied that PCS has not had any salt intrusion in any wells and that
215 chloride levels are a parameter that PCS is acutely responsive to and monitors closely. In those
216 cases where a citizen or user has lost the prime on their well due to PCS' depressurization
217 activities, PCS has covered the cost of either a new pump, new pipe, or drilling a deeper well.
218 Mr. Furness asked Mr. Gilmore to please address the comment made about dropping levels in
219 the Castle Hayne.
220
7 10/12/2004
221 Mr. Gilmore mentioned a report from Dr. Spruill which included data from a well at Cox's
222 Crossroads that has shown a drop of 1 foot over a 2 year period, but that he personally has not
223 read nor does he have a copy of that report. Mr. Gilmore stated that continuous charts of PCS
224 widely collected well data do not show any change in levels of the Castle Hayne. He also said
225 that the recharge potential of the Castle Hayne is incredible and that their depressurization wells
226 must be running all the time because of the artesian head of this aquifer.
227
228 Mr. Wicker asked how fast the water would come back up if PCS ceased pumping. Mr.
229 Gilmore replied that the pit floor would be ruptured in a matter of hours but that it might take
230 weeks to destabilize the mine bench. Mr. Wicker reminded the group that uses for the
231 depressurization water had been explored briefly in the past by the team but wondered what
232 about after the mine closes. Mr. Gilmore replied that they have,-an agreement with Eagle Water
233 to use/market this commodity, but Eagle Water has not had any success as yet.
234
235 Mr. Smith said that the Castle Hayne is different geologically and therefore hydrologically,
236 from both the Cape Fear and Black Creek aquifers. These others do not recharge as rapidly.
237 Mr. Gilmore remembered a paper from a study in the 70's (by DeWeist) showing a 280 million
238 gallon per day recharge for the Castle Hayne. Mr. Smith acknowledged additional evaluations
239 would be studied that included Bonnerton. Mr. Gilmore said that the 78 million gallons per day
240 permit limit was designed to cover the worst case scenario.
241
242 Mr. Walker inquired if it possible to predict how far you could split the pits and stay within
243 confines of the permit, for instance, could you go to 90 million gallons for a short period? Mr.
244 Gilmore replied that Dr. Spruill felt that 78 million gallons per day could be sustained for a limited
245 period. Mr. Smith said that based on the past that Dr. Spruill would probably say no. Mr. Walker
246 suggested asking Dr. Spruill what would be the maximum withdrawal rate to maintain health of
247 the aquifer over a 2-year time frame. Mr. Furness said that this will be one of the large scale
248 limiting factors to be considered.
249
250 Mr. Smith listed other large scale limiting factors which included:
251 ? Minnesott Ridge (Suffolk Scarp) - encumbers mine operation because of additional
252 overburden (extra waste handling) and input of additional water in the pit. Mr.
253 Furness added that PCS has no intention to mine into base of the scarp;
8 10/12/2004
254 ? Economic practicability;
255 ? Minimum operational pit width;
256 ? Minimum production rate of 5 million tons of ore/year - potential does exist for
257 examining short term windows (example: week or month) that could go below this
258 rate; and
259 ? Need to minimize pit width changes and ancillary mining areas - rectangles are best
260 as every turn dictates a loss of ore.
261
262 Mr. Walker gave the floor to CZR who sought agency feedback on Dr. Skaggs' preliminary
263 scope of tasks to study potential effects of drainage basin reduction associated with the new
264 areas proposed for mining. Ms. Berger reminded the group that CZR had prepared a brief
265 summary of the Skaggs proposal which had been included in the packages for the 12th and 13th
266 team meetings and that some of those present had also attended a presentation by Skaggs
267 describing the approach and results of the NCPC creeks study. She indicated that PCS was
268 anxious for the study to begin because of the time needed to gather the baseline information.
269 CZR asked for as much upfront comment as possible from the group to avoid later "second-
270 guessing" about procedures and methods. Mr. Cooper said that Dr. Skaggs proposes to do a
271 baseline study similar to the NCPC creeks study, applying the same methods where
272 appropriate, and then compare alternatives for potential impacts to each watershed. Mr.
273 Furness said that watershed definition comes first and then baseline flow monitoring. Mr.
274 Wicker mentioned that flow is predictable by watershed but Mr. Dorney commented that low
275 flows can't be modeled and can't be predicted based on size. Mr. Wicker wondered why
276 DRAINMOD should be used and Mr. Dorney replied that this model is more accurate than
277 assumptions. Mr. Wicker expressed interest in a subset of what Skaggs would be modeling.
278 Mr. Dorney said this study will help to know how much to pump into drains during low flow and
279 Mr. House described the study as a mitigation tool for what to put back in place. Mr. Furness
280 said it would also be a useful tool for agencies in their examination of alternatives.
281
282 Mr. Steffens asked about timing of the study and said that he would like to see 1-2 years of
283 monitoring on the scarp. Mr. Furness said that the study could go through the wet winter
284 months if it started now. Mr. Steffens asked if that meant the study would only be 9 months.
285 Mr. Furness reminded the group that at the initial meetings, this information was described as
286 being "required" for future downstream impacts. Mr. Wicker asked about seasonal groundwater
9 10/12/2004
287 flow and how it would be used? He also wants to think about uses of the data so that Skaggs
288 presents the study results with the most utility. Ms. Berger said that CZR brought copies of the
289 complete proposal from Dr. Skaggs for anyone who wished a copy. Mr. Walker asked that the
290 complete copy of Skaggs' proposal be included with the minutes (Attachment 3). Mr. Steffens
291 indicated that DWQ is happy with the Skaggs proposal as it stands.
292
293 The group broke for lunch at 12:15 and reconvened at 1:15 with Brooke Lamson absent.
294
295 Mr. Cooper asked for comments and edits on the draft minutes of the 12th meeting sent out
296 the most recent team package. He distributed the latest figure of the biotic communities of the
297 NCPC area which replaced the figure sent out with the package for the 13th meeting
298 (Attachment 4). Mr. Cooper also reminded the group that as for Bonnerton, the draft figure is a
299 combination of biotic community type and wetlands. He also said that like Bonnerton, the
300 wetlands remained unchanged and only land-use communities were updated where
301 appropriate. He stated that the Corps streams were still being finalized and went over the figure
302 briefly with the group. He referred to a poster on the wall that CZR had hung that showed the
303 biotic communities on top of the aerial photo of the NCPC area.
304
305 Mr. Cooper went on to say that the survey of the Southern Area is complete with the
306 exception of a few flags needed to close polygons. CZR is still waiting on receipt of
307 documentation of the PC (prior-converted) lands in the Southern Area. He said that the
308 Southern Area figure will have three components when it is completed; 1) flagged areas, 2) PC
309 areas, and 3) other areas of upland (roads, etc). When the Southern Area is completed, all
310 three areas will have all their biotic resources identified.
311
312 Mr. Walker said that the agenda had been reorganized from what was sent out in the
313 package so that the conversation could go directly from the biotic community map of NCPC to
314 discussion of WASC areas. Mr. Cooper said that at the last meeting CZR was requested to
315 provide a map comparing the WASC areas to NCCREWS data (also included as a figure in the
316 package for this meeting). Results of the comparison, at least for the Bonnerton area, was that
317 CREWS was better than NWI maps but that it can use improvement. Ms. Berger gave a brief
318 summary of the differences between the jurisdictional areas identified as WASC and those
319 identified by CREWS as high quality (exceptional, category 3) and overall totals of jurisdictional
10 10/12/2004
320 areas identified by the two approaches. It was clear that a jurisdictional determination on the
321 ground is the best source. Some of the differences between the DCM CREWS data and WASC
322 areas are listed below:
323 ? Total Bonnerton wetland CZR/Corps = 2,130 acres;
324 ? Total Bonnerton wetland DCM CREWS data = 1,429 acres;
325 ? Total Bonnerton WASC = 608 acres;
326 ? Total Bonnerton CREWS level 3 wetlands ("high value") = 393 acres; and
327 ? Areas where WASC and CREWS level 3 match = 200 acres.
328
329 Mr. Walker said that the purpose of WASC during the last EIS process was to help agencies
330 determine those sensitive areas that were hardest to mitigate. The group may decide that for
331 the new permit/EIS process the same two criteria in Wayne Wright's 1991 letter as to what
332 constitutes a WASC are still valid-1) areas that preserve drainage basin integrity and 2) large
333 contiguous principally undisturbed wetlands. Mr. Walker suggested that maybe PCS and CZR
334 could proceed with these two criteria and base alternatives on them for presentation to the
335 group. He wondered what happens if the agencies attach a higher value to some areas but
336 reiterated that whatever is done that it must be defensible. Mr. Walker said that while WASC is
337 not a true functional assessment, it does represent the best professional judgment of a group of
338 professionals with a wide range of experience and knowledge dealing with environmental
339 issues. Continuing this process will require much more fieldwork and at this time the group has
340 expressed a hesitancy to begin. He asked what had changed since the last WASC
341 determinations.
342
343 Mr. Dorney said that 50-foot buffer rules are now in place for streams. Mr. Steffens asked
344 about baseline data from the first WASC designations and whether they were field-checked
345 from a regulatory point of view. Mr. Furness recalled that the previous field teams concentrated
346 on the NCPC area, possibly 50-60 sites. He thought that the "pocosin" area of Bonnerton was
347 now a good candidate for a visit since no agencies looked at it last time, nor was any of the
348 Southern Area examined for WASC. Ms. Fox inquired how much size and maturity of
349 vegetation was taken into consideration in the WASC designations. She also wondered
350 whether it was PCS or Weyerhaeuser who had logged those communities whose biotic
351 designation had changed and Mr. Furness replied, "Both." Ms. Fox said she would rather see
352 the potential of a recently disturbed area considered rather than the current age of vegetation.
11 10/12/2004
353 Mr. Walker said it will be either a "pay me now" or "pay me later" scenario; either PCS can
354 develop alternatives using the two WASC criteria as they stand and then the agencies can
355 respond to their efforts or PCS can wait until the group decides what and where is the higher
356 value habitat.
357
358 Mr. House said that WASC was a mitigation tool for avoidance and that WASC were not the
359 same as public trust areas. He cautioned the group about drawing too much from the recent
360 EPA case between Piedmont Triad airport and Corps because the wetland in that case was
361 small and homogenous. Mr. House stated that the team needs to be careful in preparation of
362 the EIS because of the size and diversity of PCS wetlands and the difficulty of agencies
363 reviewing each site. Mr. House advised that everything must be presented clearly and be
364 defensible either through a functional assessment or something like one.
365
366 Mr. Dorney stated that DWQ is working on an assessment tool that should be approved by
367 October 2004 but that using it in its current version for the wetlands in the PCS project area
368 would be extremely time-consuming. Mr. House suggested taking representative samples of
369 each of the three areas with agency input. Mr. Furness mentioned that Alternative D in the last
370 EIS was developed from instructions to the applicant to avoid as many WASC areas as
371 possible. Mr. Cooper suggested that maybe a trip by the agencies to look at some of the
372 communities might be enough. Mr. House said that Mr. Walker will not be able to produce a
373 document using a black box and that somehow it must be expressed that all bottomland
374 hardwoods are not equal.
375
376 Mr. Dorney indicated that if their assessment tool is finalized by October that they would
377 probably insist PCS use it. Mr. Furness reminded the group that their alternatives must be done
378 this summer which precludes use of DWQ method. Mr. House said that whatever "assessment"
379 is done must be adequately described.
380
381 Mr. Wicker indicated that avoidance and minimization (e.g., % wetland impact, % stream
382 impact) could be watershed based and could be a fairly convincing measure for alternative
383 development but that for mitigation, a finer resolution would be required. He asked whether Mr.
384 Dorney was saying that the process should wait for DWQ's assessment tool. Mr. Dorney said
12 10/12/2004
385 that ignoring it just opens the group to criticism. Ms. Fox asked if a stream assessment tool was
386 also being developed and Mr. Furness replied that it is on a separate but similar track.
387
388 Mr. Wicker suggested that maybe pocosins could receive less scrutiny on avoidance and
389 minimization but have more emphasis on preservation of large tracts of this community type
390 since there is not much confidence of restoration of these areas. He acknowledged that public
391 trust areas are difficult to mitigate also, so waterways must be avoided and minimized.
392
393 Mr. Smith indicated that he would like to see similar prioritization of avoidance areas from
394 each group member as it would be a great tool for PCS in alternative development. Mr. Moore
395 said that CAMA's position would be to avoid all coastal wetlands and public trust areas. Mr.
396 Wicker said that restoration should be focused on those areas that are easier to restore. Mr.
397 Smith wondered if it is too simplistic to ask for a list of what to avoid, what to minimize and what
398 is mitigatible. Mr. Wicker said complication leads to procrastination after all. Mr. Hudgens
399 complimented Mr. Wicker's approach and said that designation of WASC was primarily done to
400 insure that nothing was missed and wondered if we even need WASC in this case. Mr. Wicker
401 said maybe not. Mr. Cooper reminded the group that Mr. Walker had suggested the elimination
402 of WASC during an earlier meeting. Mr. Walker said that maybe a functional assessment can
403 be done at the time of calculation of mitigation.
404
405 Mr. House said that he thinks Mr. Wicker is on the right path and that the approach should
406 be simplified. He reminded the group that last time he argued against WASC because he thinks
407 it is a mistake to use a term for which there is no statutory or regulatory definition. Mr. Wicker
408 suggested that the group look at the wildlife impacted and then when it comes to mitigation, ask
409 if it adequately benefits those affected critters. He said there is no way that he can outthink or
410 out maneuver PCS but he wants to reduce their incentive for tricks and humorously stated, "One
411 of us doesn't have to carry the skull of the vanquished to have a good time."
412
413 Mr. Walker said that he is not recommending calling something a WASC, but to use the
414 criteria we have always used such that riparian areas are avoided and fragmentation of large
415 contiguous wetlands area is also avoided. He asked if the group approved/liked this approach.
416 Everyone present in the room agreed. Ms. Fox said that it can be fine tuned at the alternatives
417 stage and that she also likes this approach.
13 10/12/2004
418
419 Mr. Steffens gave the DWQ priorities list that Mr. Smith requested which includes the
420 following areas:
421 AVOIDANCE
422 • Public trust
423 • Perennial and intermittent streams because of the 50-foot buffer
424 • Biotic communities 2 (brackish marsh complex), 3 (bottomland hardwood forest),
425 7 (hardwood forest), 10 (pocosin bay forest), and 12 (ponds)
426 MINIMIZATION
427 Remainder of wetland communities as much as possible
428
429 Mr. Moore said that for CAMA, the green areas of the NCPC biotic communities figure
430 (public trust areas) and brackish marsh complex (community 2) would be areas to avoid. Mr.
431 Wicker said that the USFWS would agree that public trust areas must be avoided, followed by
432 perennial streams, brackish marsh complex, and bottomland hardwood. He clarified that his list
433 is not based on a sense of high to low value, but on a scale of increasing ease of mitigation.
434 For WRC, Ms. Tripp mirrored those previously listed with the addition of 100-foot corridors
435 around streams on either side. For EPA, Ms. Fox agreed with everyone, but expressed concern
436 about designating recently disturbed areas, i.e., logged within the last 5-to 10 years, as being
437 designated of lower resource value due to recent activities under the control of the applicant.
438 Mr. Walker said that the group had basically just rewritten Mr. Wright's 1991 letter. Mr. Cooper
439 said that he wants the group to know that many of the ponds (biotic community 12) shown in
440 NCPC are borrow pits, dugout areas, or hydraulic canals. Mr. Walker asked if there was any
441 interest in a field trip to look at any of these sites.
442
443 After calendar comparisons, the group scheduled a field trip to PCS for 4 and 5 August at
444 the PCS Land Office at 9:30 am and 9:00 am, respectively. Mr. Dorney has never been to
445 Bonnerton and Ms. Fox has never been to PCS at all. Mr. Furness said that the Suffolk Scarp
446 should also be on the list of sites to visit.
447
448 Mr. Walker suggested that an agency meeting take place prior to the next team meeting in
449 order to discuss 1) permit condition windows and 2) framework for alternatives analysis. This
14 10/12/2004
450 meeting is set for 1:00 pm 28 June at John Dorney's office and will be interagency personnel
451 only.
452
453 Mr. Furness said that by the next team meeting they will have maps good enough to begin
454 alternative development. Mr. Smith admitted that they will have lines on paper but no mine
455 plans will be developed until agencies have provided input and alternatives are "tweaked". Mr.
456 Walker requested that PCS try to send out their preliminary plans prior to the 14th meeting (14
457 July) and said that it was fine to not include mine plans or economic analysis at this point. Mr.
458 Smith said that the first pass at alternatives will be totally based on natural resources.
459
460 Mr. Furness inquired whether another team meeting should be scheduled and the 15th
461 meeting was agreed to be held on 26 August at Washington DENR offices. Mr. Furness also
462 asked for input from CZR about likely sites for the 4/5 August field trip.
463
464 The meeting adjourned at 2:55 pm.
465
466 The following items were provided to the group prior to the 13th meeting:
467 ? Summary Outline of Dr. Skaggs Proposed Tasks for Assessment of Drainage Basin
468 Reduction to be Addressed in the PCS Phosphate EIS (dated 2 March 2004);
469 ? DRAFT figure for Bonnerton Wetland Areas of Special Concern and NC CREWS
470 data (dated 27 April 2004);
471 ? DRAFT figure for NCPC Biotic/Wetland Communities Map (dated 27 May 2004);
472 ? Minutes of the 28 January 2004 meeting; and
473 ? DRAFT Minutes of the 20 April 2004 meeting.
474
475 Attachments:
476 1) Meeting Agenda for 2 June 2004 PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Permit Application
477 Review Team;
478 2) PCS PowerPoint Presentation 2 June 2004- Split Pit Depressurization and Cones of
479 Depression;
480 3) Replacement NCPC Biotic/Wetlands Communities Map DRAFT (dated 1 June 2004 -
481 includes linear feet of streams);
15 10/12/2004
482 4) Evaluation of Effects of Drainage Basin Reduction on the Hydrology of PCS Mining
483 Sites, Dr. R. Wayne Skaggs, 2 March 2004;
484
485
486 Distribution
Ms. Mary Alsentzer
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Becky Fox
Environmental Protection Agency
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, NC 28789
Mr. Sean McKenna
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dr. David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Ms. Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Regulatory Section USEPA/EAB
Wetlands Management Division
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. James M. Hudgens
CZR Incorporated
1061 East Indiantown Road, Suite 100
Jupiter, Florida 33477-5143
Mr. Scott Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David M. Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David Moye
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Jimmie Overton
NC Division of Water Quality
ESB Lab
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
16 10/12/2004
J
f
Mr. Richard Peed
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. William A. Schimming
Potash Corp.
Post Office Box 3320
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Ross Smith
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Ms. Maria Tripp
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Habitat Conservation Section
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Walker
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Bob Zarzecki
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
17
Mr. Ted Tyndal
North Carolina Division Coastal
Environment Management
Morehead City District Office
151-B Hwy. 24 Hestron Plaza I I
Morehead City, NC 28557
Mr. George House
Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey &
Leonard
P.O. Box 26000
Greensboro, NC 27420
10/12/2004
- I - - •
ZR 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
I N C O R P O R AT E D WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1725
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
TO: See Distribun
tioC 6t
FROM: Samuel Cooper, Julia Berger
DATE: 7 October 2004
RE: Summary Minutes of the 2 September 2004 meeting for the PCS Phosphate
Mine Continuation permit application review.
1 The 15th meeting for the review of PCS Phosphate's Mine Continuation permit application was
2 held at the DENR Washington regional office on 2 September 2004. The following people
3 attended:
4
5 Tom Walker - USACE
6 Dave Lekson - USACE
7 Mary Alsentzer - PTRF
8 Heather Jacobs - PTRF
9 Bill Schimming - Potash Corporation
10 Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate
11 Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate
12 Jerry Waters - PCS Phosphate
13 David Moye - NCDCM
14 Kelly Spivey- NCDCM
15 Ted Tyndall - NCDCM
16 Sean McKenna - NCDMF
17 Ron Sechler - NOAA Fisheries
30
18 John Dorney - NCDWQ
19 Jimmie Overton - NCDWQ
20 Tom Steffens - NCDWQ
21 Ed Warren - NCDWQ
22 Kyle Barnes - NCDWQ
23 Maria Tripp - NCWRC
24 Mike Wicker - USFWS
25 Richard Peed - NCDLR
26 Samuel Cooper - CZR
27 Julia Berger - CZR
28 Jim Hudgens - CZR
29 Becky Fox - USEPA via speakerphone
1
1061 EAST INDIANTOWN ROAD • SUITE 100 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5143
7rI CL1 17 A7_7 A Cr 0 CAV CF.7 1-7 A7_7C.7/. , --,;.. n, .--I --- * ......... (-7DII\I(- ---
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
The meeting began at 10:25 am on 2 September 2004 at the DENR Washington regional
office.
ITEMS DISCUSSED OR DECIDED:
¦ Next EIS Team meeting (16th) was scheduled for 19 October 2004. It will be held from
10 am until 3 pm at the USDA Service Center in Washington North Carolina.
¦ CZR distributed copies of the draft 14th meeting minutes in summary format. After some
discussion, the group decided on the summary format for future meeting minutes.
¦ CZR distributed a table summarizing the 50-foot stream buffer acreage for perennial and
intermittent streams in the three blocks as requested by Bob Zarzecki at the 13th
meeting.
¦ CZR indicated that WRAP data are available for the three mining areas and that they are
awaiting information (NCPC maps) and guidance from DWQ regarding use of wetland
evaluation procedures/methods.
¦ PCS showed detailed mine plans for the Applicant's Preferred and DWQ Avoidance
Boundary options along with a comparison table of mined acreage compared to ore
recovery by avoidance boundary option (Attachment 1).
¦ There was some confusion about the difference in the excavation acreages presented in
CZR's avoidance summary table and those shown in the PCS comparison table. The
excavation acreages in the CZR table represent draft maximum excavation limits, while
those shown in the PCS comparison table represent excavation acreages from a more
refined mining plan. The "total impacts" by community shown in avoidance summary
table represent the maximum impact within a specific avoidance boundary and include
all excavation and disturbance acreages. In future, CZR figures will only show "impact
acreage" which includes all mining and associated work (disturbance limits). PCS will
present information on recoverable ore.
¦ After some discussion about how to display sequencing details, it was determined that
on detailed agency avoidance mine plans, PCS must show total mine years available
2 10/6/2004
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
per block, not a year-by-year sequence. At this time, the EIS Team is more interested in
establishment of a boundary not a specific mining plan or sequence.
¦ PCS requested help from agencies on intermediate line development between the
agency avoidance and applicant preferred options. PCS was told that the "agency
avoidance areas" provided to PCS at the 2 June meeting were not absolutes; they were
more of a priority listing of communities to avoid.
¦ PCS wants the team to understand that the revised figures of NCPC and Bonnerton
Agency Priority Avoidance boundaries handed out by CZR at this meeting do show
areas which "could" be mined as far as agencies are concerned, but are not necessarily
practicable from a mining perspective.
¦ The Corps will not be permitting a specified time-frame to PCS, but will be permitting a
specified impact area and a specific mine sequence.
ACTION ITEMS (Corps)
¦ Mr. Walker will provide Corps comments on draft 13th detailed meeting minutes for CZR
to distribute to team members.
¦ Mr. Walker will email a spreadsheet of all contact information (phone, fax, email) for
team members.
ACTION ITEMS (Team)
¦ Any team member who will attend a meeting by conference call should be sent all
handouts/presentations ahead of time (usually Becky Fox).
¦ Members were asked/advised by Mr. Walker to review 13th draft minutes carefully upon
receipt and get their edits to CZR in a timely fashion.
¦ Mr. Cooper requested comments/edits on the 14th draft minutes summary within one
week.
ACTION ITEMS (PCS)
¦ PCS must use "Applicant Preferred" in graphics depicting their preferred boundary.
¦ Mr. Dorney requested PCS to prepare an intermittent stream avoidance boundary
including the buffers.
3 10/6/2004
100 PCS intends to have some intermediate boundary lines developed for discussion at the
101 next meeting.
102
103 ACTION ITEMS (CZR)
104 ¦ DWQ requested that linear feet of streams be added to CZR's master summary
105 avoidance table and to the stream buffer table.
106 ¦ All graphics depicting PCS's preferred boundary will be titled "Applicant Preferred".
107
108 The group adjourned at 11:55. Agencies reconvened at 1:00 pm for discussion about
109 sequencing issues and reopening conditions of a longer permit. Mr. Walker subsequently
110 circulated an email summarizing these discussions (Attachment 2).
111
112 Attachment 1:
113
114 PCS PowerPoint Presentation of Detailed Mine Plan Sequences for Applicant Preferred
115 Option and DWQ Avoidance Option
116
117 Attachment 2:
118
119 Corps Summary Email of Afternoon Agency Discussion, 2 September 2004
120
Distribution
Ms. Mary Alsentzer
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Becky Fox
Environmental Protection Agency
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, NC 28789
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. James M. Hudgens
CZR Incorporated
1061 East Indiantown Road, Suite100
Jupiter, Florida 33477-5143
Mr. Scott Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David M. Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Sean McKenna
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
4 10/6/2004
Dr. David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Ms. Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Regulatory Section USEPA/EAB
Wetlands Management Division
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David Moye
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Jimmie Overton
NC Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Jerry Waters
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Richard Peed
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. William A. Schimming
Potash Corp..
Post Office Box 3320
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Ross Smith
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Ms. Maria Tripp
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
Habitat Conservation Section
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Walker
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Bob Zarzecki
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. Ted Tyndall
North Carolina Division Coastal
Management
Morehead City District Office
151-B Hwy. 24 Hestron Plaza II
Morehead City, NC 28557
Mr. George House
Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey &
Leonard
P.O. Box 26000
Greensboro, NC 27420
10/6/2004
ATTACHMENT 1
PCS POWERPOINT PRESENTATION OF
DETAILED MINE PLAN SEQUENCES
FOR APPLICANT PREFERRED OPTION AND DWQ AVOIDANCE OPTION
U)
c
ti CO 00 ? M N O 400 0 O O
e- t~- CN C4 t--
co
U
Q C:) M Lo 00 Lf) Ca I-- o0 v L} CO Cn
C> r- 0) P? CO O N ? P- o 0) CO
0 P- r- " - CT) e•- M P4 N r""
c cl N C\ r- CO L Ic ems-- C F t
?~ G
Q q? .?
? .o "a m
m
o ;a
Q °
" ° :a E
E cc
m -° 1 o
CO a
?.. its ?? !D .Q c o E
'E 4) 0- C 0
C o SD a ?, -zT L GL W .=
I- a CL CL
0- Cf
CL >,
?N (J C= CL ©Q a1 "? Q)
tU CL in
fl. L3 Q v v 'C M M M CL
C) U tJ
C C: a co co
C G C
°'"'°" z z Z co m co co CO U) Z Z Z
ATTACHMENT 2
CORPS' SUMMARY EMAIL OF AFTERNOON AGENCY DISCUSSION
2 SEPTEMBER 2004
Subj; PCS Phosphate
Date: 9/8/20041 1:28:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: "VValker? Wi11?1r7? T SAVV" <?Villiam.T.V?dlker ?vC12.usace ?,rmv.inil>
To: "Becky Fox (F-m,,-A)" <1o Bill
Schimmin<<? 3scf irnminc>>1 otashcorcor?? Bob Zn,rze_cki
<bob.zarzecki(i?ncmail.riet>, David Cox <david.cox(&?ncwildlife.orq>, "713vid t,1 SAW
Lekson (E-mail)"<David.M.Lekson(a?saw02.usace.army_rrnil>, David
McNaught<dmcnaugtrt(c-)environmentaldefense.orq>, David Move
<david.moye(a7,ncrnaii.net>, George House <ghousec?brookspierce.corn>, Heather
Jacobs<riverkeeperpa?ptrf.orq>, Jeff Furness <ifurness?lfpcsphosphate.com>, J=
Waters <jwaters(i?pcsphosphate.com>, Jim Hudgens <czrjimi ao1.com> Jimmie
Overton <iinimie.overtonio?ncmaii.net>, John Dorney<iohn.dorney(?ncmai!.r et>,
"Maria Tripp (E-mail)"<Maria.Tripp(c ncwildlife.ora>, Mary Alsentzer <infoi? trf or >,
Mike Wicker <mike wicker(c?fws.gov>, Richard Peed <richard.peed(a?ncmail.neh,
Ross Smith <rsmith(cr?pcsphosptrate.com> ``Sam Cooper <rzrvrilm(x?ol.corn>. "Sc.,ott
SAW Jones (E-mail)"<Scott.Jonesnsav/02.usace.arrny.mil>, Sean
McKenna<sean.mckenna(c-t?ncmail.net>, "smtp-Sechler, Ron"
<ron.sech1er(c7noaa.gov>, led Tyndall <ted.tyndall(c?)ncmail.net>, Terry
Moore<terr-y.moore n_cmaiLnet>, Tom Steffens toni.steffens[)ncmail_.nef>
---- - - -- - - - - -
Cc: "Lamson, Brooke SAW" <Brooke Lamson usgw02 use( e.arrn?.n_iil>
Sent from the Internet (Details
All,
It was decided that our next meeting be held 10:00 am - 3:00 pm, October 19, 2004.
The DENR conference room was not available so we have arranged to meet at the USDA
Service Center in Washington, NC. This facility is located at 155 Airport Road directly
across from Washington Regional Airport. For those not familiar with the Washington
area; from Washington Square Mall (DENR Office) proceed east on US 264, turn left on
Market Street extension, go approximately 1 mile, turn left on Airport Road, Service
Center is first (and only) building on right past Susie Grey McConnell Sports Complex.
Following the Sept. 2 permit review team meeting, the agencies met to discuss exploring
alternatives that would include the remainder of PCS mining activities within the current
Project Area (remainder of NCPC + Bonnerton + South 33). Under this scenario,
alternative design would not focus on a specific time frame (e.g. 20 yr.) but rather an
overall area of impact. Group consensus was reached on the following:
1. The applicant should design and present mining boundaries depicting
all proposed impacts within the current project area.
2. If NEPA review indicated that the preferred alternative included more
than 20 yr. of mining activity, a permit to authorize such activity could be
issued provided the permit was adequately conditioned.
3. It should be understood that any potential boundary based on the
remainder of mining will only be assessed in its entirety. Areas should not
be pulled from the overall plan and considered "stand alone".
As we proceed with this review process, our next step is to work with the applicant to
develop a reasonable mining boundary that avoids to the maximum extent, those most
sensitive aquatic resources. Once this boundary is established, we can then begin to
examine alternatives which may include but are not limited to further avoidance to the
maximum extent practicable, various mining sequences, and alternative mining methods.
There was also group consensus that any long term permit would necessarily include
some type of conditioned periodic review to address concerns and/or options that may
arise after initial permit issuance. I would like to begin discussion of what this review
will and will not include. I feel we need to give this matter consideration prior to the
October meeting so I have listed a few things below that have come up in discussion thus
far. Please provide comments/additions to this list at will. Understand, this list is for
discussion purposes only, inclusion or omission from this list does not in any way imply a
final decision at this point.
Possible points to include in periodic review or as permit conditions
1. Review of mining technologies
2. Mine advancement tied to mitigation success (i.e. can't move into area
X until Y acres of compensatory mitigation is in ground / is successful)
3. Review of mining sequence
4. Monitoring of certain biotic and abiotic conditions (e.g. aquatic and
terrestrial Cadmium levels) potentially with "Stop Work" clauses
5. Discovery/listing of Endangered species and/or critical habitat
Thank You
Tom Walker
tr
- - - - --------
j,
?l-
4/1
.??_
-I/V
n
A-z-1441Y A-10-tt"ell W4.0 e44
_ ?__ {
_. _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _._ _ _. - '_ _...._ __ _ _ _ _ _ _.-_ ??.. .. I I
.?
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
among
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY,
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY,
the NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL LAND TRUST,
and the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
for the
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL AREAS WITHIN
WEYERHAEUSER OWNERSHIP
This agreement is made and entered into this 27th day of June 2000; by and between
Weyerhaeuser Company, The Nature Conservancy, the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust, and
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (hereinafter referred to as
the Department).
Objectives:
WHEREAS Weyerhaeuser Company ("Weyerhaeuser") is pleased to enter into this
agreement in the year 2000, which marks the 100th anniversary of its founding; and
WHEREAS Weyerhaeuser is strongly committed to the conservation of natural areas
within its ownership, totaling 7804 acres, mapped in Appendix A; and
WHEREAS Weyerhaeuser owns and manages commercial timberlands primarily to
produce successive crops of commercially valuable tree species to supply its manufacturing
facilities and those of its customers and also to provide attractive financial returns for its
shareholders; and
WHEREAS Weyerhaeuser seeks to protect environmental values, including significant
natural areas, rare species and other elements of diversity, in ways consistent with its business
purposes and fiduciary obligations to its shareholders, by (among other things) selling such areas
to government agencies and non-profit organizations for conservation purposes and through
cooperative arrangements with government agencies and non-profit conservation organizations;
and
WHEREAS Weyerhaeuser manages certain unique ecological, historical and cultural
sites through its Special Places program and plans to enter some of these sites in this agreement.
WHEREAS, The Nature Conservancy is a private non-profit conservation organization
established to protect and preserve the nation's significant natural areas; and
WHEREAS, the protection strategies used by The Nature Conservancy are as follows:
O acquiring and managing significant natural areas as private nature preserves, and using
those preserves to educate the public about the value of natural areas;
O entering into conservation agreements with owners of significant natural areas in order to
provide for ecologically sound management of the rare species and communities therein;
O facilitating acquisition of significant natural areas by public agencies through negotiation
with landowners and, at times, temporary ownership of real property until agency funds
become available;
O entering into memoranda-of-understanding with landowners of significant natural areas
in order to provide for inventory, management, and protection of natural areas;
O promoting the awareness and involvement of the general public, private corporations, and
agencies in natural area protection; and
O providing information to assist landowners in land use planning that optimally has
beneficial impacts on the special elements of natural diversity and natural areas which
best exemplify the state's natural heritage; and
WHEREAS, through policies established by its Board of Governors, The Nature
Conservancy is authorized to enter into Agreements with public agencies and private
corporations.
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust is a non-profit land conservation
organization dedicated to the protection of lands within the Coastal Plain of North Carolina that
have scenic, historic, recreational, and/or ecological value.
WHEREAS, the protection strategies used by the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust are
as follows:
2
°ao acquiring lands in conservation easement or in fee that have significant historical, scenic,
and/or natural value;
a°u managing existing preserves and conservation easements so as to protect and enhance
their conservation values;
o°e educating private landowners about the available land protection tools and tax incentives;
o°o promoting the awareness and involvement of the general public, private corporations and
agencies in protection of important conservation lands;
°oo entering into conservation agreements with private landowners to protect, manage and/or
restore significant natural and historical resources;
o® partnering with other conservation entities and private landowners to develop landscape
level conservation plans and to coordinate land conservation activities; and
WHEREAS, through policies established by its Board of Directors, the North Carolina
Coastal Land Trust is authorized to enter into Agreements with public agencies and private
corporations.
WHEREAS the Department's Division of Parks and Recreation was created by the
General Assembly of North Carolina to inventory and facilitate the protection of the special
elements of natural diversity and natural areas which best exemplify the state's natural heritage;
and
WHEREAS the protection strategies used by the Division of Parks and Recreation
include:
O acquiring and managing significant natural areas;
O promoting appreciation through educational and interpretive activities;
0 establishing a statewide system of registered natural areas and dedicated nature preserves;
0 entering into Memoranda of Understanding with landowners of significant natural areas
that may provide for inventory, management, and protection of natural areas;
0 promoting the awareness and involvement of the general public, private corporations, and
agencies in natural area protection; and
OO providing information to assist landowners in land use planning that optimally has
beneficial impacts on the special elements of natural diversity and natural areas which
best exemplify the state's natural heritage; and
WHEREAS, under existing provisions of law, the Department is authorized to enter into
agreements with private corporations.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and in the interest of the
mutual advantage in attainment of common objectives, the parties hereto desire to cooperate and
mutually agree as follows:
Statements of Work:
A. Weyerhaeuser agrees to:
1) Refrain from conducting certain management activities, including timber harvest, thinning,
pruning, fertilization, herbicide application, site preparation and planting, within areas of natural
timber covered by this agreement for a five-year period. Weyerhaeuser may perform, at its
discretion, any of the following management activities within areas of natural timber covered by
this agreement: fire suppression, water management, road maintenance, and beaver control. If
other management activities are necessary to maintain the natural areas mapped in Appendix A,
they may be conducted by Weyerhaeuser or a management entity endorsed by Weyerhaeuser
only with the requisite approval of all parties to the agreement.
2) During the five-year period, work cooperatively with The Nature Conservancy and the North
Carolina Coastal Land Trust to achieve protection, either through conservation acquisition,
easement or registry, of the natural areas mapped in Appendix A. Those currently targeted for
conservation acquisition are listed in Appendix B, Column 1. The status of the dark gray area in
the Eastern Gum Swamp tract is under negotiation, and will be determined within two years of
the signature of the memorandum. It will either continue to be targeted for conservation
acquisition or it will be returned to timber management. Those currently targeted for
conservation easement or registry are listed in Appendix B, Column 2. It is understood that
registry will be used when Weyerhaeuser, at it sole discretion, determines that more permanent
protection alternatives are not viable.
3) Adhere to the right-of-first-refusal agreement for the areas targeted for conservation
acquisition, listed in Appendix B, Column 1. The areas targeted for conservation easement or
registry, listed in Appendix B, Column 2, are not bound by a right-of-first-refusal agreement.
However, if at any time during the term of the agreement, Weyerhaeuser desires to sell,
exchange, or otherwise transfer any property listed in Appendix B, Column 2 to any person or
entity (other than a controlled subsidiary or affiliate), it shall first notify The Nature Conservancy
and the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust in writing of its intentions so that they may discuss a
possible acquisition with Weyerhaeuser and, if appropriate, enter into negotiations.
4) Meet with all parties to the agreement at least once a year to review the status of protection
efforts on each of the natural areas and to identify steps needed to complete protection.
5) At the end of the five-year period, meet with all parties to the agreement to identify which, if
any, natural areas mapped in Appendix A have not been protected during the allotted time period
and whether any steps are feasible to complete their protection. All parties should at that time
determine whether to renew the agreement, with a revised Appendix listing the areas not yet
protected.
B. The Nature Conservancy agrees to:
1) Provide management advice as needed to maintain condition of natural areas targeted for
acquisition or to contribute to written management recommendations incorporated into
conservation easements.
2) Work cooperatively with Weyerhaeuser, the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust, and the
Department to achieve protection, either through conservation acquisition, easement, or registry
of the natural areas mapped in Appendix A. Those currently targeted for conservation
acquisition are listed in Appendix B, Column 1. The protection goal for the dark gray area in the
Eastern Gum Swamp tract is under negotiation, and will be determined within two years of the
signature of the memorandum. It will either continue to be targeted for conservation acquisition
or it will be returned to timber management. Those currently targeted for conservation easement
or registry are listed in Appendix B, Column 2. It is understood that registry will be used when
Weyerhaeuser, at it sole discretion, determines that more permanent protection alternatives are
not viable.
3) Adhere to the right-of-first-refusal agreement for the natural areas targeted for conservation
acquisition, listed in Appendix B, Column 1.
4) Meet with all parties to the agreement at least once a year to review the status of protection
efforts on each of the natural areas and to identify steps needed to complete protection.
5) At the end of the five-year period, meet with all parties to the agreement to identify which, if
any, natural areas mapped in Appendix A have not been protected and whether any steps are
feasible to complete their protection. All parties should at that time determine whether to renew
the agreement, with a revised Appendix listing the areas not yet protected.
C. The North Carolina Coastal Land Trust agrees to:
1) Work cooperatively with Weyerhaeuser, The Nature Conservancy, and the Department to
achieve protection, either through conservation acquisition or easement, of the natural areas
mapped in Appendix A. Those currently targeted for conservation acquisition are listed in
Appendix B, Column 1. The protection goal for the dark gray area in the Eastern Gum Swamp
tract is under negotiation, and will be determined within two years of the signature of the
memorandum. It will either continue to be targeted for conservation acquisition or it will be
returned to timber management. Those currently targeted for conservation easement or registry
are listed in Appendix B, Column 2. It is understood that registry will be used when
Weyerhaeuser, at its sole discretion, determines that more permanent protection alternatives are
not viable.
2) Meet with all parties to the Agreement at least once a year to review the status of protection
efforts on each of the natural areas and to identify steps needed to complete protection.
3) At the end of the five-year period, meet with all parties to the Agreement to identify which, if
any, natural areas mapped in Appendix A have not been protected and whether any steps are
feasible to complete their protection. All parties should at that time determine whether to renew
the agreement, with a revised Appendix listing the areas not yet protected.
D. The Department agrees to:
1) Provide management advice as needed to facilitate management of natural areas targeted for
acquisition or to contribute to written management recommendations incorporated into
conservation easements.
2) Work cooperatively with Weyerhaeuser, The Nature Conservancy, and the North Carolina
Coastal Land Trust to achieve protection, either through conservation acquisition or easement, of
the natural areas mapped in Appendix A. Those currently targeted for conservation acquisition
are listed in Appendix B, Column 1. The protection goal for the dark gray area in the Eastern
Gum Swamp tract is under negotiation, and will be determined within two years of the signature
of the memorandum. It will either continue to be targeted for conservation acquisition or it will
be returned to timber management. Those currently targeted for conservation easement or
registry are listed in Appendix B, Column 2. It is understood that registry will be used when
Weyerhaeuser, at its sole discretion, determines that more permanent protection alternatives are
not viable.
3) Meet with all parties to the agreement at least once a year to review the status of protection
efforts on each of the natural areas and to identify steps needed to complete protection.
4) At the end of the five-year period, meet with all parties to the agreement to identify which, if
any, natural areas mapped in Appendix A have not been protected and whether any steps are
6
feasible to complete their protection. All parties should at that time determine whether to renew
the agreement, with a revised Appendix listing the areas not yet protected.
E. The Nature Conservancy, the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust, and the Department
additionally agree to publicly recognize Weyerhaeuser's leadership among forest products
corporations upon the execution of this agreement and, additionally, upon successful protection
of individual natural areas within its ownership through either conservation acquisition,
easement, or registry.
Conditions of Agreement:
This Memorandum of Understanding shall become effective when signed by all the
parties and shall continue in force for five years from the date of the first signature. It can be
renewed through mutual consent of the signatory parties, or of their designated representatives.
This Memorandum of Understanding may be modified through the mutual consent of the
signatory parties, or of their designated representatives.
Key Contacts:
Weyerhaeuser Corporation:
Bob Emory
Weyerhaeuser-N.C. Operations
PO Box 1391
New Bern, North Carolina 28563-1391
252/633-7426
North Carolina Coastal Land Trust
Janice Allen
Director of Land Protection
Coastal Land Trust
P.O. Box 15451
New Bern, North Carolina 28401
252/634-1927
The Nature Conservancy:
Merrill Lynch
North Carolina Chapter of The Nature
Conservancy
4011 University Drive
Suite 201
Durham, North Carolina 27707
919/403-8558
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources:
Ann Prince, Protection Specialist
Mike Schafale, Community Ecologist
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
Division of Parks and Recreation
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
919/715-8695 (Ann Prince)
919/715-8689 (Mike Schafale)
Signature:
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY
APPROVED:
Steven R. Rogel, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Date
Signature:
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
APPROVED:
Merrill Lynch, Assistant Director for Protection Date
Si ng, ature:
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL LAND TRUST
APPROVED:
J. Griffen Weld, Vice President Date
Signature:
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
APPROVED:
Secretary Bill Holman
Date
9
A
C
Q
E
O
U
L
d
d
t
L
Q)
d
C
3
0
N
t6
d
L
Q
L
3
Z
w
N
Rf
O
w
V
CD
0
m
k
N
Q.
CL
Q
W
N
N
3
o = a`oi
=U
N U CD o r- o a d aa)i d a) c
o
o

3 O.nc. g3?m
>2
C -- > v,U m
L
UL o o a)ao N
o
0 L)
(9 > U) CL > C (a
0 Co
Q
m W m
a
E
3
O
U
c
0
C')
c
N d N -c O
U U
c
0
u
-.
0
f>La a7 E L ?. N N m 'C m
m co
U U co d d 2
U co
t
T
L
N
L
d
3
O
L
CD
N
7
R
t
L
d Co Lf)
M Co Lo N ;7) U') 00 ? a1 V'
3 CV (V ?- V OD r LO
C
a2
L
d
O
N
i
a
C C C C C C C G C C C
0 0 0 0 .2 .2 0 0 0 0 0

d

.
.
.7N A . '?'N An N A .N N N co
3 7 '7 '? 7 7 '7 7 7
O Q Q 00'9 QQ Q Q Q Q

c Q

E c c c c c c c c c c c
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 m m m m is m is m m m m
V m m m
m m m m
2
?
?
?
i
i a
i a
i
a
a
N to N N N N N fn N N N
C c c c c C C C c c c
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U U U U U U U U U U U
?
E N N
N d
Z C .L L O O
W
N

«? CL
N 3 al
m
c E U o m c E cc E c w a?
M u)
o
as
d 3 as o
$ 3 U a
O N y C j otS O O
Q (L 0U'?ooayi
°°aEa >o
(D ;=
> 3 io 0
mUvd
as _
o E 3 (9
c N o 0 c cc
d o N o o c m? O O d
mwU
R C7 c u) a) o

w a) m n
O) L p 7 D
? J O7 ? O
Z N
t
0
O
N
N N

L o
NN >, N?p ?
N
U
O
'O C
m U O
c
o _
'
O
U' C N U U
C 7=
co Q u Cc o. d

o
a)
zz
a
? Q
x
m

N cm
c

m
O

c ° aci :2 ° m ° ) a)
o

'as m ° m a?i
m
C1 co mmUmmmV
m
m
L
N
L
d
3
O
L
N
3
°'
W
L
C'4 -,t m C'4
-t CC)
I-- co
-q?
3 ?-ACV
m
M?
c
aS
L
d
O
N
a)
a
L Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
N N U1 t/J N N N N M
4) a) Q 42) (D Q

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O
w w w w w W w w w
U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
N fOA N N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U U U U U U U U U

m O_ N
aE v
, m
m O
y
cu 3t o 7 0. a)
U) co 0-.a
Q m a
v
N 0 Cc
c m
,e
? `-o co C cc
mm?"
a)i 3co

y v y ao z a) y c
o

'a as c(D m o x U (D
- CD
m
W
U
2 y
wU
y
d i
a
? NU
o m d
`
` >
?'a=U 0Z Y
?d
R ° N N N

Z c
m o = z m

f

? R
ri
POI
r x? ( 4a'?y l y c
? !J
T t ff ...?r
y:? ?n«4. tY4?
...t4
j
T'-A{?wR ?I ?"t jaw ?r{{F{ L S?yM M1
r? p7t'?.? ?I
1
?r .r v!` ?1 A,,`„•,? try"" .7Yn i ? ? +x ? ? ?? *? ° k 4' _. >v?µ'
F i. 1R. ? ?', J laR + i ,'Y S L'? .? T W h"^.. •
I r
t 1 C x1 1 \ 1.? -
ar !E:
t r 1 "t
Tr+ f ppf,
f l
ih r ?Y?A?..ti ?t.. t ' r z:• ryx ' 'L'`° :. ??'n
l p? L
k
"All -
t#, 3 Y `?' r, ? r' a r r
k ? 3
-17
?f r' ? Z
xd xr ,
A' AE
le n
tYY ?' ). 7r T?
p° : G I .N
T ? ih
jz?
.r Y I R 'y
V 1
( R ?r? r? r A
S L i''. r? r y
WIN
- ? d
'h
I ?
1
F
w ;.
kk? wti? ??
.^ I ! f
. x
r ,
/
? T` r 7i? f c
Mltq ? N
gQtV*-
:? t^
1.
?
5' ' w s
t

1 1 r '?
! Ft 4 u
a
"S a

` r t? ' S
+

t '
,HF,y " s

t

? utY:
G
. r ri ?J

•-e, e
r?
1 S
Q
z
a
mJ
W
L)
Z

?y

LU Q LL

11 }?MNh
,?mm
CL.
CD ?
/? 00
P
C Q
> UQ
x
Qr 0 U o
U) (L
0-
Q
Q
zz $
?
0
:r 0

Vl n
rY p
W',...
y
Fy
g
?
gF49
N OF
'!4 V
U
x

J

Q
?c
x Y ,? tl f F?:
O

V.
imap://[e-mail],143/fe...
Subject: [Fwd: Updated Natural Heritage data available (July 2004)]
From: John Finnegan <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:59:43 -0400
To: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
Bob,
Scott Pohlman asked me to send you information on how to access the Natural Heritage
Program's GIS data. Below is a description of the data and how to access it. Please
be aware that these data are sensitive, and we ask you not to share the data with
anyone without our permission. Also be careful if you plan to present any of this
information to the public. In particular, do not reveal detailed locations of data
sensitive species (these species are flagged in the NHEO coverage). Please call me
if you have any questions or problems.
Subject: Updated Natural Heritage data available (July 2004)
From: John Finnegan <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:30:38 -0400
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
The July 2004 updates of the NC Natural Heritage Program's GIS coverages are now
available on our ftp site:
ftp://nhpout:ardswomo@207.4.179.40
NOTE: the DEDREG, MCSITE, and MGSITE files are unchanged from the previous update, so
there's no need to replace these files if you have the April versions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** The password for all the zipfiles is: 99acrus_bexa
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE DON'T SHARE THESE FILES WITH ANYONE WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION!
The files are:
NHEO.ZIP = encrypted & zipped ArcView point shapefile of Natural
Heritage Element Occurrences (rare plants & animals, natural
communities, and special animal habitats).
SNHA.ZIP = encrypted & zipped ArcView polygon shapefile of Significant
Natural Heritage Areas (areas that are significant due to the presence
of rare species, rare or high quality natural communities, or other
important ecological features).
MAREA.ZIP = encrypted & zipped ArcView polygon shapefile of Managed Areas (public
lands and private conservation areas that have some conservation interest).
DEDREG.ZIP = encrypted & zipped ArcView polygon shapefile of Dedicated
Nature Preserves and Registered Heritage Areas.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete descriptions of all the shapefiles are available in PDF format
and are included in the corresponding zipfiles (*.pdf).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The macro- and megasite coverages (MCSITE.ZIP and MGSITE.ZIP, respectively) have not
changed since the previous release and are not included.
1 of 2 10/1/2004 12:33 PM
imap:/[e-mail]:143/fe...
For those of you using BCD, I've encrypted & zipped the BCDDATA and
INDEXING directories. To update your BCD, delete the existing files in
these directories and replace with the new files. NOTE: some people running BCD on
Windows NT, 2000, and XP machines have experienced difficulties updating their BCD
this way. If you have problems, let me know, and I'll mail you a CD.
John Finnegan, Information Systems Manager
NC Natural. Heritage Program
Office of Conservation and Community Affairs
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 MSC
Raleigh NC 27699-1601
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Natural. Heritage Program: http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp
Element Occurrence Search: http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/search.html
i
2 of 2 10/1/2004 12:33 PM
CZR
INCORPORATED
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1725
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TO: Ms. Mary Alsentzer (PTRF)
Mr. John Dorney (NCDWQ)
Ms. Becky Fox (USEPA)
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness (PCS)
Mr. James M. Hudgens (CZR)
Mr. Scott Jones (USACE)
Mr. Tom Steffens (NCDWQ)
Mr. David M. Lekson (USACE)
Ms. Maria Tripp (NCWRC)
Mr. Mike Wicker (USFWS)
Dr. David McNaught (ED)
Mr. Ted Tyndal (NCDCM)
FROM: Samuel Cooper and Julia K. Berger
DATE: 23 September 2004
SUBJECT: See Below
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
Mr. David Moye (NCDCM)
Mr. Jimmie Overton (NCDWQ)
Mr. Richard Peed (NCDLR)
Mr. William A. Schimming (Potash)
Mr. Ron Sechler (NMFS)
Mr. Ross Smith (PCS)
Mr. Tom Walker (USACE)
Mr. Sean McKenna (NCDMF)
Mr. Bob Zarzecki (NCDWQ)
Mr. Terry Moore (NCDCM)
Mr. George House (PCS-Brooks Firm)
Ms. Kathy Matthews (USEPA)
N Attached via UPS
Copies Date Description
1 17 September 2004 Final Summary Minutes of the 4 August 2004 meeting (14tH )
1
I 21 September 2004 DRAFT Minutes of the 2 June 2004 meeting (131'')
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED: N For review N For your information
REMARKS:
PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS ON DRAFT 13TH MINUTES BY 8 OCTOBER 2004.
Signed:
Julia . Berger 1\1j
SEP 2 4 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDSANn
1061 EAST INDIANTOWN ROAD - SUITE 100 - JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5143
TEL [phone] - FAX [phone] - czrjup@aol,com - www.CZRINC.com
¦i*
CZR 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
INCORPORATED WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1725
?NMENTAL CONSULTANTS TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
TO: See MEMORANDUM RIRC?Kguwfa@
Distri ution
SEP 2 4 2004
FROM: Samuel Fooper, Julia Ber er DENR- WATER QUALITY
DATE: 17 September 2004 WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
RE: Summary Minutes of the 4 August 2004 meeting for the PCS Phosphate Mine
Continuation permit application review.
1 The 14th meeting for the review of PCS Phosphate's Mine Continuation permit
2 application was held at the PCS Phosphate Employee Recreation Center on Hickory Point on 4
3 August 2004. The following people attended:
4
5 Tom Walker - USACE
6 Mary Alsentzer - PTRF
7 Heather Jacobs - PTRF
8 Bill Schimming - Potash Corporation
9 Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate
10 Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate
11 Jerry Waters - PCS Phosphate
12 George House - PCS/Brooks Firm
13 David Moye - NCDCM
14 Terry Moore - NCDCM
15 Bob Zarzecki - NCDWQ
16 Jimmie Overton - NCDWQ
17 Tom Steffens - NCDWQ
18 Maria Tripp - NCWRC
19 Mike Wicker - USFWS
20 Richard Peed - NCDLR
21 Brad Melko - CZR
22 Samuel Cooper - CZR
23 Julia Berger - CZR
24 Jim Hudgens - CZR
25 Becky Fox - USEPA
26
27 The meeting began at 10:55 am on 4 August 2004 at the PCS Phosphate Employee
28 Recreation Area conference center on Hickory Point. The following items were discussed
29 and/or decided:
30
31 Next Team meeting (15th) was moved to 2 September 2004 instead of 26 August 2004.
1
1061 EAST INDIANTOWN ROAD • SUITE 100 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5143
TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • [e-mail] • www,CZRINC.com
32 It will be held at the Washington NC DENR office from 10 am until 3 pm;
33
34 ¦ Functional assessment methods and potential use of WRAP as adapted by CZR for use
35 at PCS Phosphate were discussed;
36
37 ¦ Wilmington District does not demand any particular functional assessment method, nor
38 does it endorse or recommend WRAP, but it does recognizes it can be another
39 tool/resource of useful information to help PCS draw lines. Wilmington District will not
40 equate WRAP scores with mitigation. Wilmington District must examine any material
41 turned in by an applicant. PCS and the group need some methodology to assist the
42 Corps "best professional judgment" on where lines should be drawn.
43
44 ¦ Level of detail of meeting minutes, who is the appropriate scribe for minutes, and the
45 presence/absence of attorneys at the meetings were each discussed at length. All
46 agreed that the open candid tone and dialog of meetings to date was preferred;
47
48 ¦ Ms. Alsentzer officially protested the presence of PCS' attorney (Mr. House) and
49 indicated that regardless of the decision about future minutes that PTRF may have their
50 attorney attend all upcoming meetings. PCS' attorney agreed to withdraw from the
51 meeting at this point and not participate in future meetings without notifying all parties of
52 PCS' intention to have counsel present; provided the other parties did likewise. PCS'
53 attorney stated that this withdrawal from the meeting and future meetings was
54 conditioned upon the team recording only summaries of meetings and not minutes which
55 specifically attributed statements to particular parties. Mr. House left the meeting after
56 this discussion at about 12:15;
57
58 ¦ It was decided that agencies would confer with their respective counsels about how
59 much detail should be included in future meeting minutes. All agreed that for the 14th
60 meeting at least, a summary of the meeting would suffice;
61
62 ¦ DENR's, Corps', and DWQ's interagency wetland functional assessment method should
63 be available for use by mid-October. In the meantime, DWQ recommends PCS use the
64 DWQ Guidance for Ratings the Values of Wetlands in NC, Vers. 4. DWQ requested that
65 buffers be shown as a separate column of acres avoided or impacted in the summary
66 table.
67
68 CZR handed out copies of the updated avoidance table and the latest version of the
69 base resource mapping for the NCPC, Bonnerton, and South of 33 areas. PCS then
70 presented four boundaries entitled: "Preferred Boundary", "DCM-CAMA Avoidance
71 Boundary", "DWQ Perennial Stream Avoidance", and "Agency Priority Avoidance
72 Boundary." Excavation limits were described as being at the edge of pre-strip for the
73 mine and showing the limits of ore recovery. The -350 feet between permitted limits and
74 excavation limits would have impacts from auxiliary activities of mining such as power
75 lines, roads, equipment storage, temporary structures, etc. Once a detailed mine plan is
76 developed, the excavation limits line would become more angular but would remain
77 inside the excavation limits as shown in these figures.
78
79 Agencies asked for the NCPC and Bonnerton Agency Priority Avoidance Boundary to
80 show areas that could be mined from the agency point of view, regardless of a
81 mechanical or economic standpoint (Attachment 2). PCS was requested to describe the
82 level of practicability and apply it to all maps. An error was noted on the Bonnerton
83 Preferred Boundary and corrected (figure not included in draft minutes-Attachment 2).
84 Agencies also requested that the impact acreage be shown in the summary table. This
2 9/17/2004
85 request and corrections to graphics generated a newer version of the summary
86 avoidance table (Attachment 3).
87
88 • Mr. Walker reminded the group that the three tracts do not necessarily stand alone and
89 that alternatives may cross tract boundaries.
90
91 • Scope and length of the permit will be discussed at the next Team meeting and
92 electronically among the group between meetings;
93
94 ¦ PCS asked for more agency guidance on how to draw boundaries between their
95 preferred approach and the agency avoidance boundaries;
96
97 ¦ PCS/CZR was asked to identify high quality areas that can be avoided using all
98 information available (WASC, WRAP, DWQ VA, etc) but that still allow the mine to
99 advance; and,
100
101 ¦ PCS will develop a detailed mine plan for their Preferred Alternative and the DWQ
102 Perennial Stream Avoidance Boundary.
103
104 The office meeting adjourned at 2:30.
105
106 Portions of the group assembled in vehicles to go to several sites in NCPC from
107 approximately 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm. Present for the field visit on Wednesday afternoon were
108 Mary Alsentzer, Heather Jacobs, Becky Fox, Tom Walker, Mike Wicker, Jeff Furness, Ross
109 Smith, Brad Melko, Sam Cooper, and Julia Berger. Bottomland hardwood forest in Jacks Creek
110 and hardwood forest in Jacobs Creek were examined. An example WRAP data form was
111 reviewed by M. Alsentzer, H. Jacobs, B. Fox, T. Walker, J. Furness, B. Melko, S. Cooper, and J.
112 Berger at the Jacobs Creek site. T. Walker, B. Fox, J. Furness, J. Berger, and S. Cooper also
113 examined the brackish marsh complex in PA2, conducted a drive-by orientation along Sandy
114 Landing Road and NC 306, and a perimeter tour within the mine site.
115
116 Present for Thursday 5 August field visits (9:00 am - 3:30 pm) in Bonnerton and South of
117 Route 33 were: Becky Fox, Tom Walker, John Dorney, Tom Steffens, Jimmie Overton, Maria
118 Tripp, Heather Jacobs, Jeff Furness, Ross Smith, Brad Melko, Sam Cooper, Jim Hudgens, and
119 Julia Berger. Sites visited in Bonnerton included Porter Creek bottomland hardwood forest,
120 hardwood forest off of Creekmur Road, and Durham Creek bay forest and hardwood forest. For
121 the area South of Route 33, bottomland hardwood forest and hardwood forest along the Suffolk
122 Scarp in the upper drainage of South Creek, sand ridge and bay forest near Jamie Road,
123 Cypress Run hardwood forest, hardwood forest "island" in the central section of the tract were
124 visited (a brief review of WRAP values for this site was discussed), and Broomfield Swamp was
125 shown in a drive-by.
3 9/17/2004
126
127 Attachments:
128 1) Agenda
129 2) Updated Figures of Avoidance Boundaries Showing Excavation Limits and Corrections
130 3) Updated Summary Table of Acres Avoided and Acres Impacted
131
Distribution
Ms. Mary Alsentzer
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Becky Fox
Environmental Protection Agency
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, NC 28789
Mr. Sean McKenna
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mail
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dr. David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Ms. Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Regulatory Section USEPA/EAB
Wetlands Management Division
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. James M. Hudgens
CZR Incorporated
1061 East Indiantown Road
Suite 100
Jupiter, Florida 33477-5143
Mr. Scott Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David M. Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David Moye
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Jimmie Overton
NC Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Jerry Waters
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
4 9/17/2004
Mr. Richard Peed
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. William A. Schimming
Potash Corp.
Post Office Box 3320
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Ross Smith
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Ms. Maria Tripp
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Habitat Conservation Section
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Walker
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Bob Zarzecki
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. Ted Tyndal
North Carolina Division Coastal
Management
Morehead City District Office
151-B Hwy. 24 Hestron Plaza 11
Morehead City, NC 28557
Mr. George House
Brooks, Pierce, McLendon,
Leonard
P.O. Box 26000
Greensboro, NC 27420
Humphrey &
5 9/17/2004
ATTACHMENT 1
MEETING AGENDA FOR 4 AUGUST 2004 PCS PHOSPHATE
MINE CONTINUATION PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW TEAM
DRAFT AGENDA
PCS EIS TEAM MEETING
4 - 5 AUGUST 2004
AURORA, NC
4 AUGUST
10:30 am Meet at PCS Recreation Area, on the way to Hickory Point
(- 1.5 miles past the ferry landing on Hwy. 306, on left. Enter Rec. Area,
take first left inside gate and follow to main conference center (large white
bldg.)
10:30 -10:45 am Welcome - Review package/handouts - Sam Cooper, CZR
10:45 -11:00 am Summary of project status and background information -Tom Walker, Corps
11:00 am-12:00 noon Summary of WRAP -how used/modified to facilitate wetlands discussion -
Brad Melko, CZR
12:00 -1:00 pm Bring own lunch - limited local options (soft drinks will be available)
1:00 -1:15 pm Presentation/discussion of agency avoidance boundaries to facilitate
development of potential alternatives - CZR, PCS, and Corps
Graphics provided:
• Base
• Preferred
• DCM/CAMA Avoidance
• DWQ Perennial Stream Avoidance
• Agency Priority Wetland Avoidance
1:15 - 2:30 pm Discussion of Potential Alternatives - Group
2:30 - 3:00 pm Discussion of sites for field visits - Group
3:00 - ? Visit sites on NCPC Tract as time allows (bring water)
5 AUGUST
8:30 am Meet at PCS Land Office in Aurora (near intersection of Hwys 33 and 306-
phone [phone]), bring water
8:45 -11:45 am Review Bonnerton sites, including Suffolk Scarp
11:45 -12:45 pm Bring lunch for field
12:45 - 3:00 pm Review Southern Area sites, including Suffolk Scarp
ADJOURN
ATTACHMENT 2
REPLACEMENT NCPC AND BONNERTON
AVOIDANCE BOUNDARY DRAFT FIGURES
O ?O o0000M??o??0000(Dr,00-00M(D r, Ml o
0 0 oooooao r_oom? 00oo?a 00) 0 o o rn(D a) N
od 00 co 0oooooirioon -ooooririoo?oooo r o •F
c00 LC) N 00 co I- 0 c0 M N N N
M
N L.l?l3
a ? _1
m,• QQ
OOO I- W
m z 000 F- W
W W
?° v F 0 ? O W
• O XO g W z
° + O -1 02 O i- Wm ° a
m U 0 205W o w mw 0 z
0 00 oomNo o F mN 3
m 0 r Vp a~ 000
W °
Ott ? 0 mFOI mo ?Qmow 0JQ
W
Pi p nr r m° m d a? F °?NaOWw I ppNU01QW I Ww aaaW'
zo Q7 ZW W l 0CLC)z? Z0 1 00?w0P>
° P Oz 3! Om7aQ°ILoQ a0ma3aoR= I 2 N
P z i-O D W?WWO ??++ ° 0 °
. az°XZZz?O z 2
N + P P w aa° a?Wammsuziax2aao o:
z Wwg oma mwa. .v zz
m ° p P, N0? 2 1 15 Naoa_°°°°°°°°°° °°o°°°°o°° ° a ;
° m P o ° 0 000 w z
r m 0 uuw x o aaaaaaaaa
m g ?, P P z zzw 0 3333333333x3»»»»> D
P m ? P
V 0
+ ° a N ? O?N-n- N0r000r N
P + ? m r m P w NMd'tflf01?00a7??-?- - •-- NNN
P • - p N • m 0
?
co
m 0
r N t ° Ni
? r ? N t
0 0 n P
+ ? ' N P i
? A 0 ? r ? i y m
r +.. r ? ? ? ??JJ 0 P? r 'm Oi
+ N
+` N h A 0 0 O N ? ? ` ? ? ?P
?
o m ?, m ° p + i ? , N
I r ? r r
0 0 ?? + • p f ?' 0
N' ? 0 r r„? a r? i r
? +
J ?
I
0?0 A? P P 0 ?? i
r • A -. i + 0
p N . ° -r.. A
? ? , O 0
r
40
i I
0.. m q. ? ? ? ? + 0 ? ?? P 0 ? N ? N +
0 t
m
co to
+
PL
P
P °P" p r 0
° r • C? t
PO ? CA
,y ON , \/
0 'r ? ? p % • 0? r• r
rl r m t 1 ' r ? ; ?+°
m ?
0 A ? ?O p r • ??
0? ? • ? r i
m 0 r ? ° 0 r
r r C ? + m
C • ?
0 r ° ' r
a
oe
0
W
r
CO
? M
n
m N
m m
m
n
U co
N !2
to
n m
^ N N
m n
m m
n
n m ?m n co
m
N m m
n
^ n m
W m m
U m m Q N
U
n n
n n
m
m
m

m co
N co
N
n
co
'0

m
n N
m

N m m

N
m m
n
co
n n

m
m
m
N ?
m
A
N m
II
co

N
m
m ? n mn
N m m
m
n
n

N
m m 00m

m d
m
m co m

n n

M n
m
m
m
n
to
m
^m
n m

m N
N
n
m m N m M
m n co
m N N
m
co
m
M
m ? m
n m
m ^ m
n. N
m ^ m
N ?

m
lJ
co
m to

m m d I
m
N m n
m N m
m m m

O d' O OOOOOMooo*OOOO00NONNO00w r r
O N O 00000?0N0N?00000fON10?000Lq n r
OOOOOMOMOMOOOOOOOrO0001N10 r co
00 N .-
N
000 `
000 Chi
V1 H z
le LLj U O "" W W I?
0 o a x LL. o g ° z
mo o 0m O wm o a
zQ(NINn 7pm(n 3 W gw Oo Q
o of mN
M
LLI - m- U0Li rFnmd_ ?w m 3 m c?no\
CL ?u Qw o
=of ? m
O? Z ?iI f/1=?50? QO Mzw= 0 H C
?X LL 0
° o9 ? n2o?N¢ww w ?C.) to
o ¢z o w?0 0]N? www oW
Cc) Qw <DNZ= w? oaMzo zO? 0O?mc
zCDXz 3w<WYooQma:0 00 a?maoa??? l
Z
?awm zZ 0ka0w LLIQ zmo no o?
zzzo a ? mWImm=un -w mw=? xz,0p a
ooow om? =Ch EL Mav¢z Q
zzza ?ddzooooo000o0 0 0
WWW 0 Z o00o000oo z 0
ooow ?Q -- z
mmma 0 3333333333x3»»»»>
W W O?NM?I(I10r0000?-N
Z Z Z NM?lnfOr0001 NNN
00
Zz
N ?
N md^ m

d I ? m
d m d co
m m
m
n
m
co

m N

N

° o

U
m

^
O

m
m N m
o mm n
N
^
?N
m
° d ^
N co m m ° o
m
m
C?

m

m m p

G d
m
6 m
n an
? d m
m co

m
m N
O
d
m
O
m
M
n
V' m m m
m m O O? m
n m m
m ? m N in
m O m
m N m
m m m
co
m
m m
m l0 ^
m m m m
m
N
N in
lV

m
O m

p
m N

N
m
N m n n U ? N
N co cl
app m
m M m m ?m
m
co m
^ m

O
m
N
O m
m
m n m
U IM
? d M
M m m m
m

m
LL.
a
oe
0

o ?
0 0 0 N1-0 0nWNN0NF0 0 ?0 04 (0 d*M0 00 t0ul 00 In N " O
0 00 MN't0NfMpp00r,U-)0 O(DNOMNNt001Nd't0- O OR a F N W
O O M Ord Or r0ONC),(D04 ?0te) r, 0(DD,* -to c,4 to c,4 , ,*U ? r Q 3 g OD
00 00 M ?bNNigd'NN *- N t0 H z
N 04 04 C-4 0 W
K LL.
r
000 m z W
GOO
"" ^ r-; ? } 8 a a
J U
,. M U V) o
z '' ZFaO
^ Y O W w w ° r Z= aZ
m w n' co O O g OW U- z LLI
0
m $ ?wwm o g a I-m d0
m aogW oo 0 02 °o ? ?0 ym m
oomW o cr w :5 m(n °; a WU 0C c
co 2 2? U? zF?d LL ° Woo c Z0 ?w o
m m n m O W E II x ?m wx o 8
" n 0D ro 9 too Pi >- 0 z P- ?d ? ?0Q? I cl Lf Sox o a mZ W t
N
n
FF
w CO m O Q mN _? °ZW m OjV1Q to
aWwU W C0 ? L{{?
o m o m n m m W m ?U QO Zy w l mo-OKR z0 I 0wz 00 W WZ
n ^ ^ ^ ro 2 n z 3 ? y0Vma3 u-in aU Oa0?J Yi 3
N mco m Cr I ?0 ZC.>z ?Z°?°3 Zm7W°WWO?z d
y z z z° a?6fmmmv?io x ? z'a°au??wi?xz?o a ?d (? v=i a?
0 oIo-wI Vi aMa az ° o
co Ww Yaa_°00000000° °0°0000°00 ° H Q 00
co co in z z zcoi WQm? z a m
n o ooww o aaa.aaaaaa
m^ n m m m maU 333 333333a3»»»»> 3 ?,
r m ro? ^ N O
m co o O?-NM?N?Or?wm0?-N
co n Z NMd NNN
m m W
m co m (7
n
ro n ?
co
m m ° m_ ° n
co '
m (x^'jy n M ^ ? Q
n y
a
m h m
co n to li
?m
? m
m
NN
^ m N m. M " ? N ?
co
n w
m m? m m c
N N
m n
b O ?y
M O n co
'
r ,S1/1 r
O l\ O n N^ O
co O
r
m p, m co
n H' m m ^
^
e co co co
r
b 00 O
N D... m m 0 0..
'
co
co
to
n m
W m
r m n N c co
co m ?' m n m
m m a L,n " N
N n
m m O O' ' OD
" ( O
co t0 co m m m O
m \\\?LV1
O m N m m ?
O N
N 00 m. m n m N N H O M N N 00 p
00 M N P O. ? 'N R'
co n
N r M N
N N N
m m,
m y M '
n ,.
rn n M
r m r
M
co co
ATTACHMENT3
REPLACEMENT SUMMARY TABLE OF REVISED AVOIDANCE
BOUNDARIES WITH IMPACTED AND AVOIDED ACREAGES
Summary of PCS Preferred Alternative (1A) and Potential Agency Avoidance Options:
Acreages Shown for NCPC, Bonnerton (BT), and South of Route 33 (S33) Tracts
Base Study Area Preferred Alternative (1A) DCMICAMA Avoidance DWQ Perennial Stream Avoidance Agency Priority Avoidance
Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts
Biotic Community Type Map ID NCPC' BT 2 S33 3 Total NCPC4 BT 5 S336 Total Total
Avoided NCPC 7 BT 3 S33 5 Total Total
Avoided NCPC t0 BT 11 S3312 Total Total
Avoided NCPC 13 BT 74 53315 Total Total
Avoided
Public Trust Waters 1A 43.54 0.35 4.28 - 48.17 4.97 0.35 4.29 9.61 38.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.17
Perennial Stream 1B 3.25 1.57 4.82 9.64 3.25 1.57 3.84 8.66 0.98 2.80 1.53 3.70 8.03 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.64
Intermittent Stream 1C 2.75 4.46 0.64 7.85 2.75 4.46 0.44 7.65 0.20 2.68 4.46 0.43 7.57 0.28 2.59 4.45 0.16 7.20 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.85
Wetland Brackish Marsh Complex 2 86.76 0.00 0.00 86.76 38.41 0.00 0.00 38.41 48.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 86.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 86.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 86.76
Wetland Bottomland Hardwood Forest 3 102.49 71.23 26.78 200.50 101.70 71.23 7.24 180.17 20.33 91.16 66.53 7.24 164.93 35.57 81.58 58.69 0.00 140.27 60.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.50
Wetland Herbaceous Assemblage 4 255.63 48.38 281.43 585.44 253.00 48.38 191.24 492.62 92.82 245.86 48.38 191.24 485.48 99.96 245.27 48.29 236.18 529.74 55.70 89.83 3.13 111.59 204.55 380.89
Wetland Shrub/scrub Assemblage 5 212.73 276.82 86.02 575.57 202.06 276.82 31.28 510.16 65.41 192.29 276.82 31.28 500.39 75.18 190,73 276.82 29.18 496.73 78.84 63.11 0.00 29.18 92.29 ° 483.28
Wetland Pine Plantation 6 528.89 205.72 127.07 861.68 514.25 205.72 111.40 831.37 30.31 501.03 205.72 111.40 818.15 43.53 497.23 205.72 98.77 801.72 59.96 0.01 30.25 94.15 124.41 737.27
Wetland Hardwood Forest 7 516.45 526.50 694.44 1,737.39 509.20 526.50 611.79 1,647.49 89.90 490.99 524.84 611.34 1,627.17 110.22 486.87 521.86 532.79 1,541.52 195.87 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 1,737.16
Wetland Mixed Pine/hardwood Forest 8 579.08 498.02 248.96 1,326.06 564.51 498.02 126.10 1,188.63 137.43 528.58 497.88 126.10 1,152.56 173.50 526.44 497.07 98.00 1,121.51 204.55 73.91 34.24 26.76 134.91 1,191.15
Wetland Pine Forest 9 196.75 211.21 169.52 577.48 194.99 241.21 43.70 449.90 127.58 187.76 211.21 43.70 442.67 134.81 187.16 211.03 4.49 402.68 174.80 1.11 10:15 4.49 15.75 561.73
Wetland Pocosin - Bay Forest 10 0.00 264.00 45.31 309.31 0.00 264.00 0.00 264.00 45.31 0.00 264.00 0.00 264.00 45.31 0.00 264.00 0.00 264.00 45.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 309.31
Wetland Sand Ridge Forest 11 0.00 21.60 10.67 32.27 0.00 21.60 0.00 21.60 10.67 0.00 21.60 0.00 21.60 10.67 0.00 21.60 0.00 21.60 10.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.27
Pond 12 19.50 0.21 1.25 20.96 19.33 0.21 0.00 19.54 1.42 14.96 0.21 0.00 15.17 5.79 14.93 0.21 0.00 15.14 5.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.96
Wetland Maintained Area 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Upland Herbaceous Assemblage 14 241.66 5.32 238.18 485.16 233.52 5.32 229.65 468.49 16.67 229.88 5.32 224.98 460.18 24.98 229.11 5.32 229.30 463.73 21.43 83.46 0.90 229.30 313.66 171.50
Upland Shrub/scrub Assemblage 15 ' 265.09 83.26 68.31 416.66 262.20 83.26 66.29 411.75 4.91 254.26 83.20 61.70 399.16 17.50 248.96 77.89 61.14 387.99 28.67 63.47 0.02 61.05 124.54 292.12
Upland Pine Plantation 16 60.92 67.24 621.80 749.96 54.86 67.24 608.38 730.48 19.48 48.92 67.24 606.58 722.74 27.22 47.14 67.23 585.34 699.71 50.25 0.00 17.50 577.36 594.86 155.10
Upland Hardwood Forest 17 78.68 42.63 324.78 446.09 66.76 42.63 318.98 428.37 17.72 60.15 42.63 305.89 408.67 37.42 57.41 42.57 287.59 387.57 58.52 0.90 0.62 236.29 237.81 208.28
Upland Mixed Pinelhardwood Forest 18 155.09 119.90 489.26 764.25 140.15 119.90 420.10 680.15 84.10 133.37 119.90 414.01 667.28 96.97 130.97 119.83 398.05 648.85 115.40 31.01 0.62 380.60 412.23 352.02
Upland Pine Forest 19 47.72 16.28 301.45 365.45 38.29 16.28 174.01 228.58 136.87 35.26 16.28 172.08 223.62 141.83 34.86 16.28 172.63 223.77 141.68 0.00 0.00 171.32 171.32 194.13
Upland Sand Ridge Forest 20 0.00 42.46 113.14 155.60 0.00 42.46 4.42 46.88 108.72 0.00 42.46 4.42 46.88 108.72 0.00 42.46 4.66 47.12 108.48 0.00 0.00 4.66 4.66 150.94
Upland Agricultural Land 21 117.41 246.55 4,610.80 4,974.76 116.96 246.55 4,593.68 4,957.19 17.57 113.72 246.55 4,593.93 4,954.20 20.56 113.56 246.55 4,550.16 4,910.27 64.49 40.93 152.55 4,511.72 4,705.20 269.56
Upland Non-vegetated/maintained Area 22 93.61 52.18 217.39 363.18 91.59 52.18 203.18 346.95 16.23 90.53 52.04 202.58 1 - 345.15 18.03 89.52 51.82 192.41 333.75 29.43 10.66 6.56 190.50 207.72 155.46
TOTAL 3,608.002,805.89 8,686.30 15,100.19 3,412.75 2,805.89 7;750.01 13,968.65 1,131.54 3,224.20 2,798.80 7,712.6013;735.60 1,364.59 3,184.33 2,779.69 7,480.85 13,444.87 1,655.32 458.40 256.54 6;629.20 7,344.14 7,756.05
Total wetlands/waters
. Total uplands 2,547.82 2,130.07 1,701.19 6,379.08
1,060.18 675.82 6,985.11 8,721.11 2,408.42 2,130.07 1,131.32 5,669.81 709.27
1,004.33 675.82 6,618.69 8,298.84 422.27 2,258.11 2,123.18 1,126.43 5,507.72 871.36
966.09 675.62 6,586.17 8,227.88 493.23 2,232.80 2,109.74 999.57 5,342.11 1,036.97
951.53 669.95 6,481.28 8,102.76 618.35 227.97 77.77 266.40 572.14 5,806.94
230.43 178.77 6,362.80 6,772.00 1,949.11
Date of figure/drawing
' 07128/04
2 07127104
3 08102/04 5 08109104 7 08103104 9 08102104 11 08/02104 13 08130/04 15 08102104
4 08102104 6 08101104 8 08/02104 10 08102104 12 08102104 14 09123104
23 September 2004
DRAFT

CZR 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
INCORPORATED WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1725
1NMENTAL CONSULTANTS TEL [phone]
DRAFT FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
12073R p
MEMORANDUM Er?U
TO: See Distri ution S E P 2 4 2004
FROM: Samuel ooper, Julia Berg r WETLANDS ANDS - WATER QUALITY
DATE: 21 September 2004
RE: Minutes of the 2 June 2004 meeting for the PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation
permit application review.
1 The 13`" meeting for the review of PCS Phosphate's Mine Continuation permit
2 application was held at the Washington Regional Office of the North Carolina Department of
3 Environment and Natural Resources on 2 June 2004. The following people attended:
4
5 Tom Walker - USACE
6 Brooke Lamson - USACE
7 Mary Alsentzer - PTRF
8 Larry McSwain - PTRF
9 Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate
10 Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate
11 Tex Gilmore - PCS Phosphate
12 George House-PCS/Brooks Firm
13 Sean McKenna - NCDMF
14 David Moye - NCDCM
15 Terry Moore - NCDCM
16 John Dorney - NCDWQ
17 Jimmy Overton - NCDWQ
18 Tom Steffens - NCDWQ
19 Maria Tripp - NCWRC
20 Mike Wicker - USFWS
21 Richard Peed - NCDLR
22 Samuel Cooper - CZR
23 Julia Berger - CZR
24 Jim Hudgens - CZR
25 Becky Fox - USEPA, via speaker phone
26
27 The meeting began at 10:10 and followed the agenda shown in Attachment 1. Mr. Walker
28 opened with an agenda overview and description of hoped-for accomplishments for the day's
29 meeting. First item under review was the length of permit and Mr. Walker indicated that the
30 Wilmington District has been in conversation with EPA and others and the Corps has issued
31 permits, at least in the Jacksonville District (Florida), with lifetimes of greater than 20 years. He
1
1061 EAST INDIANTOWN ROAD • SUITE 100 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5143
TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • [e-mail] • www.CZRINC.com
rA r
32 pointed out that expanding the scope would limit concerns over Piecemealing of the project
33 however, he acknowledged that discussions of Piecemealing typically center around projects
34 involving impacts much less temporally separated than those under consideration. Mr. Walker
35 did acknowledge that management of many aspects, including mitigation related items, may be
36 more difficult with a longer permit.
37
38 Mr. Wicker indicated that he likes the longer time period but wondered if the permit was for
39 40 years, for instance, would avoidance areas be avoided forever? Mr. Walker replied that
40 avoidance would be avoidance within the project area specified for this permit action. Mr. Smith
41 clarified that PCS would accept avoided areas within the permit project area but does not want a
42 longer permit timeframe to limit PCS' ability to expand the project area in the future. Mr. Wicker
43 commented that a longer permit would seem to embrace the NEPA process instead of just
44 delaying impacts and that a longer permit is probably a better permit. Mr. Walker stated that in
45 this scenario, PCS could move to other areas outside the current project area but would not
46 reapply to impact previously avoided areas.
47
48 Mr. Moore questioned how the process would accommodate advances in either mining
49 techniques and/or mitigation design. Ms. Lamson pointed out that some tension exists between
50 the advantages of long-term planning and the possible disadvantages associated with short term
51 and/or current knowledge being tied to the future. She gave the example that future advances in
52 mitigation techniques may not be captured if upfront mitigation is employed.
53
54 Mr. Walker said that the permit conditions could be written with windows requiring new
55 techniques to be evaluated at periodic intervals, although any mitigation which had received final
56 approval/signoff from all necessary agencies would likely not be revisited nor required to be
57 changed to reflect new methods etc. Mr. Moore stated that CAMA permits are good for three
58 years and renewed after two years and that CAMA would be looking for some language in a
59 longer permit that would allow for review to capture advances in technology.
60
61 Mr. Wicker reiterated the point that if PCS did mitigate in advance of impacts, then they
62 would not be required to change their methods, but if they don't mitigate upfront they may have
63 to accommodate new rules and new methods.
64
2 9/21/2004
r
65 Mr. Walker replied that the first permit had a staged mitigation approach and that maybe that
66 would be good to repeat for this permit. Mr. Steffens reminded the group that within a 40 year
67 permit, rules and laws are bound to change, not to mention the group of reviewers, and there
68 must be an opportunity for interim reviews. Mr. Wicker said these windows need to be defined at
69 the beginning of the permit process; he does not want a 50 year permit with deferred mitigation.
70 Mr. Walker stated that it is common practice with 404 permits for mitigation to be concurrent with
71 impacts, so it shouldn't be a problem. Mr. Smith wanted to clarify that changes in rules/laws
72 might also benefit the applicant and that it is not just a one way street.
73
74 Ms. Lamson asked the group what kind of review they would like. Mr. Moore suggested
75 every decade. Mr. Furness said there are two parallels that provide an opportunity/example: a)
76 the current 401 certification does have a 10-year review condition to demonstrate to DWQ that
77 no change in technology has occurred that would reduce impacts and b) a mine permit with DLR
78 is only good for 10 years anyway, before it needs to be renewed.
79
80 Mr. Walker stated that the group needs to establish what aspects would be revisited during
81 this periodic review. He suggested current mining technology, mitigation technology, mitigation
82 success, and rules and regulations as some items to consider. He stressed that the group must
83 anticipate and be responsible for compiling this list. Mr. Furness stated that it sounds like the
84 review process could result in a refinement of activities that were permitted. Ms. Lamson
85 indicated that this process sounds very reasonable, but the team would need to decide what is
86 examined and how often these issues would be reviewed.
87
88 Various members expressed concern about not wanting to create a situation where PCS
89 escapes by being "grandfathered". Mr. Walker said that the agencies would need to work
90 together to develop a periodic review that will best address agency concerns, including CAMA
91 and 401 issues, as well as changes in buffer rules, and clarify retroactive issues.
92
93 Mr. Wicker said that he wanted to avoid PCS being able to exploit the benefit of time
94 through their understanding of "rate functions and business practices", items about which
95 agencies are typically less aware. He said that he would like to create incentives for upfront
96 mitigation such that they would be in PCS' best business interest. He said it very likely might be
97 to PCS' benefit to do mitigation upfront as ratios could be higher later.
3 9/21/2004
?? ' r
98
99 Mr. Hudgens stated that the pattern is set already with the last permit where PCS
100 demonstrated their good faith by taking considerable risk in putting a whole lot of mitigation in the
101 ground upfront. Mr. Wicker said he is not convinced that PCS' past mitigation has been of any
102 benefit to the environment of North Carolina. Mr. Dorney thanked PCS and CZR for all the
103 upfront mitigation done in the last permit process. Mr. Dorney said mitigation success is a
104 different matter but he wanted the group to know that DWQ is grateful and that PCS is about the
105 only entity in the state to have done this.
106
107 Ms. Berger allowed that it would probably be a natural outcome of the process anyway, but
108 that permit conditions regarding the periodic review should clearly state a time frame for the
109 agency comment period during review windows.
110
111 Mr. Smith asked how the Wilmington District would conceive of this list and wondered if a
112 draft could be generated now. Mr. Walker asked if by "now" Mr. Smith meant this team process
113 or by 11:00 today. Then Mr. Walker stated that between today and the next team meeting (14
114 July) the agencies would meet regarding this list and a list of procedures about how agencies will
115 weigh alternatives. He wasn't asking for input now, he wanted people to begin consideration of
116 what to include.
117
118 Mr. House wanted to know if "when and where" were going to be permitted but "how and
119 what" is going to be left somewhat open to this decadal review process. Mr. Wicker said that
120 what he had said earlier might have been misunderstood and acknowledged Mr. House's prior
121 demonstrations of dexterity with language. Mr. Wicker said that he is cautious by nature and he
122 doesn't want the environment to be on the short end of the stick. He just wanted to be clear that
123 once mitigation is successful that there is closure.
124
125 Ms. Lamson said that maybe the permit could be written so there is a requirement phase
126 and an incentive phase, i.e., that by first/every 10 years, x acres at y success criteria must be in
127 place but that the applicant can do more at current ratios ahead of the 10-year schedule.
128
129 Mr. Walker summarized the previous discussion by saying that no one minds looking at a
130 longer than 20 year plan in its entirety for a permit as long as there are windows for review at
4 9/21/2004
V r
131 some intervals agreed upon by the group. He said through a sequenced timing of mitigation,
132 with as much up front as possible, the plan should be worked out to the satisfaction of agencies.
133 He also said that accommodating changes in regulations and rules may be a bit more
134 problematic. Mr. Overton and Mr. Dorney agreed.
135
136 Mr. Walker then inquired whether the Purpose and Need statement needs to be revised. He
137 asked should reference to "20-year" be removed so that it would read "economical mining of
138 resource that's available" or something like that? Mr. Smith said that PCS would begin some
139 sequencing alternatives right away. Ms. Lamson remarked how different the tables are this time-
140 last EIS it was the agencies who were arguing for long-term planning and the PCS position was
141 considering shorter time frames. She reminded PCS that sequencing must show minimization
142 and avoidance.
143
144 Mr. House remarked that there will be many permutations of alternatives. Mr. Furness said
145 alternatives will be different years but include the entire project area. Ms. Lamson said maybe
146 there won't be as many alternatives as Mr. House thinks. Mr. Smith said maybe large scale
147 limiting factors will reduce the number of alternatives which provided the perfect segue to PCS'
148 presentation on Cones of Depression.
149
150 Mr. Smith introduced Tex Gilmore, PCS Chief Geologist and Superintendent of Mine
151 Planning who presented a PowerPoint show on Split Pit Depressurization and shared the results
152 of an evaluation of six different split pit scenarios in the NCPC and the Southern Area
153 (Attachment 2). A cone of depression is created from each pit and depending on distance
154 between the pits; the cones may or may not overlap. In combination with depth to the aquifer,
155 the distance between pits dictates the cone definition and distance of effect. The evaluation was
156 completed in 2002 by Leggette, Brashears and Graham and did not include the Bonnerton area.
157
158 In order to access the phosphate ore body which is buried under an overburden of -100 feet
159 of material, Mr. Gilmore stated that groundwater must be lowered and controlled during mining to
160 maintain safe dry conditions. Influx of groundwater can be catastrophic as it can create
161 instability in the highwall. Dry mine-pit conditions are necessary to provide stable slopes for
162 equipment, to improve stacking characteristics of spoil, and to reduce dilution of ore. He showed
163 a slide of the typical geologic section for the area, showing the relationships of the overburden to
5 9/21/2004
i K
164 the ore and to the underlying Castle Hayne aquifer, drawing attention to the eastward downdip
165 direction of the regional geology. As a result of the dip, the Castle Hayne aquifer is found deeper
166 underground in the NCPC area compared to the Southern Area (and Bonnerton), and is deepest
167 in the northeast portion of the NCPC tract. Mr. Gilmore said the depth of the aquifer directly
168 affects the cone of depression created with depressurization.
169
170 He told the group that PCS has numerous wells scattered over several counties that have
171 monitored effects of depressurization since the 60s. This database gives PCS a solid
172 understanding of the long-term patterns, behavior, and tolerances of the aquifer as it relates to
173 PCS depressurization activities. The phosphate ore body lies directly above the cap rock that
174 pressurizes the Castle Hayne aquifer. However, the bottom 10 feet of resource must be left
175 undisturbed and unrecovered in order to maintain integrity of the aquifer. Operating under
176 Capacity Use Permit CU 1003, PCS is limited to withdrawal of no more than 78 million gallons of
177 water per day. A total of 9 million gallons per day of the permitted amount is dedicated to the
178 processing requirements of the chemical plant, reducing the daily withdrawal limit for the mine
179 operation to 69 million gallons per day.
180
181 Drawdown models were used and calibrated for split pit mining locations that varied from
182 three to eight miles apart in the six scenarios evaluated as follows:
183 ? Scenario 1 - northeast corner of NCPC Alt 1A and the northwest of Southern Area
184 (S33)
185 ? Scenario 2 - north end of existing mine permit 7-1 and the northwest corner of S33
186 ? Scenario 3 - south end of existing mine permit 7-1 and the northwest corner of S33
187 ? Scenario 4 - northeast corner of NCPC Alt 1A and the north central area of S33
188 ? Scenario 5 - south end of existing mine permit 7-1 and the north central area of S33
189 ? Scenario 6 - south end of existing mine permit 7-1 and the northeast corner of S33
190
191 Mr. Furness informed the group that when PCS first opened NCPC under the current permit,
192 Block 26 in the east edge of Bonnerton was being finished up at the same time. This was the
193 first split pit mine at the Aurora facility and the pits were 2.5 miles apart. The first slide showing a
194 cone of depression demonstrated this 2001 - 2002 split pit with roughly circular concentric
195 isolines showing depth to the potentiometric surface of the aquifer and a cone of depression
6 9/21/2004
1 r
196 measuring approximately 25 miles at its widest point. Mr. Gilmore indicated that the typical
197 diameter of the cone of depression effects has been 17 to 18 miles.
198
199 Results from each evaluation were displayed showing the pumping adjustments necessary
200 to insure that 10 feet of material remained above the mine floor at both pit locations of the
201 scenario in order to maintain pressure head in the aquifer. The scenario results are summarized
202 in the table below:
203
Split Pit Million Pumping centers - Cone of depression
Scenario gallons/day distance apart diameter at widest point
1 90 8 miles 35 miles
2 82 7 miles 34 miles
3 70 5 miles 29 miles
4 93 7.3 miles 37 miles
5 75 4 miles 31 miles
6 73 3 miles 31 miles
204
205 As shown in the above table the only areas that can be simultaneously depressurized within
206 the permitted CU limits are the south end of NCPC and the northern most corridor of the S33
207 (Scenarios 3, 5, and 6). Important conclusions of the evaluation demonstrate that increased
208 distances between pits; 1) decreases the amount of overlap of depressurization cones thereby
209 increasing the diameter of the overall effect of depressurization and 2) increases the amount
210 needed to be pumped from each area to achieve a safe drawdown level for mine operation.
211
212 During Mr. Gilmore's presentation, Mr. McSwain asked about mitigation for salt water
213 intrusion and said that he had read/heard that the levels in the Castle Hayne aquifer were
214 dropping. Mr. Gilmore replied that PCS has not had any salt intrusion in any wells and that
215 chloride levels are a parameter that PCS is acutely responsive to and monitors closely. In those
216 cases where a citizen or user has lost the prime on their well due to PCS' depressurization
217 activities, PCS has covered the cost of either a new pump, new pipe, or drilling a deeper well.
218 Mr. Furness asked Mr. Gilmore to please address the comment made about dropping levels in
219 the Castle Hayne.
220
7 9/21/2004
le 221 Mr. Gilmore mentioned a report from Dr. Spruill which included data from a well at Cox's
222 Crossroads that has shown a drop of 1 foot over a 2 year period, but that he personally has not
223 read nor does he have a copy of that report. Mr. Gilmore stated that continuous charts of PCS
224 widely collected well data do not show any change in levels of the Castle Hayne. He also said
225 that the recharge potential of the Castle Hayne is incredible and that their depressurization wells
226 must be running all the time because of the artesian head of this aquifer.
227
228 Mr. Wicker asked how fast the water would come back up if PCS ceased pumping. Mr.
229 Gilmore replied that the pit floor would be ruptured in a matter of hours but that it might take
230 weeks to destabilize the mine bench. Mr. Wicker reminded the group that uses for the
231 depressurization water had been explored briefly in the past by the team but wondered what
232 about after the mine closes. Mr. Gilmore replied that they have an agreement with Eagle Water
233 to use/market this commodity, but Eagle Water has not had any success as yet.
234
235 Mr. Smith said that the Castle Hayne is different geologically and therefore hydrologically,
236 from both the Cape Fear and Black Creek aquifers. These others do not recharge as rapidly.
237 Mr. Gilmore remembered a paper from a study in the 70's (by DeWeist) showing a 280 million
238 gallon per day recharge for the Castle Hayne. Mr. Smith acknowledged additional evaluations
239 would be studied that included Bonnerton. Mr. Gilmore said that the 78 million gallons per day
240 permit limit was designed to cover the worst case scenario.
241
242 Mr. Walker inquired if it possible to predict how far you could split the pits and stay within
243 confines of the permit, for instance, could you go to 90 million gallons for a short period? Mr.
244 Gilmore replied that Dr. Spruill felt that 78 million gallons per day could be sustained for a limited
245 period. Mr. Smith said that based on the past that Dr. Spruill would probably say no. Mr. Walker
246 suggested asking Dr. Spruill what would be the maximum withdrawal rate to maintain health of
247 the aquifer over a 2-year time frame. Mr. Furness said that this will be one of the large scale
248 limiting factors to be considered.
249
250 Mr. Smith listed other large scale limiting factors which included:
251 ? Minnesott Ridge (Suffolk Scarp) - encumbers mine operation because of additional
252 overburden (extra waste handling) and input of additional water in the pit. Mr.
253 Furness added that PCS has no intention to mine into base of the scarp;
8 9/21/2004
r
254 ? Economic practicability;
255 ? Minimum operational pit width;
256 ? Minimum production rate of 5 million tons of ore/year - potential does exist for
257 examining short term windows (example: week or month) that could go below this
258 rate; and
259 ? Need to minimize pit width changes and ancillary mining areas - rectangles are best
260 as every turn dictates a loss of ore.
261
262 Mr. Walker gave the floor to CZR who sought agency feedback on Dr. Skaggs' preliminary
263 scope of tasks to study potential effects of drainage basin reduction associated with the new
264 areas proposed for mining. Ms. Berger reminded the group that CZR had prepared a brief
265 summary of the Skaggs proposal which had been included in the packages for the 12th and 13th
266 team meetings and that some of those present had also attended a presentation by Skaggs
267 describing the approach and results of the NCPC creeks study. She indicated that PCS was
268 anxious for the study to begin because of the time needed to gather the baseline information.
269 CZR asked for as much upfront comment as possible from the group to avoid later "second-
270 guessing" about procedures and methods. Mr. Cooper said that Dr. Skaggs proposes to do a
271 baseline study similar to the NCPC creeks study, applying the same methods where
272 appropriate, and then compare alternatives for potential impacts to each watershed. Mr.
273 Furness said that watershed definition comes first and then baseline flow monitoring. Mr.
274 Wicker mentioned that flow is predictable by watershed but Mr. Dorney commented that low
275 flows can't be modeled and can't be predicted based on size. Mr. Wicker wondered why
276 DRAINMOD should be used and Mr. Dorney replied that this model is more accurate than
277 assumptions. Mr. Wicker expressed interest in a subset of what Skaggs would be modeling.
278 Mr. Dorney said this study will help to know how much to pump into drains during low flow and
279 Mr. House described the study as a mitigation tool for what to put back in place. Mr. Furness
280 said it would also be a useful tool for agencies in their examination of alternatives.
281
282 Mr. Steffens asked about timing of the study and said that he would like to see 1-2 years of
283 monitoring on the scarp. Mr. Furness said that the study could go through the wet winter
284 months if it started now. Mr. Steffens asked if that meant the study would only be 9 months.
285 Mr. Furness reminded the group that at the initial meetings, this information was described as
286 being "required" for future downstream impacts. Mr. Wicker asked about seasonal groundwater
9 9/21/2004
of ,
287 flow and how it would be used? He also wants to think about uses of the data so that Skaggs
288 presents the study results with the most utility. Ms. Berger said that CZR brought copies of the
289 complete proposal from Dr. Skaggs for anyone who wished a copy. Mr. Walker asked that the
290 complete copy of Skaggs' proposal be included with the minutes (Attachment 3). Mr. Steffens
291 indicated that DWQ is happy with the Skaggs proposal as it stands.
292
293 The group broke for lunch at 12:15 and reconvened at 1:15 with Brooke Lamson absent.
294
295 Mr. Cooper asked for comments and edits on the draft minutes of the 12th meeting sent out
296 the most recent team package. He distributed the latest figure of the biotic communities of the
297 NCPC area which replaced the figure sent out with the package for the 13th meeting
298 (Attachment 4). Mr. Cooper also reminded the group that as for Bonnerton, the draft figure is a
299 combination of biotic community type and wetlands. He also said that like Bonnerton, the
300 wetlands remained unchanged and only land-use communities were updated where
301 appropriate. He stated that the Corps streams were still being finalized and went over the figure
302 briefly with the group. He referred to a poster on the wall that CZR had hung that showed the
303 biotic communities on top of the aerial photo of the NCPC area.
304
305 Mr. Cooper went on to say that the survey of the Southern Area is complete with the
306 exception of a few flags needed to close polygons. CZR is still waiting on receipt of
307 documentation of the PC (prior-converted) lands in the Southern Area. He said that the
308 Southern Area figure will have three components when it is completed; 1) flagged areas, 2) PC
309 areas, and 3) other areas of upland (roads, etc). When the Southern Area is completed, all
310 three areas will have all their biotic resources identified.
311
312 Mr. Walker said that the agenda had been reorganized from what was sent out in the
313 package so that the conversation could go directly from the biotic community map of NCPC to
314 discussion of WASC areas. Mr. Cooper said that at the last meeting CZR was requested to
315 provide a map comparing the WASC areas to NCCREWS data (also included as a figure in the
316 package for this meeting). Results of the comparison, at least for the Bonnerton area, was that
317 CREWS was better than NWI maps but that it can use improvement. Ms. Berger gave a brief
318 summary of the differences between the jurisdictional areas identified as WASC and those
319 identified by CREWS as high quality (exceptional, category 3) and overall totals of jurisdictional
10 9/21/2004
r
320 areas identified by the two approaches. It was clear that a jurisdictional determination on the
321 ground is the best source. Some of the differences between the DCM CREWS data and WASC
322 areas are listed below:
323 ? Total Bonnerton wetland CZR/Corps = 2,130 acres;
324 ? Total Bonnerton wetland DCM CREWS data = 1,429 acres;
325 ? Total Bonnerton WASC = 608 acres;
326 ? Total Bonnerton CREWS level 3 wetlands ("high value") = 393 acres; and
327 ? Areas where WASC and CREWS level 3 match = 200 acres.
328
329 Mr. Walker said that the purpose of WASC during the last EIS process was to help agencies
330 determine those sensitive areas that were hardest to mitigate. The group may decide that for
331 the new permit/EIS process the same two criteria in Wayne Wright's 1991 letter as to what
332 constitutes a WASC are still valid-1) areas that preserve drainage basin integrity and 2) large
333 contiguous principally undisturbed wetlands. Mr. Walker suggested that maybe PCS and CZR
334 could proceed with these two criteria and base alternatives on them for presentation to the
335 group. He wondered what happens if the agencies attach a higher value to some areas but
336 reiterated that whatever is done that it must be defensible. Mr. Walker said that while WASC is
337 not a true functional assessment, it does represent the best professional judgment of a group of
338 professionals with a wide range of experience and knowledge dealing with environmental
339 issues. Continuing this process will require much more fieldwork and at this time the group has
340 expressed a hesitancy to begin. He asked what had changed since the last WASC
341 determinations.
342
343 Mr. Dorney said that 50-foot buffer rules are now in place for streams. Mr. Steffens asked
344 about baseline data from the first WASC designations and whether they were field-checked
345 from a regulatory point of view. Mr. Furness recalled that the previous field teams concentrated
346 on the NCPC area, possibly 50-60 sites. He thought that the "pocosin" area of Bonnerton was
347 now a good candidate for a visit since no agencies looked at it last time, nor was any of the
348 Southern Area examined for WASC. Ms. Fox inquired how much size and maturity of
349 vegetation was taken into consideration in the WASC designations, since for non-riparian areas
350 it was very important but for riparian systems it was not as important. She also wondered
351 whether it was PCS or Weyerhaeuser who had logged those communities whose biotic
352 designation had changed and Mr. Furness replied, "Both." Ms. Fox said she would rather see
11 9/21/2004
W k
353 the potential of a recently disturbed area considered rather than the current age of vegetation.
354 Mr. Walker said it will be either a "pay me now" or "pay me later" scenario; either PCS can
355 develop alternatives using the two WASC criteria as they stand and then the agencies can
356 respond to their efforts or PCS can wait until the group decides what and where is the higher
357 value habitat.
358
359 Mr. House said that WASC was a mitigation tool for avoidance and that WASC were not the
360 same as public trust areas. He cautioned the group about drawing too much from the recent
361 EPA case between Piedmont Triad airport and Corps because the wetland in that case was
362 small and homogenous. Mr. House stated that the team needs to be careful in preparation of
363 the EIS because of the size and diversity of PCS wetlands and the difficulty of agencies
364 reviewing each site. Mr. House advised that everything must be presented clearly and be
365 defensible either through a functional assessment or something like one.
366
367 Mr. Dorney stated that DWQ is working on an assessment tool that should be approved by
368 October 2004 but that using it in its current version for the wetlands in the PCS project area
369 would be extremely time-consuming. Mr. House suggested taking representative samples of
370 each of the three areas with agency input. Mr. Furness mentioned that Alternative D in the last
371 EIS was developed from instructions to the applicant to avoid as many WASC areas as
372 possible. Mr. Cooper suggested that maybe a trip by the agencies to look at some of the
373 communities might be enough. Mr. House said that Mr. Walker will not be able to produce a
374 document using a black box and that somehow it must be expressed that all bottomland
375 hardwoods are not equal.
376
377 Mr. Dorney indicated that if their assessment tool is finalized by October that they would
378 probably insist PCS use it. Mr. Furness reminded the group that their alternatives must be done
379 this summer which precludes use of DWQ method. Mr. House said that whatever "assessment"
380 is done must be adequately described.
381
382 Mr. Wicker indicated that avoidance and minimization (e.g., % wetland impact, % stream
383 impact) could be watershed based and could be a fairly convincing measure for alternative
384 development but that for mitigation, a finer resolution would be required. He asked whether Mr.
385 Dorney was saying that the process should wait for DWQ's assessment tool. Mr. Dorney said
12 9/21/2004
L M
386 that ignoring it just opens the group to criticism. Ms. Fox asked if a stream assessment tool was
387 also being developed and Mr. Furness replied that it is on a separate but similar track.
388
389 Mr. Wicker suggested that maybe pocosins could receive less scrutiny on avoidance and
390 minimization but have more emphasis on preservation of large tracts of this community type
391 since there is not much confidence of restoration of these areas. He acknowledged that public
392 trust areas are difficult to mitigate also, so waterways must be avoided and minimized.
393
394 Mr. Smith indicated that he would like to see similar prioritization of avoidance areas from
395 each group member as it would be a great tool for PCS in alternative development. Mr. Moore
396 said that CAMA's position would be to avoid all coastal wetlands and public trust areas. Mr.
397 Wicker said that restoration should be focused on those areas that are easier to restore. Mr.
398 Smith wondered if it is too simplistic to ask for a list of what to avoid, what to minimize and what
399 is mitigatible. Mr. Wicker said complication leads to procrastination after all. Mr. Hudgens
400 complimented Mr. Wicker's approach and said that designation of WASC was primarily done to
401 insure that nothing was missed and wondered if we even need WASC in this case. Mr. Wicker
402 said maybe not. Mr. Cooper reminded the group that Mr. Walker had suggested the elimination
403 of WASC during an earlier meeting. Mr. Walker said that maybe a functional assessment can
404 be done at the time of calculation of mitigation.
405
406 Mr. House said that he thinks Mr. Wicker is on the right path and that the approach should
407 be simplified. He reminded the group that last time he argued against WASC because he thinks
408 it is a mistake to use a term for which there is no statutory or regulatory definition. Mr. Wicker
409 suggested that the group look at the wildlife impacted and then when it comes to mitigation, ask
410 if it adequately benefits those affected critters. He said there is no way that he can outthink or
411 out maneuver PCS but he wants to reduce their incentive for tricks and humorously stated, "One
412 of us doesn't have to carry the skull of the vanquished to have a good time."
413
414 Mr. Walker said that he is not recommending calling something a WASC, but to use the
415 criteria we have always used such that riparian areas are avoided and fragmentation of large
416 contiguous wetlands area is also avoided. He asked if the group approved/liked this approach.
417 Everyone present in the room agreed. Ms. Fox said that it can be fine tuned at the alternatives
418 stage and that she also likes this approach.
13 9/21/2004
1 ,
419
420 Mr. Steffens gave the DWQ priorities list that Mr. Smith requested which includes the
421 following areas:
422 AVOIDANCE
423 • Public trust
424 • Perennial and intermittent streams because of the 50-foot buffer
425 • Biotic communities 2 (brackish marsh complex), 3 (bottomland hardwood forest),
426 7 (hardwood forest), 10 (pocosin bay forest), and 12 (ponds)
427 MINIMIZATION
428 Remainder of wetland communities as much as possible
429
430 Mr. Moore said that for CAMA, the green areas of the NCPC biotic communities figure
431 (public trust areas) and brackish marsh complex (community 2) would be areas to avoid. Mr.
432 Wicker said that the USFWS would agree that public trust areas must be avoided, followed by
433 perennial streams, brackish marsh complex, and bottomland hardwood. He clarified that his list
434 is not based on a sense of high to low value, but on a scale of increasing ease of mitigation.
435 For WRC, Ms. Tripp mirrored those previously listed with the addition of 100-foot corridors
436 around streams on either side. For EPA, Ms. Fox agreed with everyone, but expressed caution
437 about disturbed areas that are perceived as being of less value. Mr. Walker said that the group
438 had basically just rewritten Mr. Wright's 1991 letter. Mr. Cooper said that he wants the group to
439 know that many of the ponds (biotic community 12) shown in NCPC are borrow pits, dugout
440 areas, or hydraulic canals. Mr. Walker asked if there was any interest in a field trip to look at
441 any of these sites.
442
443 After calendar comparisons, the group scheduled a field trip to PCS for 4 and 5 August at
444 the PCS Land Office at 9:30 am and 9:00 am, respectively. Mr. Dorney has never been to
445 Bonnerton and Ms. Fox has never been to PCS at all. Mr. Furness said that the Suffolk Scarp
446 should also be on the list of sites to visit.
447
448 Mr. Walker suggested that an agency meeting take place prior to the next team meeting in
449 order to discuss 1) permit condition windows and 2) framework for alternatives analysis. This
450 meeting is set for 1:00 pm 28 June at John Dorney's office and will be interagency personnel
451 only.
14 9/21/2004
r
452
453 Mr. Furness said that by the next team meeting they will have maps good enough to begin
454 alternative development. Mr. Smith admitted that they will have lines on paper but no mine
455 plans will be developed until agencies have provided input and alternatives are "tweaked". Mr.
456 Walker requested that PCS try to send out their preliminary plans prior to the 14th meeting (14
457 July) and said that it was fine to not include mine plans or economic analysis at this point. Mr.
458 Smith said that the first pass at alternatives will be totally based on natural resources.
459
460 Mr. Furness inquired whether another team meeting should be scheduled and the 15th
461 meeting was agreed to be held on 26 August at Washington DENR offices. Mr. Furness also
462 asked for input from CZR about likely sites for the 4/5 August field trip.
463
464 The meeting adjourned at 2:55 pm.
465
466 The following items were provided to the group prior to the 13th meeting:
467 ? Summary Outline of Dr. Skaggs Proposed Tasks for Assessment of Drainage Basin
468 Reduction to be Addressed in the PCS Phosphate EIS (dated 2 March 2004);
469 ? DRAFT figure for Bonnerton Wetland Areas of Special Concern and NC CREWS
470 data (dated 27 April 2004);
471 ? DRAFT figure for NCPC Biotic/Wetland Communities Map (dated 27 May 2004);
472 ? Minutes of the 28 January 2004 meeting; and
473 ? DRAFT Minutes of the 20 April 2004 meeting.
474
475 Attachments:
476 1) Meeting Agenda for 2 June 2004 PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation Permit Application
477 Review Team;
478 2) PCS PowerPoint Presentation 2 June 2004- Split Pit Depressurization and Cones of
479 . Depression;
480 3) Replacement NCPC Biotic/Wetlands Communities Map DRAFT (dated 1 June 2004 -
481 includes linear feet of streams);
482 4) Evaluation of Effects of Drainage Basin Reduction on the Hydrology of PCS Mining
483 Sites, Dr. R. Wayne Skaggs, 2 March 2004;
484
15 9/21/2004
485
486 Distribution
Ms. Mary Alsentzer
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Becky Fox
Environmental Protection Agency
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, NC 28789
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. James M. Hudgens
CZR Incorporated
1061 East Indiantown Road, Suite 100
Jupiter, Florida 33477-5143
Mr. Scott Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David M. Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Sean McKenna
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dr. David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Ms. Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Regulatory Section USEPA/EAB
Wetlands Management Division
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David Moye
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Jimmie Overton
NC Division of Water Quality
ESB Lab
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Richard Peed
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
16 9/21/2004
Mr. William A. Schimming
Potash Corp.
Post Office Box 3320
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Ross Smith
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Ms. Maria Tripp
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Habitat Conservation Section
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Walker
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Bob Zarzecki
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. Ted Tyndal
North Carolina Division Coastal Management
Morehead City District Office
151-B Hwy. 24 Hestron Plaza II
Morehead City, NC 28557
Mr. George House
Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey &
Leonard
P.O. Box 26000
Greensboro, NC 27420
17 9/21/2004
ATTACHMENT 1
MEETING AGENDA FOR 2 JUNE 2004 PCS PHOSPHATE
MINE CONTINUATION PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW TEAM
AGENDA
2 June 2004
PCS PHOSPHATE PERMIT TEAM MEETING
PROJECT: AID 200110096/ PCS Phosphate mine advance, Beaufort County, NC.
10:00 - 11:00 Defining the project / length of permit
11:00 - 12:00 "Large Scale" limiting factors in alternative development (Cone of
depression, etc.)
12:00- 12:15 Summary of Proposed Assessment of Drainage Basin Reduction
12:15 - 1:15 Lunch
1:15 -2:00 Presentation of biotic community maps
2:00 - 3:00 Identifying Wetland Areas of Special Concern
ATTACHMENT 2
PCS POWERPOINT PRESENTATION 2 JUNE 2004
SPLIT PIT DEPRESSURIZATION AND CONES OF DEPRESSION
{ ,
0
.
how
C,II?
Q
O
Ith,

w
i

w?
"0
40-
W
CA `
40-
"0 La
0 CrI
Y
00
(4-04 4-4
Y
0 cn N
C3 94 -0 0
4-4
Y
4-04
s C? 4-4 U' CA
? Y
4-1 "Ic .4-A 0. 0. 0
94 04
Cd4

A Oil

ta-k *j47
0
'V
• ?j
• O
? O o
U ?, •?
O •O
n? w
V
? o
? ? o
4.
T
.,,..^
2�
g
✓
me�
s;
r
qIn
ypy
yJ
f
Vol
4.
T
.,,..^
2�
g
✓
me�
s;
r
qIn

?I
64
Lot
ct cn N
as
. r,
N U N
Cl)
U ct
Cd MO • ? U CC3
. r,
Cf)
^ o ?, ?U, ?+ N U N ?p ? O
O En
4J •? 0 N cl)
Cl)
NO Cl) M
Cl) C
cd O •O d? , N 0
CTJ
+C4 0
Q cn 00 ,-+ .

;--+ C/)
cd 7?
o
ro
(U N
• cn
U
4M, cd
• ct U
O N U U ,? O O
cd ?--?
CIS
4i
O 4?
7
ct O c?
?+ aA ?
z O U
N
N O
V) M bbA
N `V N U

N
r
CC3 CC3
03
Z bi) Z bb
O M O M O M Q O M ??
M M M U Q
• ? M
(1) U
U Z U U Z
itt a 0
o o o o o
U
.. ° .
tol
• }-• J--• .3 • • ?- y 0 4-.
t

? r

r?

?z
T

Q 0
?

j
:?C
C.l?
r?
"1.
?,..t

aj
O ?
N ?
'-,
o
?+ • .-?
*41
O
O ?
o
ro N
.. .?
a) q?
U r 4J
? N
cis
N ?
vi O
O ?
cr3
4J ? U
O
CU, U
c?
rrIj O ?
•? dj O
a
N
col
ci
o ?
? N
a?
a?
? N O
c
ct
M ..cn
.? O M
M
N ? N
o a?
0
H o
U ? N
c N
? N
U ? N
03
O
o
U U
O c
cn 51 cd
C,J
? m O N
• ro
.?

z

ms's

a)
42 4:5
. n r 4
C;3 m
c-? cc3 00
? +3 o
cn ?
? o ?, • ,
r? rid
r.? p oo O
Cld
ap
C)
Or C;j
C;3 r--4
o o :----4
O °
ask
00 -1:5 c N
'L j O O N Ov 4 r-' .r-4 U
Cid m bA
r O ,
cd O o
03
N
.??..ai.?=?., ats';? -' ?<?iCt...c?.::??.r.'r?+:.?.Y1?.t?C`:m?s?:rc+.7Gti.?.e?w.,.,il?.t:?. tii:,.1ii-.iro?.w i?,?
"r1?. x .,'? i ....:. .' ,."n _..:-... vy L i ?« ,y.r ??.;'.. x {, • fr ? - T ?
(U
o
l
col
?--'
^AIL
O ?
O ?
.r, Cd
s °
v) . cn
O
N Q
U N ? ?
C`i
O 03
N 4C', N-+
o C"t .?
a? o
cri ?-,
cd cc
? M r--?+ 4J
btJ cd
Cd d- • ?
bb c4r)
N N ?
cri
U ? N
cd
?-, c4 .
0
'? U U
CTS
c? ? b?A c?3
?t?
bj) cd
OU
sal c? .? O
tl?
G

ct
4--1 c
4-1
cd
$-j C13 P-, o •?
M 00
Con cd
Cld . r,
o N N .? O bb O
' N
0 N U 00 • ; q
p 00 ,0
(0t) rn
*-, bA
Cd p o
CTJ
,P? ?
t1t

o

Coil-
I

? U N
N
N cn
cf)
sal
N ? N
Cid
N ? ? O
? o
. c CIA
03
N •N
ct
N N U ?' N
nz?
0
10
N .? N
O c O
U 42 U
7s
O O O
?cn-, 4? O ?
cn (1)
'? p O M ? '; •? p
O U bb cd O U
U N N O ? ,--? U?
CVJ
V".-q ?
tl?

I

I
*41

c?
O
c?3
O
cis
Cd
O
O ?
U-+ O
? U
+--'
aA
O O
O ?
O
M 4J
cf)
03
? ?
cd o
o ?.? apo? ?
Cid
o •?
O cd
00 U
c b?A
• Cd
Cf3
cn
`4 .. - .. _ y.?.H? '? 3ai?.rµ?n `S 3? 'Pi`,?¢^+'a?'... ? ? x ?? a_ s 1 'a ?? '?' '? b •r?? "'- ??a3 ?: ?._+!+$?S »??.: a4 '?+ i? ?' i 3- r?s.d

. 1: .. .. - .. .. .. .. m....... . r ._ v ..... r r. ? . I ra h .. .. _. ... ... ...t ....?1 .a. .. -? .. - .... ? . 1 nil
-+-j
Cld
4J
o ?
N ?
4
O cc3
O ?
? O
E-, o
4J N ?
U ? U
? N
N cn O N v
.o C?3 o
03
C4; N
U CU ? ? O
c U C? ? . ?
CC3$?-? N M
bb M
4J
U
N 4J ?
? N
U ? N
7-3
?-, cC',
O
o
'? U U
p
C(J
03 N bb M
C;3 O
bb Cd
s`i ?rd?? a3 h .sir, 3- J a !pn'zs ei'x'? o1y4?ti,H
a
;Z,
,

z

N
. ? ct
.? CU aj
os' + M
?--, Cd O m
O o 45 cis
3 U '? O
C;s
cl rd
00
Cld CTS
O ct
C'd
N O 03 4-J0 M r--? N
kn (U
cd ;3 10 C13
o C;s p o
m.?
rx i?:ae ?an? ?ya?M1??*ic k2.33HUk1 £?t ai?ra*? ? ? 7Pt .? e? ?'. s: f t. ? L, d ? „?': ?? '?? '?" '?•r

?'
.?
?.F .f ?+?dDE'".??'v?w.:a_ °...::...h.? ?'t- ' ?*,tE ?:.?n L.u :, ., " ' .. ?+t c ki:,i,.a' t. a w.r?CZ,?C:.ir.+?at?`m?:a:i?' ? -.:r'?.x.',i`u..?.ar u:'?+1
..?3:1..,s ,,.:.r ...,+t.:???.e.'?.$s?i?iwx.,..?L>s?.3it:Ih..+.. i?a-?c "=-s. if?,?'?IS::.s. .¢

0
M
N ?
O ?
jal
U •?
N ?
O saq
N
Cid
,c - .--?
0
? O
O
U ?
4-a
O BOO O cc
. r,
' U' p
? ? U Q
N
CCs M
D q) +S
Cd
ct O
U ? N
N ?
•? O
O ?
O ?
O ?
Q? c?3
? M
O O
N ?
O
4-?
•O ?
.? O
? U
O
cd
bfJ M
U
cd
O
U •?
O ?
ct
ct
bA .O
•? U
cn
O ?
U O
N
? U
N ?
C'd
c

I
"1 -14
C

nz?
czj
.? ?., cn
c?
cd ,-?
cid
? ,? p N . ,
00
cd o
o?
u Cd by '?
U ?
• r--,
Cld
o .? Cd o o
lci

rrte..: ;
?1
?`r?dini?a5liyYJ/?7,1?1 '??.M t?trSF.da?.v. ? ? €,a: c<.??a"?+i':? ? 9 r« trU?yF,?- ?,; ?? J '4 z' ? .J t(I J? 1 '' 1t..i; -z ': ..:.
?.i.?irow:L..ia..t _t? ??,_,s;vssiii?tna?'=-:i??s `a :.,,,t?,3C,ai;:

Col
O
sn?
Cid o3
??t4r? Cn cn
N 4.1
m 03
? vl N rc) Cl)
CTJ
r--? cn
O -? ?? c? c;3 ? O 0 ct3 c?
? N
,,.? • ? tip ? ?
m C3
cn CA
r(::$ En
N
aj CC3 CC3
• ?+ cn
ct
cm
Cid p
03
cd vs
00 ?
c? cd
U p bD o M
c •?
• C` 1 cn cz3 • U c/? , •
y
l ,
Z
u?.u.5cw,:,Jait,.,.:`-

t_. . r-4 , o ? b?A
03
0
cd p
C
03
•? O
ct3 ? ?, N N • r-,
N
4-4
O
U O ? Ct ? N
U a
C's
y
I I
ct
,
cn o ?
cc3
N
bA ? 3
• ?, bA
tol a)
C? N p ?, ?' ? rn
Col
? p ? ? ? vs p bA
rlz?
03 p bA
0 E 0
03
col
vi
ATTACHMENT 3
REPLACEMENT NCPC BIOTIC COMMUNITIES DRAFT FIGURE
O dOif Wm0n0nmN0000.*00mo000N Lc) N O
O ONr-f,- *wrf*N-r?00000001 r001%q.t(R 7 00 O CI ?
06 rMMN(CN6Ng6r I66OOTOr•ilI0006r-arto OQ 0) 0 N
v 0 0.
O d 000 m ? N r-P, 01 - -* tt) (0r- 0d '-01 IA
t0 r-NNlfIN0 NN
5 N R < (Q
Id
M ??
N 000
000 U) Z
A• W
Ui Lei n00? F d
p A ° O Pr 00 W W Z 1 V
o w a F
10 z
°wm o g `` a _?
' ?05N 3 w gW o°o a VO d 0 in mm 3:
m Uow o Ow 2? Fo F UV Q 'S
m Pn ??p0 mp u5 ?
O Zwx HP
° A ^r r A A ? oo,P-owow 10 0N0Qw ?wl
O W0 J y
P r A ° J Q> N W T OpdQZZW ? p??OR>
?0??aoow0 ZUma30O?U 3
m ' ^ ° A w WOZ29 MMna 5aaz, mmwowwzzaz O
P z o'w mcnna-Ha. N W
m A 2 Nan.ooooo00000 0 0)
000000000 0 V O ?<
P rP m m ° A m A N9¢ U w¢mU N.
rr` m ° voaaaaaaaxa a
p g ` z U 3333333333x3»»»»> 3 0 m
A' m
m ? C A
t p PA
P m e N? A, O?NMd1t)?OI?ODOf0?N Ila
P P r A r NM?<n?D1?w01' r ?r r r r•r- r- r NNN
r N m
A A.
A ,
? A
A ,?. p r r N ° c ' .p. ?
10
^ ^ P
?% ° r • A A d r r t A., ? N ° A A
A m
m m r r iIi
N A .?" ?? A a ° ? P
^ pr J ?0 A
pt ° ' ?a 1 a /r a
m ? p e r r ?? A? •' N i
1 A !i ?
? , A ?p A P !? A A
th p a • • P A? P A` ?
^ A
r ° ? A
rA r A
? r 0 r
A p ^ ? ? N
r A N i' N
N ? ? A ? % t a
A p ' m r. T i
A P P i Ps
A `N r o M
Np ? r ? m r o
dl.
r r `? A \
r
A a
p p A P i A A A
m t r ^
r r
° r N A A m i \:, t P
A
m i ? ? r ° A^? a a t' ? Z
WW '?
A r m N
m
?? A r
G • i
r C ?
m r
O
P
ATTACHMENT 4
EVALUATION OF EFFECTS OF DRAINAGE BASIN REDUCTION
ON THE HYDROLOGY OF PCS MINING SITES
DR. R. WAYNE SKAGGS
2 MARCH 2004
DRAFT
Evaluation of the Effects of Drainage Basin Reduction on the
Hydrology of PCS Mining Sites
By
R. Wayne Skaggs
3-2-04
Analyses will be conducted to evaluate the hydrologic effects of mining activities
on flows into the Pamlico River and South Creek near Aurora in Beaufort County. As
the mining operation progresses, sections of the watersheds are cut off, effectively
reducing the areas of the watersheds draining to South Creek and Pamlico River. The
objective of this project is to determine the effects of such watershed reduction on
drainage outflows.
At this point there are a number of alternatives for the next phase of PCS's
phosphate mining operation. They include further mining on the NCPC tract between the
boundary of the existing permitted mining areas and both South Creek and Pamlico
River. Other alternatives are the agricultural land south of Route 33 and the Bonnerton
block. This proposal describes methods and estimates costs for analyses to determine the
effects of mining, and the consequent reduction of drainage areas of the watersheds
affected, on the outflows to the adjacent coastal waters.
Because the area to be permitted for the next mining phase has not been defined at
this time, it is not possible to describe tasks and procedures specific to the watersheds that
will be affected. However, many of the tasks and methods will be the same, regardless of
the specific site. Therefore, the tasks and procedures will be described in generic terms
inasmuch as possible. The NCPC tract and the area south of Route 33 will be used as
examples in the descriptions.
Tasks:
1. To delineate boundaries of watersheds that are potential candidates for
mining,
2. To determine soil properties, site parameters, watershed characteristics and
vegetation inputs to DRAINMOD based models for the watersheds,
3. To conduct long-term DRAINMOD simulations for the watersheds in their
existing state, and for their condition after mining when their drainage areas
will be reduced.
Procedures:
Task 1: Delineation of watershed boundaries. This is an important task as the
reliability of the results is directly dependent on accurate delineation of the watersheds.
Watersheds on the NCPC tract include the lower reaches of Jacks, Sybil, Jacobs,
Drinkwater, and Tooley Creeks as well as several unnamed slews or creeks emptying into
South Creek. They also include the lower sections of Huddles Cut, Huddy Gut and

unnamed creeks draining directly to the Pamlico River. We will depend on CZR staff to
define the watersheds that will be affected by the proposed mining activities and then to
delineate those watersheds. The CZR group is very familiar with the watersheds on the
NCPC tract. They made the first delineation of the watersheds we are currently
analyzing (Jacks and Tooley Creeks and Huddles Cut). After the initial delineation has
been done we will visit each watershed with CZR staff to determine how best to model
the watershed and to collect information needed to describe the hydrology. If possible
this would be done immediately following a relatively large rainfall event to provide the
best opportunity of determining flow directions and boundaries in these nearly flat
watersheds. Information on soils, vegetation and landscape features needed as inputs to
model the watershed will also be collected during the field survey. In addition to field
reconnaissance, we will work with topo maps and air photos in defining important
features of the watersheds to be modeled.
A somewhat different procedure will be for the agricultural land south of Route
33. This tract consists of three watersheds: Bailey Creek, Broomfield Swamp and
Cypress Run, all of which drain to the upper reaches of South Creek. We conducted
measurements on Cypress Run (Figure 1) last year to determine hydraulic properties of
two of the major soil types (Roanoke and Tomotley) on the watershed. These
measurements will be discussed in the next section. As with the other watersheds, CZR
personnel will delineate watershed boundaries for the relevant watersheds south of Route
33. In this case the task of delineating the watersheds will begin with a meeting and field
tour with Jeff Furness, CZR, Wayne Skaggs and Mr. Dan Windley. Mr. Windley,
retired SCS technician, has worked with agricultural drainage in the Aurora area for
about 60 years and is thoroughly familiar with soils and cropping systems on the poorly
drained soils of the area. In addition to helping with watershed delineation, Dan will
assist us in documenting the characteristics of the drainage systems (distance between
parallel ditches, depth of ditches, control points (such as culverts), field slopes, and soil
types), and in determining normal crop rotations, times of planting, harvesting, tillage
practices, etc.
Special attention will be required for watershed delineation near Route 306 along
the Suffolk Scarp. Surface elevations rise steeply along the scarp and the area serves as a
source of base flow for much of the year. We will model it as a contributing area, which
will require careful delineation.
Watersheds in the Bonnerton mining block will be treated in the same way as in
NCPC. CZR will define and delineate the watersheds and our group will determine
soils, topography, vegetation and drainage system parameters necessary to model the
hydrology. If it is necessary to consider modeling the hydrology of watersheds in this
block, we will first examine maps, soils, and data on vegetation and topography, and
conduct a field survey to determine if the hydrology is similar to that of the NCPC
watersheds. If so, it will be possible to model the watersheds and the effect of mining on
the hydrology without further monitoring. If the hydrology appears to be significantly
f
different from NCPC, monitoring may be necessary. At this point, we do not know
TOPOt map printed on 02/2i from "North Carollna.tpo". and "Untitled tpg
76°So-333' W 76°49833' W 76°49.333'W ,6°43:833' W 76°43.333' W 76 4'W WC 4 6^4,.000' W
Jil
IAo
M
. I ., I
.. li x.ctot
h'
, t
.a' ? W;?,?,k?..?..?w.«..? -,•, ,..-..F ?? J Vie' J /
i J t
I
i
i
3 ,
-I
- CI,:' i cro.c
?E
; p x°
t
76°50.333 W 76°49133sV 76°49.333 W' 76°48.833 W 76°48:333' W- 76°47:833 W WGG34.76°4;
Pmtad from TOPOI ®200] NWnrml6eopepLxHold¢gc (www.topo.com)
Figure 1. Map showing location of field measurements for determining field effective
hydraulic conductivity of the two major soil types (Roanoke and Tomotley) on the
Cypress Run Watershed.
whether the Bonnerton watersheds will need to be considered. Costs for dealing with the
Bonnerton watersheds will approximated.
Task 2: Determine soil properties, site parameters, watershed characteristics
and vegetation inputs to DRAINMOD models for each watershed:
NCPC. Results of our past and current data collection and modeling efforts on NCPC
tracts can be used to determine soil properties and vegetation inputs for other watersheds
on NCPC. Topography and drainage system characteristics will be dependent on the
specific area and will be determined from maps, air photos and field survey. However,
most of the inputs can be obtained from our previous work. This assumes that soils on
other NCPC watersheds are similar to those that we have studied. If they are not, we
would need to measure soil properties for the dominate soils of the watershed. The soil
properties needed are described below. Costs for this task are estimated for two
alternatives: 1. The soils are the same or similar to those on the watersheds that have been
monitored since 2000. 2. Soils are substantially different such that soil properties for a
new soil must be measured.
Soil properties needed are the soil water characteristics for each horizon of each
soil series to a depth of about 1.5 in, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity for each
soil series. Since we will not be continuously measuring outflows for these watersheds
and will, therefore, not have flow data or long term water table data to use in calibrating
the models, measurement of the soil properties will be important to assure reliable
predictions of drainage outflows. We will measure soil water characteristics for the
dominant soil series in each watershed at two locations. Assuming only one new soil
series per watershed with two principle soil horizons at two locations gives a total of 4
determinations per watershed. At least three replications would be required per horizon
per location. Thus we would be making soil water characteristic measurements on 3 X
4= 12 soil samples per watershed. Saturated hydraulic conductivity would be measured
with the auger hole method at 6 locations per soil series, or about 6 locations per
watershed assuming no more than one new soil series per. Cost estimates per watershed
are given below. To repeat, these measurements will not be necessary if the soils on the
new watershed are the same or similar to those on existing watersheds (Jacks Creek,
Tooley Creek and Huddles Cut).
Agricultural Lands South of Highway 33. This land is drained by a network of
regularly spaced, parallel drainage ditches. We have already conducted measurements at
two locations on the Cypress Run watershed to determine field effective values of the
hydraulic conductivity (Figure 1). Flow measurements were conducted on three adjacent
ditches at both locations. Water table depths were recorded for two wells midway
between the ditches in each location. Auger hole measurements of hydraulic
conductivity were conducted at about 12 points, 6 for each location. The data for all of
the above measurements were collected but not analyzed because we were not sure about
the location of the next mining phase. We will have to determine soil water
w ?
characteristics for the major soils on each watershed. In this proposal we will include
costs for the Cypress Run watershed only. It will likely be possible to estimate impacts
on the other two watersheds based on results for Cypress Run. Cost estimates are
included for analyzing the flow data already obtained to determine field effective
hydraulic conductivity for the two major soil types on the watershed. Costs for obtaining
samples and determining soil water characteristics for the two soils, and for preparing the
model inputs are also included.
There are two approaches we could follow for handling contributions from the
scarp area. One is to model it without flow measurements. We should be able to do a
reasonable job of predicting annual flows with this approach. However, there will be no
measurements to confirm model predictions or calibrate the model. A more reliable
approach would be to set up a gauging station to measure flow in one or two ditches near
the base of the scarp. In that case the watershed area for the gauged ditches would have
to be very carefully delineated. Data would have to be collected through at least one and
perhaps two years. Since the proposed mining is to stop well short of the scarp, it may be
possible to evaluate flow contributions from this area by modeling only. I will include
cost estimates for both approaches in the budget. The decision as to which way to go can
be made at a later date.
Task 3. Conduct DRAINMOD simulations for the watersheds: Completion
of tasks 1 and 2 will provide the information necessary to simulate outflows from the
watersheds in the tract to be permitted and mined. In the case of the NCPC tract, results
from our four year field monitoring and modeling study on the Jacks, Huddles and
Tooley watersheds will be used to define model inputs for the lower reaches of these
same watersheds and other watersheds on the tract. The DRAINMOD model was
developed specifically for conditions on the Route 33 tract. Inputs for soil properties,
drainage design parameters, and crop rotations will be assembled and used to simulate the
hydrology of the tract. Regardless of the tract chosen to be permitted, long term
simulations (at least 50 years) will be conducted using local weather data.
Results of the simulations will be analyzed to determine long-term average annual
and monthly outflows, ranges and standard deviations. Attention will be give to flows in
both unusually wet and dry years in order to define the effects of mining on the
hydrology during extreme weather conditions.
Another set of simulations will be conducted for the watersheds after the drainage
area has been reduced due to mining. During mining a portion of the watershed will be
cut off from the natural outlet with the surface drainage water routed to another outlet
along with water pumped to lower the water table as part of the mining process. This will
obviously reduce outflow rates from the watersheds. The hydrology for the unaffected
watershed will be modeled to determine long-term average outflows in a manner similar
to that described above for the current condition of the watersheds. The purpose of the
long-term simulations is not to predict changes that will occur over a long period of time,
r1 , A
k
but rather to analyze the response of the watersheds to the variable weather conditions
that occurs on the site. The result of simulations for "before" and "after" mining
conditions will allow us to draw conclusions regarding the effect of mining on annual,
seasonal and monthly outflows. We will be able to make the following kinds of
statements, for example. "Based on weather conditions over the last 50 years, proposed
mining on the xxx watershed will reduce annual average outflows by yy%. Flows during
March will be reduced by zz% on average with reductions of aa% or more in 10% of the
years." Flow frequency diagrams will be developed and reported on a monthly, seasonal
and annual basis. Additional analyses of the effects can be provided as required by PCS
and/or state agencies.
FW: meeting with PTRF
imap://bob.zarzecki%40dwq. [e-mail]:143/fe...
Subject: FW: meeting with PTRF
From: "Walker, William T SAW" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:33:21 -0500
To: "'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]>, Becky Fox <[e-mail]>, Bob
Zarzecki <[e-mail]>, David Cox <[e-mail]>, "David M SAW Lekson
(E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, David Moye <[e-mail]>, Jimmie
Overton <[e-mail]>, John Dorney <[e-mail]>, Maria Tripp
<[e-mail]>, Mike Wicker <[e-mail]>, Richard Peed
<[e-mail]>, "Scott SAW Jones (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, Sean
McKenna <[e-mail]>, "smtp-Sechler, Ron" <[e-mail]>, Ted Tyndall
<[e-mail]>, Terry Moore <[e-mail]>, Tom Steffens
<tom. [e-mail]>
CC: "Jolly, Samuel K SAW" <[e-mail]>, "Lamson, Brooke SAW"
<[e-mail]>, David McNaught
<[e-mail]>, Heather Jacobs <[e-mail]>, Mary Alsentzer
<[e-mail]>
All,
I have just become aware of this meeting and wanted to clarify that this IS NOT the scheduled
meeting of the PCS permit review team. The Corps was not invited to and therefore will not be attending
this meeting. The Corps does however, recognize that PTRF, EDF, and SELC are respected
non-governmental organizations with concern for legal and environmental issues and it is perfectly within
their rights to request such a meeting and attendance is your prerogative.
It does concern me that such a meeting would take place without Corps or EPA participation, if the
intention is to discuss steps in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement and in the 404
permit process. Our purpose in establishing the permit review team was to allow early input from the
various agencies, the applicant and the environmental NGO community (in the person of PTRF and EDF)
The expectation of the team is to identify and adequately address all pertinent issues, including potential
alternatives to the proposed action. Once alternatives have been identified, the team will be asked to
provide input as to whether a particular alternative should be studied further, carried forward in the NEPA
process (EIS) or dropped from consideration. At this point in the process, we are interested in any
alternative.
I believe that meeting individually to discuss alternatives, without the lead agency and with only select
members of the team, is counterproductive to the team approach. I fear that discussions in this type of
setting may result in missed opportunities and/or alternatives being prematurely dismissed. The members
of this team were selected due to their agency affiliation and/or their range of expertise in various areas
and the team meetings are intended to provide a forum for open discussion of issues. Any member of the
team may, at any time, request an item be added to the agenda or present a topic / idea for discussion.
Tom Walker
Project Manager, USACE
-----Original Message-----
"wm: Mary Alsentzer lmailto:[e-mail]
Monday, September 20, 2004 11:32 AM
9/21/2004 8:44 AM
FW: meeting with PTRF imap://[e-mail]:143/fe...
To: smtp-Sechler, Ron; David Moye (E-mail); Tom Steffens; Sean McKenna (E-mail); Pete Benjamin; Maria Tripp (E-mail)
Cc: Dave McNaught; Derb Carter; Heather Jacobs; John Dorney
Subject: meeting with PTRF
Dave McNaught (Environmental Defense), Derb Carter (Southern Environmental Law Center),
Heather Jacobs (Pamlico-Tar Riverkeeper) and I would like very much to meet with some of
the agency folks participating either directly or indirectly in the permit review discussions as .
they now begin focusing on possible alternatives for the next mining permit for PCS
Phosphate, Inc.
Meeting:
Monday, October 25 at 10 a.m., at the Environmental Defense office, in the building at the
corner of Blue Ridge Rd and Lake Boone Trail. Address of the building is 2500 Blue Ridge
Rd. We hope very much that you can attend.
Please let me know of your availability for this meeting. I was going to try to phone each one
of you, but upon further consideration thought this might be a better way of reaching you at
your convenience.
I would be happy to discuss this further -- or you can contact Dave...
am at [phone] or info(a-)ptrf.org
Dave McNaught
[phone] dmcnaught(cDenvironmentaldefense.org
I look forward to your response. Thanks!
Mary Alsentzer
Executive Director
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
252-946-7211
[e-mail]
www.ptrf.org
Win a 1957 Thunderbird Convertiblel Tickets are $100, and only 500 will be sold!
1957 T-bird Raffle plus 2nd and 3rd place prizes, to benefit the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation. For
details, call the office at 252-946-7211.
To see a picture of the car go to http://www.ptrf.org
9/21/2004 8:44 AM
. . imap://[e-mail]:143/fe...
Subject: Draft Summary Minutes 4 August 2004
From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:33:13 -0400
To: [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Attached are the DRAFT Summary Minutes of the 4 August 2004 meeting for the PCS
Phosphate Mine Continuation permit application review along with a hand-out that was
distributed at the 2 September 2004 EIS meeting.
If you would like a hard copy please forward your request with contact information to
us.
Thank You.
Cheryl Mullen
CZR Incorporated
4709 College Acres Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
1 of 1 9/8/2004 11:50 AM
0
;0 V
?..?
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
ZR
SUITE 2
INCORPORATED WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1725
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
TO: See Distribution
FROM: Samuel Cooper, Julia Be
DATE: 31 August 2004
RE: Summary Minutes of the 4 August 2004 meeting for the PCS Phosphate Mine
Continuation permit application review.
1 The 14th meeting for the review of PCS Phosphate's Mine Continuation permit
2 application was held at the PCS Phosphate Employee Recreation Center on Hickory Point on 4
3 August 2004. The following people attended:
4
5 Tom Walker - USACE
6 Mary Alsentzer - PTRF
7 Heather Jacobs - PTRF
8 Bill Schimming - Potash Corporation
9 Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate
10 Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate
11 Jerry Waters - PCS Phosphate
12 George House - PCS/Brooks Firm
13 David Moye - NCDCM
14 Terry Moore - NCDCM
15 Bob Zarzecki - NCDWQ
26
16 Jimmie Overton - NCDWQ
17 Tom Steffens - NCDWQ
18 Maria Tripp - NCWRC
19 Mike Wicker - USFWS
20 Richard Peed - NCDLR
21 Brad Melko - CZR
22 Samuel Cooper - CZR
23 Julia Berger - CZR
24 Jim Hudgens - CZR
25 Becky Fox - USEPA
27 The meeting began at 10:55 am on 4 August 2004 at the PCS Phosphate Employee
28 Recreation Area conference center on Hickory Point. The following items were discussed
29 and/or decided:
1
1061 EAST INDIANTOWN ROAD • SUITE 100 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5143
TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • czr}[e-mail] • www.CZRINC,com
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
¦ Next Team meeting (15th) was moved to 2 September 2004 instead of 26 August 2004.
It will be held at the Washington NC DENR office from 10 am until 3 pm;
¦ Functional assessment methods and potential use of WRAP as adapted by CZR for use
at PCS Phosphate were discussed;
Wilmington District does not demand any particular functional assessment method, nor
does it endorse or recommend WRAP, but it does recognizes it can be another
tool/resource of useful information to help PCS draw lines. Wilmington District will not
equate WRAP scores with mitigation. Wilmington District must examine any material
turned in by an applicant. PCS and the group need some methodology to assist the
Corps "best professional judgment" on where lines should be drawn.
¦ Level of detail of meeting minutes, who is the appropriate scribe for minutes, and the
presence/absence of attorneys at the meetings were each discussed at length. All
agreed that the open candid tone and dialog of meetings to date was preferred;
Ms. Alsentzer officially protested the presence of PCS' attorney (Mr. House) and
indicated that regardless of the decision about future minutes that PTRF may have their
attorney attend all upcoming meetings. PCS' attorney agreed to withdraw from the
meeting at this point and not participate in future meetings without notifying all parties of
PCS' intention to have counsel present; provided the other parties did likewise. PCS'
attorney stated that this withdrawal from the meeting and future meetings was
conditioned upon the team recording only summaries of meetings and not minutes which
specifically attributed statements to particular parties. Mr. House left the meeting after
this discussion at about 12:15;
¦ It was decided that agencies would confer with their respective counsels about how
much detail should be included in future meeting minutes. All agreed that for the 14tH
meeting at least, a summary of the meeting would suffice;
¦ DWQ's interagency wetland functional assessment method should be available for use
by October. In the meantime, DWQ recommends PCS use their Guidance for Ratings
the Values of Wetlands in NC Vers. 4. DWQ requested that buffers be shown as a
separate column of acres avoided or impacted in the summary table.
CZR presented the base resource mapping for the NCPC, Bonnerton, and South of 33
areas. PCS then presented four boundaries entitled: "Preferred Boundary", "DCM-
CAMA Avoidance Boundary", "DWQ Perennial Stream Avoidance", and "Agency Priority
Avoidance Boundary." Excavation limits were described as being at the edge of pre-
strip for the mine and showing the limits of ore recovery. The -350 feet between
permitted limits and excavation limits would have impacts from auxiliary activities of
mining such as power lines, roads, equipment storage, temporary structures, etc. Once
a detailed mine plan is developed, the excavation limits line would become more angular
but would remain inside the excavation limits as shown in these figures.
¦ Agencies asked for the Bonnerton Agency Priority Avoidance Boundary to show areas
that could be mined from the agency point of view, regardless of a mechanical or
economic standpoint. PCS was requested to describe the level of practicability and
apply it to all maps.
2
9/3/2004
82 ¦ Mr. Walker reminded the group that the three tracts do not necessarily stand alone and
83 that alternatives may cross tract boundaries.
84
85 ¦ Scope and length of the permit will be discussed at the next Team meeting and
86 electronically among the group between meetings;
87
88 ¦ PCS asked for more agency guidance on how to draw boundaries between their
89 preferred approach and the agency avoidance boundaries;
90
91 ¦ PCS/CZR was asked to identify high quality areas that can be avoided using all
92 information available (WASC, WRAP, DWQ VA, etc) but that still allow the mine to
93 advance; and,
94
95 ¦ PCS will develop a detailed mine plan for their Preferred Alternative and the DWQ
96 Perennial Stream Avoidance Boundary.
97
98 The office meeting adjourned at 2:30.
99
100 Portions of the group assembled in vehicles to go to several sites in NCPC from
101 approximately 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm. Present for the field visit on Wednesday afternoon were
102 Mary Alsentzer, Heather Jacobs, Becky Fox, Tom Walker, Mike Wicker, Jeff Furness, Ross
103 Smith, Brad Melko, Sam Cooper, and Julia Berger. Bottomland hardwood forest in Jacks Creek
104 and hardwood forest in Jacobs Creek were examined. An example WRAP data form was,
105 reviewed by M. Alsentzer, H. Jacobs, B. Fox, T. Walker, J. Furness, B. Melko, S. Cooper, and J.
.
106 Berger at the Jacobs Creek site. T. Walker, B. Fox, J. Furness, J. Berger, and S. Cooper also.
107 examined the brackish marsh complex in PA2, conducted a drive-by orientation along Sandy
108 Landing Road and NC 306, and a perimeter tour within the mine site.
109
110 Present for Thursday 5 August field visits (9:00 am - 3:30 pm) in Bonnerton and South of
111 Route 33 were: Becky Fox, Tom Walker, John Dorney, Tom Steffens, Jimmie Overton, Maria
112 Tripp, Heather Jacobs, Jeff Furness, Ross Smith, Brad Melko, Sam Cooper, Jim Hudgens, and
113 Julia Berger. Sites visited in Bonnerton included Porter Creek bottomland hardwood forest,
114 hardwood forest off of Creekmur Road, and Durham Creek bay forest and hardwood forest. For
115 the area South of Route 33, bottomland hardwood forest and hardwood forest along the Suffolk
116 Scarp in the upper drainage of South Creek, sand ridge and bay forest near Jamie Road,
117 Cypress Run hardwood forest, hardwood forest "island" in the central section of the tract were
118 visited (a brief review of WRAP values for this site was discussed), and Broomfield Swamp was
119 shown in a drive-by.
120
121
3 9/3/2004
122 Attachments:
123 1) Agenda
124 2) Updated Figures of Avoidance Boundaries Showing Excavation Limits and Corrections
125 3) Updated Summary Table of Acres Avoided and Acres Impacted
126
Distribution Mr. Sean McKenna
Division of Marine Fisheries
Ms. Mary Alsentzer North Carolina Department of Environment
Pamlico Tar River Foundation and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 1854 943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889 Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Becky Fox
Environmental Protection Agency
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, NC 28789
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Dr. David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Ms. Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Regulatory Section USEPA/EAB
Wetlands Management Division
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. James M. Hudgens
CZR Incorporated
1061 East Indiantown Road
Suite 100
Jupiter, Florida 33477-5143
Mr. Scott Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David M. Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David Moye
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Jimmie Overton
NC Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Jerry Waters
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
4 9/3/2004
Mr. Richard Peed
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. William A. Schimming
Potash Corp.
Post Office Box 3320
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Ross Smith
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Ms. Maria Tripp
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Habitat Conservation Section
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Walker
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Bob Zarzecki
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. Ted Tyndal
North Carolina Division Coastal
Management
Morehead City District Office
151-B Hwy. 24 Hestron Plaza II
Morehead City, NC 28557
Mr. George House
Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey &
Leonard
P.O. Box 26000
Greensboro, NC 27420
ATTACHMENT 1
MEETING AGENDA FOR 4 AUGUST 2004 PCS PHOSPHATE
MINE CONTINUATION PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW TEAM
DRAFT AGENDA
PCS EIS TEAM MEETING
4 - 5 AUGUST 2004
AURORA, NC
4 AUGUST
10:30 am Meet at PCS Recreation Area, on the way to Hickory Point
(- 1.5 miles past the ferry landing on Hwy. 306, on left. Enter Rec. Area,
take first left inside gate and follow to main conference center (large white
bldg.)
10:30 -10:45 am Welcome - Review package/handouts - Sam Cooper, CZR
10:45 -11:00 am Summary of project status and background information -Tom Walker, Corps
11:00 am -12:00 noon Summary of WRAP -how used/modified to facilitate wetlands discussion -
Brad Melko, CZR
12:00 -1:00 pm
1:00-1:15 pm
Bring own lunch - limited local options (soft drinks will be available)
Presentation/discussion of agency avoidance boundaries to facilitate
development of potential alternatives - CZR, PCS, and Corps
Graphics provided:
• Base
• Preferred
• DCM/CAMA Avoidance
• DWQ Perennial Stream Avoidance
• Agency Priority Wetland Avoidance
1:15 - 2:30 pm Discussion of Potential Alternatives - Group
2:30 - 3:00 pm Discussion of sites for field visits - Group
3:00 - ? Visit sites on NCPC Tract as time allows (bring water)
5 AUGUST
8:30 am Meet at PCS Land Office in Aurora (near intersection of Hwys 33 and 306-
phone [phone]), bring water
8:45 -11:45 am Review Bonnerton sites, including Suffolk Scarp
11:45 -12:45 pm Bring lunch for field
12:45 - 3:00 pm Review Southern Area sites, including Suffolk Scarp
ADJOURN
ATTACHMENT 2
REPLACEMENT SUMMARY TABLE OF REVISED AVOIDANCE
BOUNDARIES WITH IMPACTED AND AVOIDED ACREAGES
o
v
?< d r ? n a $
6
6 n ? n ;°
r i
m ry
a 8 ? N 8 8 8 ° ? 8 °?
a
b ?

N
S
a
E 8 8 8 8 8 $ 8 8 8 $ o $ Y 8

Q - F
m o 6 6 o 6 6 g c o °
F-87 -81 8 8 2 8 8 8 $ $ 8 0 °o
U
2
m ? $i m m °m o° `a n N a e a ? ?

n M o a 8. $' n m ao ?,
,

M m
` m $ a
° ° . ?.
' vO1i. .n .
° m n a
'
y $ 8S $ $ $ m ? ro $ $

d - m 8 6 6 6 d $
3 N
0
"
r
'
`gi
a
m
N
"
°m

in u
u
z
N
c
o
6
v n
m
O M

Y Fl

r '

{n n

Y n m

N ? q

?

r ?

N e, A r

10
,'
O ~ f >
a
?y O
C 8 M 8 O 8 0 Y N b
O th a O
~ mo? gi N 4
Q O q
q
9 m

p
C
? .
i
Q
g

M
M
r

a
H
°o,
tyi
°

`?

N
r.
_
v
?i
g?
3
°U

g

a
a
o

N
a

°
M

q O R
N

`u?
., y R
Iv 1. 12 wl
y

? m m o a $ ?+ o o in co m a :
66
O
a m N
C?
W m 8
O N ?
N e
O q
N O
p O?
W m
N A
aD 8
O O
O W
< O..-
O M
N ?O eNp
d m
m $ A M
so o
? ro? Oi
U
Z
m p
V N N
N
O

c o ° $ $ °N a ? w' ua a ? ? v
ti
v v 8 e e ro $ 8 n
m °o
o a 6 n r'
° u°4 m a $
m
t z c o r m $ g
g
3 ?. N $ o
w 2 F' a n in

a 3 ° H ° N n a °r $ $ $ m
va N m a
.-
° $
m n It
m
G m
? ss
W ? ?
6
O1

E

q Ci a 8 .? N

° 9 Z; 8 N m ^o
w
1 _ m O V a
D
T N. Y V t?
Q 14 N
y a .- o. o m n ° `$ m °o u°ii N e
n
V
Z 6 H. g
g
N

r ?' ? $ n a o ? `8i $ n mr N a '

?.
My
°
°
m
ao
?
?
N
?
o$i
16
m v
??
C1 C
8 ?i t? aD N t
1
N tmV
m m e ? ? ? °
cq
c4

U
V
Z q

N
Q m U O
n
'?
G
t
Q
d a $1 ?I LL m

E
a
m
m « ?
E N
E RLL
2S
-?c g
?
12
m ?
r x
g y a ?
rv LL m
a
c m
° v
m
S; q
° ?
q 4 b
LL
m LL
4 ? $
m

E
3
Yn
@ g
0
2
2 m
c 3
LL
c
._ a
.2
2 a s a
c
c
t
? F ? m m = w a x c 'o. a y ma = y c
'a = ? "a m a z°
? n c € m cm cm ? m cm m cm m cm v ? ` ? ? ? ? A _`w ? sc ?

o?
„ g E
y
N ?

a N
g O
r
v? a

m
m $
r rm
H
3 3
Z z
Z
3 Z
ZQ ZQ
O
Q
3 E
ES!
0 oM
ATTACHMENT 3
REPLACEMENT NCPC, BONNERTON, SOUTH OF ROUTE 33
AVOIDANCE BOUNDARY DRAFT FIGURES
a
°c
it
lESiENQ
NCPC MINE DEVELOPMENT BLOCK 3,608.00
NCPC - PRIORITY AVOIDANCE 458.40
NCPC-EXCAVATION LIMITS 286.00
RECOVERED CONCENTRATE-7,810,000 TONS
n*1 , , ?' 1 CREEKS/OPEN WATER
1 „ + PUBLIC TRUST AREAS 0.00 LF 0.00
e PERENNIAL STREAM 0.00 LF 0.00
INTERMITTENT STREAM 0.00 LF 0.00
2 WETLAND BRACKISH MARSH COMPLEX 0.00
?1 rtir a ,°?, 3 WETLAND B07TOMLAND HARDWOOD FOREST 0.00
4 WETLAND HERBACEOUS ASSEMBLAGE 89.83
5 WETLAND SHRUB - SCRUB ASSEMBLAGE 63.11
6 WETLAND PINE PLANTATION 0.01
;,lll,"111 7 WETLAND HARDWOOD FOREST 0.00
8 WETLAND MIXED PINE - HARDWOOD FOREST 73.91
9 WETLAND PINE FOREST 1.11
10 WETLAND POCOSIN -BAY FOREST 0.00
11 WETLAND SAND RIDGE FOREST 0.00
12 POND 0.00
13 WETLAND MAINTAINED AREA 0.00
14 UPLAND HERBACEOUS ASSEMBLAGE 83.46
15 UPLAND SHRUB - SCRUB ASSEMBLAGE 63.47
16 UPLAND PINE PLANTATION 0.00
F 17 UPLAND HARDWOOD FOREST 0.90
18 UPLAND MIXED PINE - HARDWOOD FOREST 31.01
19 UPLAND PINE FOREST 0.00
20 UPLAND SAND RIDGE FOREST 0.00
21 UPLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND 40.93
22 UPLAND NON - VEGETATED/MAINTAINED AREA 10.66
WETLAND AREAS 227.97
,r
n
UPLAND AREAS 230.43
F1711 A 47% WETLAND AREAS 24.50
0
0 1800 3600
?„g, DRAFT
2
I6 \
I // f
1 i S e (? ? 1 ?a ? i 1
• t
r J r i 1 ?\ _ J
21
/ a i r i'a = 7
?ia
T
17
S 21
? a
l
is is
177 1, , 7Y
> 1n/
s
15
22
r ?'KI
y3 21
22
16
20 1 - - _ 16 17
_ =
9 /
? . ,.r 1ZS,r
v H \j
-?
2 2
15
\7
I - -7i'? z 1et? -
BONNERTON MINE DEVELOPMENT BLOCK 2,806.00
NONE BONNERTON-AGENCY PRIORITY AVOIDANCE 256.54
NONE BONNERTON-EXCAVATION LIMITS 100.00
RECOVERED CONCENTRATE-1,952,000 TONS
1 CREEKS/OPEN WATER
PUBLIC TRUST AREAS 0.00 LF 0.00
IB PERENNIAL STREAM 0.00 LF 0.00
INTERMITTENT STREAM 0.00 LF 0.00
2 WETLAND BRACKISH MARSH COMPLEX 0.00
3 WETLAND BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD FOREST 0.00
4 WETLAND HERBACEOUS ASSEMBLAGE 3.13
5 WETLAND SCRUB - SCRUB ASSEMBLAGE 0.00
6 WETLAND PINE PLANTATION 30.25
7 WETLAND HARDWOOD FOREST 0.00
8 WETLAND MIXED PINE - HARDWOOD FOREST 34.24
9 WETLAND PINE FOREST 10.15
10 WETIAND POCOSIN - BAY FOREST 0.00
11 WETLAND SAND RIDGE FOREST 0.00
12 POND 0.00
13 WETLAND MAINTAINED AREA 0.00
14 UPLAND HERBACEOUS ASSEMBLAGE 0.90
15 UPLAND SHRUB - SCRUB ASSEMBLAGE 0.02
16 UPLAND PINE PLANTATION 17.50
17 UPLAND HARDWOOD FOREST 0.62
18 UPLAND MIXED PINE - HARDWOOD FOREST 0.62
19 UPLAND PINE FOREST 0.00
20 UPLAND SAND RIDGE FOREST 0.00
21 UPLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND 152.55
22 UPLAND NON - VEGETATED/MAINTAINED AREA 6.56
WETLAND AREAS 74.64
O UPLAND AREAS 181.90
0 1600 3000
SrALl N FM
DRAFT
r
Z
yA
G
m
D
Ib
(1
3
3

y
3
vN
O~ - v W
- n
y 3
3 3 .?

3

n
m v
01
A9
S)i n
y
W

o
y
? p
g
al

u

A H

p
W

N Z
CI9
W 9 O
A
9
? 0
WI
m
m

y
m y D
3 S
H • o

?
06'
-
a ?
z 3
i3
m
0 0 nJ
?
'o. B ? tbi
a
O

n ,
O
w
? N
N
A i0
G A ? W ?
? m
m 3

n
my
n a?
N
a O
W 3m

g a

o zm
o
c m

e n
m $
w

w
g -_ n
a

m v

n

_ O
A

? A 3
O
? O
0
u

3

0

D ?

P
N ?0 0
6

g (1
n

g W
H

3 t0
`Z a
o
w
zoo
o_

S 0
-
?
D
O w
Update
imap://bob.zarzecki%40dwq. [e-mail]:143 /fe...
Subject: Update
From: "Walker, William T SAW" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 14:06:40 -0500
To: "Becky Fox (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, Bill Schimming <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>, David Cox <[e-mail]>, "David M SAW
Lekson (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, David McNaught
<[e-mail]>, David Moye <[e-mail]>, George House
<[e-mail]>, Heather Jacobs <[e-mail]>, Jeff Furness
<[e-mail]>, Jerry Waters <[e-mail]>, Jim Hudgens
<[e-mail]>, Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>, John Dorney
<[e-mail]>, "Maria Tripp (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, Mary Alsentzer
<[e-mail]>, Mike Wicker <[e-mail]>, Richard Peed <[e-mail]>,
Ross Smith <[e-mail]>, Sam Cooper <[e-mail]>, "Scott SAW Jones
(E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, Sean McKenna <[e-mail]>,
"smtp-Sechler, Ron" <[e-mail]>, Ted Tyndall <[e-mail]>, Terry Moore
<[e-mail]>, Tom Steffens <[e-mail]>
All,
The purpose of this e-mail is to summarizes some of the key points from last weeks meetings and to
provide an up-to-date distribution list (attachment). If any additions or deletions need be made, please let
me know.
After much discussion regarding the level of detail currently being provided in the "Meeting Minutes",
and the potential for misquote or misunderstanding, it was decided that the minutes for the August 4 and 5
meetings as well as subsequent meetings would be brief summaries of discussion topics. Detailed
information would only be presented when the group reached consensus on issues or when a speaker
requests that their comments be reflected. During this discussion, concerns were raised regarding legal
representation at the team meetings. In an effort to allay these concerns, it was decided that any party
wishing to have legal council attend a meeting should coordinate with the Corps in advance of the meeting
and that the group be given adequate advanced notice when such council will be present.
There was some discussion regarding the use of the Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure
(WRAP). It was noted that this method has been selected and conducted by the applicant. While some
group members felt the information gathered from the implementation of WRAP may be useful in certain
aspects of the permit review process, there still exists some strong opposition to this method therefore, the
group has not reached consensus on adopting this method as a way of rating the wetland systems within
the Project Area. CZR distributed a Draft version of the WRAP technical publication as revised for the
PCS properties. The group decided not to discuss this during the meeting but rather review it and
provided comments at a later date. I request that any comments you wish to make be submitted to me no
later than noon Thursday (August 12).
Our next meeting is scheduled for September 2, 2004 at the Washington DENR office. We do not
have a formal agenda at this point, but I would like to further discuss the "length of permit" issue. Our
decisions in this matter may affect alternative development and review therefore, I would like to reach
some consensus on this issue.
Thanks
Tom Walker
1 of 2 8/30/2004 8:59 AM
Update
imap: /ibob.zarzecki%40dwq. [e-mail]:143/fe...
«PCS AII>>
«PCS AII>>
Subject: PCS All
From: "Walker, William T SAW" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 08:37:31 -0500
Subject: PCS All
From: "Walker, William T SAW" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 08:37:31 -0500
2 of 2 8/30/2004 8:59 AM
PCS Meeting (2nd try)
imap://bob. zarzecki%40dwq. [e-mail]:143/fe...
Subject: PCS Meeting (2nd try)
From: "Walker, William T SAW" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:43:41 -0500
To: "Becky Fox (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, Bill Schimming <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>, David Cox <[e-mail]>, "David M SAW
Lekson (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, David McNaught
<[e-mail]>, David Moye <[e-mail]>, George House
<[e-mail]>, Heather Jacobs <[e-mail]>, Jeff Furness
<[e-mail]>, Jerry Waters <[e-mail]>, Jim Hudgens
<[e-mail]>, Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>, John Dorney
<[e-mail]>, "Maria Tripp (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, Mary Alsentzer
<[e-mail]>, Mike Wicker <[e-mail]>, Richard Peed <[e-mail]>,
Ross Smith <[e-mail]>, Sam Cooper <[e-mail]>, "Scott SAW Jones
(E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, Sean McKenna <[e-mail]>,
"smtp-Sechler, Ron" <[e-mail]>, Ted Tyndall <[e-mail]>, Terry Moore
<[e-mail]>, Tom Steffens <[e-mail]>
I sent this message yesterday from our Ashville field office, but received
several "undeliverable" messages. This is a second try, no change in the text
for those who did receive the original.
Thanks
Tom
All,
I have spoken with PCS. They have a limited amount of new information to
present at the Sept. 2, meeting and will likely conclude their presentation by
noon.
I would suggest that after lunch the agencies only reconvene to discuss
the "permit length" issue. I am not expecting us to conclusively decide on an
exact time frame for any permit. I believe this will be indicated through the
NEPA review process. What we must do at this point is identify as closely as
possible, the various temporal scenarios which may arise as we explore
alternatives and decide which are reasonable for study and which are not.
We agreed some time ago to examine the feasibility of issuing some type of
permit covering the remainder of PCS activity within the current project area.
We have discussed both positive and negative aspects of such a permit. We now
need to decide if such a permit is feasible and whether alternatives involving
the issuance of such a permit are reasonable and appropriate to explore.
Tom Walker
1 of 1 8/30/2004 9:00 AM
RE: conditions with a long-term permit
imap://bob.zarzecki%40dwq. [e-mail]:143/fe...
Subject: RE: conditions with a long-term permit
From: "Walker, William T SAW" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:25:53 -0500
To: "'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]>, "'Sam Cooper"'
<[e-mail]>
CC: "Lamson, Brooke SAW" <[e-mail]>, "Becky Fox (E-mail)"
<[e-mail]>, Bill Schimming <[e-mail]>, Bob Zarzecki
<[e-mail]>, David Cox <[e-mail]>, "David M SAW Lekson
(E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, David McNaught
<[e-mail]>, David Moye <[e-mail]>, George House
<[e-mail]>, Heather Jacobs <[e-mail]>, Jeff Furness
<[e-mail]>, Jerry Waters <[e-mail]>, Jim Hudgens
<czr [e-mail]>, Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>, John Domey
<[e-mail]>, "Maria Tripp (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, Mary Alsentzer
<[e-mail]>, Mike Wicker <[e-mail]>, Richard Peed <[e-mail]>,
Ross Smith <[e-mail]>, Sam Cooper <[e-mail]>, "Scott SAW Jones
(E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, Sean McKenna <[e-mail]>,
"smtp-Sechler, Ron" <[e-mail]>, Ted Tyndall <[e-mail]>, Terry Moore
<[e-mail]>, Tom Steffens <[e-mail]>
Ross / Sam
I agree this subject should be an important part of the agenda for our next meeting (Sep. 2, 2004). Exactly
what the permit will "look like" we may not know until the NEPA review is complete however, we need to be
comfortable with all scenarios. I would suggest maybe an update/presentation of new information from the applicant
1000 - 1200 and then an agency only meeting in the afternoon with the intention of reaching some consensus on the
"length of permit" issue. I will be in our Ashville field office the next couple of days but will be checking a-mails
and will stay with this issue.
Thanks
TW
-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:RSmith(a,Pcsphosphate.com]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 11:00 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: conditions with a long-term permit
Tom:
I agree with Sam's comments about the "long-term" permit discussion. It
would be very beneficial for the inter-agency group to resolve this issue
as much as possible. If the agencies can provide specific details that
they would require in a "long-term" permit, then we could assimilate the
information and form the skeleton of what this type of permit might look
like.
1 of 2 8/25/2004 8:09 AM
RE: conditions with a long-term permit

Ross
imap://bob.zarzeeki%40dwq. [e-mail] il.net:143/fe...
----- Forwarded by Ross Smith/EnvAJAurora/Phosphate/PCS on 08/23/2004 22:54
[e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
08/20/200410:03 cc: [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Subject: conditions with a long-term permit
Hello Tom,
I'm following up on a portion of our conversation from the last field
meeting at PCS. We discussed the need to identify potential conditions
associated with the issuance of a long-term permit. We are glad that it is
a topic at our next meeting.
Issues regarding the permit length and associated conditions will affect
development of alternatives, so I believe that it is important that we do
more than discuss potential conditions. Perhaps we could ask agencies to
provide you with specific examples of language. This would facilitate
discussion and flush out potential problem areas.
Let us know what you think.
Thanks,
Sam Cooper
CZR Incorporated
4709 College Acres Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
cp 1745.62.09
2 of 2 8/25/2004 8:09 AM
imap://bob.zarzecki [e-mail]:143/fe...
Subject: Re: CZR application of Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP)
From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:42:44 -0400
To: "Walker, William T SAW" <[e-mail]>
CC: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>, "Lamson, Brooke SAW"
<[e-mail]>, Sam Cooper <[e-mail]>, David Cox
<[e-mail]>, David Moye <[e-mail]>, "David M SAW Lekson
(E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, David McNaught
<[e-mail]>, Becky Fox <[e-mail]>, Mary Alsentzer
<[e-mail]>, Jeff Furness <[e-mail]>, Jimmie Overton
<[e-mail]>, John Dorney <[e-mail]>, Jerry Waters
<[e-mail]>, Richard Peed <[e-mail]>, Heather Jacobs
<[e-mail]>, "smtp-Sechler, Ron" <[e-mail]>, Ross Smith
<[e-mail]>, "Jolly, Samuel K SAW" <[e-mail]>,
"Scott SAW Jones (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, Sean McKenna
<[e-mail]>, Terry Moore <[e-mail]>, Tom Steffens
<[e-mail]>, Bill Schimming <[e-mail]>
Tom:
It is my understanding that WRAP will either take a substantial amount of
time (kicking the dirt, arguing about which wetland type is more important
than another and temporal values in vegetative cover) in the field from
agency personnel to accomplish rankings or that consensus in quality
rankings need to be developed in a series of agency meetings so that
necessary fieldwork can be done by the consultants. This is not a
procedure that can be quickly applied to NC without substantial input from
agency experts that work in NC. Legitimate use of WRAP will require
substantial agency involvement which equals a substantial investment in
time (perhaps a year or so, easily more). The technique only has value if
the state and federal commenting agencies in NC have confidence in it. If
agencies are all in agreement in the quality rankings WRAP can provide a
useful tool that can handle large scale alternatives analysis. It can be a
useful tool for permitting agencies like the COE in contentious projects
that may be litigated (assuming agency buyin) because WRAP effectively
communicates agency consensus in a single package . WRAP may be an useful
tool but it will require a lot of time to develop if used appropriately.
The use of a new tool such as WRAP in NC does not seem consistent with the
time concerns PCS has expressed in our earlier meetings.
I will not be able to attend the meeting on the 14th at 8:30. I had been
scheduled for the meeting on the 14th at 10:00 in Washington. I will need
an adequate amount of lead time to attend meetings if they are not
scheduled consistent with participanting agencies, schedules in advance.
Thanks,
Mike Wicker
1 of 1 7/14/2004 11:37 AM
June 2, 2004 PCS meeting
imap://bob. zarzecki%40dwq.denr.ncmail.net @ cros.ncmail.net:143/fe...
Subject: June 2, 2004 PCS meeting
From: "Walker, William T SAW" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 08:24:15 -0500
To: Becky Fox <[e-mail]>, Bill Schimming <[e-mail]>, Bob
Zarzecki <[e-mail]>, David Cox <[e-mail]>, "David M SAW Lekson
(E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, David McNaught
<[e-mail]>, David Moye <[e-mail]>, Heather Jacobs
<[e-mail]>, Jeff Furness <[e-mail]>, Jerry Waters
<[e-mail]>, Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>, John Dorney
<[e-mail]>, Mary Alsentzer <[e-mail]>, Mike Wicker <[e-mail]>,
Richard Peed <[e-mail]>, Ross Smith <[e-mail]>, Sam Cooper
<[e-mail]>, "Scott SAW Jones (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, Sean
McKenna <[e-mail]>, "smtp-Sechler, Ron" <[e-mail]>, Terry Moore
<[e-mail]>, Tom Steffens <[e-mail]>
CC: "Lamson, Brooke SAW" <[e-mail]>, "McCorcle, Justin P SAW"
<[e-mail]>, "Jolly, Samuel K SAW"
<Samuel.K.Jolly @ saw02.usace.anny.mil>
All,
In preparation for our June 2, 2004, meeting I submit the attached discussion points. I would like to
come to some conclusion on the issue of WASC's and permit scope so that we may move into alternative
development and analysis. Once we are decided on these issues, I believe the groups next task should
be to discuss basic approaches to identifying and assessing direct, secondary and cumulative impacts.
My goal is that by the July meeting PCS will be able to present potential alternatives and discuss how they
arrived at these alternatives (what factors were considered and how they weighed against one another).
The group can then provide input addressing what they do or do not like in the alternative identification
process.
<<All.doc>>
Respectfully
Tom Walker
1 of 1 5/27/2004 9:48 AM
.A
All,
In preparation for our June 2, 2004, meeting 1 would like to raise a few discussion points.
I would like to come to some conclusion on the issue of WASC's and permit scope so that we
may move into alternative development and analysis.
Wetland Areas of Special Concern (WASC)
What are WASC's
0 1991 Criteria
¦ 1. Drainage basin integrity water (quality, filter, buffer, etc.)
¦ 2. Large, or contiguous, or mature, principally undisturbed
and/or disturbed wetlands of highest value to fish and wildlife
o Areas include creeks, brackish marsh complex, bottomland
hardwood forest, pocosin-bay forest, some hardwood forest areas,
some pine forest area
- Purpose of WASC designations in 1991
o Encouraged development of alternative(s) that maximized wetland
avoidance and minimization.
- What does WASC designation do for us in the current permit process?
- Is it a "functional assessment" based in best professional judgment?
- Why were specific areas called WASC's (based on what quality from criteria)
and do these areas still exhibit this quality. If not, are they still WASC's
o e.g. Area considered WASC do to mature forest but has since been
timbered
- Currently, all creeks, brackish marsh complex, bottomland hardwood forest
and pocosin-bay forest are considered WASC's. Should they be?
Expanded permit scope
Overlying question. Is another ±20 yr permit Piecemealing?
- By limiting this action to approx. 20 yr., are we actually avoiding and
minimizing impacts or are we only "shrinking" present impacts
o Is "avoidance" in 20 yr. scenario truly avoidance or simply deferral.
- Expanding view may allow identification and true avoidance of high quality
resources.
- Knowing "long range" direction allows better assessment and weighing of
economic and environment considerations.
- A possible concern of long-term permit is how to adequately address impacts
which will occur in the out years. Could a plan of adaptive management be
"built in" to any permit decision thereby allaying this concern?
June 2, 2004 meeting
imap ://bob. zarzecki %40dwq.denr. ncmail. net @ cros . ncmai 1. net:143/fe...
Subject: June 2, 2004 meeting
From: "Walker, William T SAW" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:12:24 -0500
To: Becky Fox <[e-mail]>, Bill Schimming <[e-mail]>, Bob
Zarzecki <[e-mail]>, David Cox <[e-mail]>, "David M SAW Lekson
(E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, David McNaught
<[e-mail]>, David Moye <[e-mail]>, Heather Jacobs
<[e-mail]>, Jeff Furness <[e-mail]>, Jerry Waters
<[e-mail]>, Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>, John Dorney
<[e-mail]>, Mary Alsentzer <[e-mail]>, Mike Wicker <[e-mail]>,
Richard Peed <[e-mail]>, Ross Smith <[e-mail]>, Sam Cooper
<[e-mail]>, "Scott SAW Jones (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, Sean
McKenna <[e-mail]>, "smtp-Sechler, Ron" <[e-mail]>, Terry Moore
<[e-mail]>, Tom Steffens <[e-mail]>
All,
Plan to begin tomorrow at 10am and we will try to conclude no later than 3pm. The meeting will be
held in the main conference room of the Washington DENR office. The following is a tentative agenda.
10:00 - 11:00 Defining the project / length of permit
11:00-12:00 Presentation of biotic community maps
12:00 - 1:00 Lunch
1:00 - 2:00 Identifying Wetland Areas of Special Concern
2:00 - 3:00 "Large Scale" limiting factors in alternative development (Cone of depression, etc.)
Thanks
Tom Walker
1 of 1 6/7/2004 11:44 AM
CZR
INCORPORATED
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 284Q3-1725
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL czrwilm@aol,com
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Ms. Mary Alsentzer (PTRF)
Mr. John Dorney (NCDWQ)
Ms. Becky Fox (USEPA)
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness (PCS)
Mr. James M. Hudgens (CZR)
Mr. Scott Jones (USACE)
Mr. Tom Steffens (NCDWQ)
Mr. David M. Lekson (USACE)
Ms. Maria Tripp (NCWRC)
Mr. Mike Wicker (USFWS)
Dr. David McN ught (ED)
Samuel Cooe
r and Julia K. Berge
27 May 2004
SUBJECT: See Below
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
Mr. David Moye (NCDCM)
Mr. Jimmie Overton (NCDWQ)
Mr. Richard Peed (NCDLR)
Mr. William A. Schimming (Potash)
Mr. Ron Sechler (NMFS)
Mr. Ross Smith (PCS)
Mr. Tom Walker (USACE)
Mr. Sean McKenna (NCDMF)
Mr. Bob Zarzecki (NCDWQ)
Mr. Terry Moore (NCDCM)

ii"i"', ` 2 d 2004
® Attached via UPS

Copies Date Description
1 CZR Incorporated Handouts for PCS Phosphate EIS Team
Meeting 2 June 2004
Outline of Skaggs Proposed Tasks for Assessment of Drainage
Basin Reduction to be Addressed in the PCS Phosphate EIS
(dated 2 March 2004); and
DRAFT Figure for Bonnerton Wetland Areas of Special Concern
and NC Crews Data (dated 27 April 2004); and
DRAFT Figure for NCPC Biotic/Wetland Communities Map
(dated 27 May 2004)
1 20 May 2004 Minutes of the 28 January 2004 meeting for the PCS Phosphate
Mine Continuation permit application review
1 27 May 2004 DRAFT Minutes of the 20 April 2004 meeting for the PCS
Phosphate Mine Continuation permit application review
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED: ® For review ® For your information
Signed: Vie' ` 1
J K. Berger
1061 EAST INDIANTOWN ROAD • SUITE 100 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5143
TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • [e-mail] • www.CZRINC,com
SUMMARY OUTLINE OF TASKS FOR
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OF DRAINAGE BASIN REDUCTION
TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE PCS PHOSPHATE EIS
OUTLINE PREPARED BY CZR BASED ON DR. R. W. SKAGGS PROPOSAL
DATED 2 MARCH 2004
1.0 Delineate watershed boundaries
1.1 CZR defines watersheds
1.2 Field visit by Skaggs, PCS, and CZR to determine how best to model the watershed (flow
directions and boundaries) and to collect information on properties of soils, vegetation, and
landscape features
1.2.1 NCPC-will utilize information obtained from existing data on Jacks, Tooley, and Huddles
Cut
1.2.2 South of 33 agricultural fields- will be examined with Dan Windley (retired SCS technician
with 60 years experience in Aurora) to document characteristics of drainage systems, crop
rotations, planting times, tillage practices, etc.
1.2.2.1 Suffolk Scarp- will be carefully examined and modeled as a contributing area
and source of base flow for much of year
1.2.3 Bonnerton-will duplicate NCPC approach, assuming hydrology is similar. If not, monitoring
may be necessary.
2.0 Determine soil properties, site parameters, watershed characteristics and vegetation inputs to DRAINMOD
based models
2.1 NCPC-most inputs can be determined from existing NCPC data collection and modeling efforts and
field examination of watersheds to be impacted. However, if soils are dissimilar in other NCPC
watersheds, it may be necessary to measure dominant soil properties.
2.2 South of 33-some data from Cypress Run collected but not analyzed. Complete suite of data will
be collected from Cypress Run and applied to estimate impacts on Bailey Creek and Broomfield
Swamp.
2.2.1 Suffolk Scarp-two approaches suggested: 1) model without flow measurements or 2) set
gauging stations in 1 or 2 ditches near scarp base (1- 2 years data collection) in
conjunction with careful watershed delineation.
2.3 Bonnerton-watersheds assumed to be similar to NCPC, but more analysis will clarify.
3.0 Conduct long-term (at least 50 years) DRAINMOD simulations for the watersheds pre- and post-mining
condition
3.1 NCPC-results from existing study used to define model inputs for other watersheds
3.2 South of 33- as DRAINMOD developed specifically for this land use and type, inputs will be
straightforward
3.3 Bonnerton-results from application of NCPC approach assumptions (or monitoring data if collected)
3.4 Post-mining condition-hydrology of affected watershed will be modeled to determine effects of
reduced outflow and compared to long-term average outflow modeled for unaffected watershed.
Conclusions will be drawn from the modeling about monthly, seasonal, and annual outflow.
13 April 2004
F U
m o
04
CD
9 W j a
co
w V m r
LL
O? w z z
m 0
Cl) 3$ Q Z p
?m V >
Z o°o
Q =o WW < Z
a
o LL pQ.
LLJ
w 2, ? 0 3 0 =
? w w s? Q W V °o
fD Z N IL N U) Q (.) a Z ry
CD = W w m? 00 Q co w rnm
N ; U 0 0a Z .T. p JOmm
> Q °oZ =a ZQ L W x(900
J y 00
N a 00 Z
..
Q Q aj a 10 Q ?- Q 0 o Li
Z 0 E W 0 >W 'f, a a 3 H
7 n mo > 0. CL
0 U z Q- ?a Z M Q 11 m zN^w - Z- 0' o
w V) m
L?
Q Q QUVQU w pUWR a O NN Ih
W ?QQ?Q O QUU 2 WZ W x N
U Q pooco o 10 <
QQirni z W n Q .01
7
W Q U (n N vi = W N N 2 z Z fn N ?J\ ¢g
N Q 4 ;T'?d
Y
p U ??OO C, a- ?No n.n?.. O
Q m
W'
W d cvM <°QMn °o L?j
L C.)
J Z U0 >''101 o? ? p
W, ?t.
F
v ; E
? I
LL
o
°o
C)
0
o
0
m p
P
p o
u
p
P
N
m
p
n
p r i p p
o m d?
r
P
.1
n p p
m p 1 '^ r p
N t p

p
P
O p p
p p
r
p
p
p
p
u
r
r p
n p r
0 p
p p
p p
1 p ? ` Pp
O 1
P Q, r i+ p r p

p r m ? p
p f `
` r ? '
p
` 3'wJ p
l? ? m
`
p
1 p P N p d e
1 p
n p m
1 P r r,

n n
p p i

r
r
p p

mo

p 0
p 1
nu p n m
r r 1
r r
? I r j I
p on
P
?
?
? O I
r
p
p 1
®

4
r J
0
0 *oowmo"ono4ooo0q*ooo000pN io ? 0
O I?NI?I?eh?Dl?dN?f?00N0?00)t001?Od?tO - ? O
MMNWNiANODI?Oi?00000 U)oDotor- P.M 06 O O
0 d wooU ,Nzr-0 ?0(Dr- -)
t0 -NNIA140 - NN r N
J J O
M ?
000 0 w
0000 wm f Wm
02
ri) a m ? W 4
O? V)
WOaK ° Nm z LLJ
Q? a
U M0 Q, °o ? D0 o z
01 3 O
mviio?=zz ow ?m?zw= w
°=Na? ? F- 9w a=?Foo LL._j?
I(? ° (/? W?(9 (s?(
O NfnF-I WWZO?w O w°°'rLOWW 0w W
d° zN mmg0aOZe zww 0??0?->
3?4?Y0»aooapo ?maa;aOa??
ZUZ?V?I-1-W WWUZ ZM m ?y o
w JZM?O(?(n2 XZO ;t;Z WWZaZ Z
z o=Wwmmooa maav ooamxmanaz c Q g
?o.azooooo00000 0000000000 0 ° 3
?
WQm z
a gggggggg
cr, 33333333 °a3»»»g »> >
z c0
NN
N O?NM.r .-.-.-?Nt2f'020i N O N N
Md?AtOf?0001.-.-r ?
a
oe
0
I't f
Z R 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
I 2
. INCORPORATED WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1725
JIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
MEMORANDUM
TO: See Distribution,
FROM: Samuel Cooper, Julia Berger
DATE: 20 May 2004
RE: Minutes of the 28 January 2004 meeting for the PCS Phosphate Mine
Continuation permit application review.
1 The eleventh meeting for the review of PCS Phosphate's Mine Continuation permit
2 application was held at the Washington Regional Office of the North Carolina Department of
3 Environment and Natural Resources on 28 January 2004. The following people attended:
4
5 David Lekson - USACE 15 Jimmy Overton - NCDWQ
6 Tom Walker - USACE 16 Tom Steffens - NCDWQ
7 Mary Alsentzer - PTRF 17 Maria Tripp - NCDWQ
8 Heather Jacobs - PTRF 18 Bob Zarzecki - NCDWQ
9 Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate 19 David Moye - NCDCM
10 Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate 20 Mike Wicker - USFWS ::a Y
11 Jerry Waters - PCS Phosphate 21 Richard Peed - NCDLR IR
12 Ron Sechler - NMFS 22 Samuel Cooper - CZR
I? f
13 David McHenry - NCWRC 23 Mark Grippo - CZR P
--4
14 John Dorney - NCDWQ Z
24
25 The meeting began at 10:00 and generally followed the agenda as presented in
26 Attachment 1. Mr. Lekson asked for comments on the September 24 2003 meeting minutes.
27 He said Ms. Fox had some comments and asked when CZR Incorporated (CZR) would like all
28 comments. Ms. Fox said that she could e-mail her comments to CZR. Mr. Smith asked the
29 group if there were any comments that had a bearing on today's meeting or future meetings.
30 There was no response. Mr. Lekson said that the group should get comments to CZR within the
31 next couple weeks.
1
1061 EAST INDIANTOWN ROAD - SUITE 100 - JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5143
TFI r;61 /747-7455 - FAX [phone] [e-mail] - www.CZRINC.com
e ;
32
33 Mr. McHenry announced that he would be leaving the team and his interim replacement
34 would be David Cox, his supervisor at the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). A final
35 replacement should be in place within a month.
36
37 At Ms. Alsentzer request, everyone introduced themselves. Mr. Lekson introduced Tom
38 Walker as his replacement. He stated that since CZR, PCS, and the Corps of Engineers (COE)
39 would be in much closer contact in the future stages of the project and Mr. Walker is in
40 Wilmington, his participation as team leader would be helpful. Mr. Walker said that he had 10
41 years experience at the COE and was a special projects manager at Wilmington. Mr. Walker
42 stated that he was from Aurora and had several relatives who worked for PCS. He stated that
43 COE attorneys have determined that there is no conflict of interest, and the COE is comfortable
44 with Mr. Walker's involvement with the project. Mr. Walker stated that he hoped the team
45 members could vouch for his integrity in prior projects, but if anyone on the team had questions
46 about his suitability as team leader, they may contact him, Ken Jolly (Chief, Wilmington District,
47 Regulatory Division) or Jim Sterling (Chief, Wilmington District, Office of Council) to discuss.
48 Mr. Lekson remarked that regardless of who served as the team leader, the final decision on the
49 EIS will be made by the District Engineer.
50
51 Mr. Lekson asked about any old business. Mr. Sechler asked for a brief overview of this
52 project from the COE's perspective. Mr. Lekson said that the Public Notice, Notice of Intent,
53 and the Purpose and Need stages were over and that the EIS was in the data collection and
54 alternatives development phases. He also said that he believed the team should address
55 mitigation throughout the process and that is why it was being discussed today. He said the
56 process would be quickening now that alternatives were being developed. Mr. Smith said that
57 they have had very good cooperation from the COE, Division of Coastal Management (DCM)
58 and Division of Water Quality (DWQ) in reviewing areas in a timely manner. Mr. Cooper said
59 the meetings were helpful because it provided an opportunity to update the group on progress
60 of data collection and allowed for the group's input for developing alternatives. Mr. Lekson
2 5/20/2004
C 4 t
61 discussed potential next meeting dates and scheduled the next meeting for 31 March at 10:00
62 a.m. in Washington. Mr. Lekson asked for CZR to provide new information to the team at least
63 a week before the meeting, if possible.
64
65 Mr. Lekson began a discussion on mitigation. He stated that avoidance and
66 minimization were the goal, but if wetland impacts were unavoidable then mitigation would be
67 necessary. He asked the members of the team to discuss their agency's mitigation guidelines.
68 After some discussion it was agreed that Mr. Lekson would go last.
69
70 Ms. Fox began by saying her presentation would focus on stream mitigation. Ms. Fox
71 first covered USEPA Region 4 wetland mitigation policy and followed with a description of the
72 NC joint Wilmington District and NC Division of Water Quality stream mitigation guidance
73 (Attachment 2). During Ms. Fox's description, Ms. Alsentzer stated that her definition of
74 preservation seemed different from the EPA's, and asked if Ms. Fox could define what she
75 meant by the term. Ms. Fox replied that on-site avoidance is not preservation because
76 avoidance should be done automatically. An avoided onsite area may be considered for
77 preservation if it is placed under long term legal protection. Ms. Fox then read the EPA
78 definition of preservation. Ms. Alsentzer said she better understands the difference. Mr.
79 Lekson said that definitions are very important and everyone needs to have the same
80 understanding of these terms. Mr. Dorney said that he could print a list of definitions from the
81 NC joint federal/state Stream Mitigation Guidance Manual.
82
83 Mr. Wicker asked whether the mitigation ratio would differ for a low quality wetland, to
84 which Ms. Fox said the minimum ratio would be 1:1. Ms. Fox recommended the intermittent
85 stream evaluation form on the COE website to evaluate on-site streams. Mr. Furness asked if
86 there was a numeric cut-off for each of the stream quality rating categories (i.e. fair, good,
87 excellent). Ms. Fox said that the COE has been hesitant to assign numerical cut-off points. Mr.
88 Dorney said that macrobenthic indicators were not sufficient to use for coastal plain stream
89 evaluations. Ms. Jacobs asked what would be used in its place, and Mr. Dorney replied that a
90 form of habitat assessment would be used. Mr. Furness stated that CZR did some preliminary
91 stream evaluations using the COE form but not the DWQ evaluation form. Mr. Zarzecki said
92 that the DWQ form is used primarily to distinguish ephemeral drains from perennial and
3 5/20/2004
x t
93 intermittent streams. Mr. Dorney said that a functional assessment protocol is being developed
94 but it may be a long time until it becomes available.
95
96 Ms. Fox continued by discussing stream selection criteria (Attachment 2). Mr. Lekson
97 said the Region 4 and COE websites are good sources of information. Mr. Zarzecki said that he
98 wanted to clarify that preservation is a stream mitigation option. Mr. Dorney pointed out that the
99 stream selection criteria referenced in the attachment are "should be" not "shall be".
100
101 Mr. Wicker began discussing mitigation relative to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
102 (USFWS). He stated that his agency follows EPA guidelines. He indicated that the USFWS
103 would like to see mitigation via restoration at 1:1 and preservation of "keystone properties" at
104 10:1. Mr. Wicker stated that preservation would be a good mitigation option because the
105 expansive waterfront development in southeastern North Carolina could begin to move to the
106 Aurora area. With regard to existing and past PCS restoration projects, Mr. Wicker stated that
107 efforts have been "insulting to aquatic productivity" and therefore restoration will be an important
108 component of mitigation. He pointed out that estuarine restoration would benefit crabs, and
109 headwater restoration would help the recovery of river herring. He recommended existing
110 restoration sites associated with North River and Timberlake Bank as potential areas for stream
111 restoration.
112
113 He also stated that PCS mine water could be useful for wetland restoration and creation
114 and the mitigation sites could remain as permanent wetland if the land was graded
115 appropriately. He also mentioned that previously mined areas could be donated or put in
116 landtrusts to be managed by agencies as restoration sites. He stated that cadmium capping at
117 PCS has been successful and these previously mined areas had future restoration potential.
118 Mr. Wicker cited the USFWS's restoration efforts at the Pungo River as a slow but successful
119 restoration project. He felt that PCS could donate reclaimed land to the Service for restoration.
120
121 Ms. Fox asked about the 1:1 mitigation ratio mentioned by Mr. Wicker, stating that the
122 EPA prefers 2:1. Mr. Wicker replied that he meant a no net loss of wetlands using a
123 combination of 10:1 and 1:1. Mr. Smith asked if this would meet EPA requirements and Ms.
124 Fox replied, probably.
125
4 5/20/2004
t r
126 Mr. Sechler began discussing the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the
127 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) mandate under the Magnuson-Stevenson Act. The EFH
128 assessment requires that NMFS take a very close look at EFH and requires mitigation in the
129 case of impacts. NMFS has no mitigation guidelines but rather defers to EPA and COE.
130 NMFS does want headwater and forested wetlands to be considered as well as other EFH
131 support habitat. Mr. Sechler also supported the use of PCS's mine water resources for multiple
132 resource mitigation. Mr. Lekson stated that the team would be careful to meet the requirements
133 of EFH assessment.
134
135 Mr. Zarzecki asked if NMFS had any definition for "supportive habitat" and how far
136 supportive habitat extends up the creeks and rivers. Mr. Sechler referenced definitions and
137 guidance referenced in EFH material, but mentioned no specifics. Mr. Lekson stated that EFH
138 assessment requires a formal coordination process that CZR will document.
139
140 Mr. Dorney discussed DWQ policy on wetland mitigation (Attachment 3). He stated that
141 they used a 1:1 mitigation ratio for restoration/creation, mitigation must occur in the same sub
142 basin and match riparian or non-riparian. Mr. Dorney said that mitigation beyond 1:1 is up to
143 COE/EPA, but 1:1 meets DWQ requirements. He stated that monitoring follows COE guidance
144 and that a functional assessment guideline is being developed but may not be available for a
145 long time. Mr. Dorney said that, currently, DWQ only requires mitigation for perennial streams,
146 but this will change in the future.
147
148 Mr. Dorney next discussed the buffer rules. He stated that DWQ requires 3:1 for
149 impacts in Zone 1 (first 30 feet) and 1.5:1 for Zone 2 (outer 20 feet). Donation was a stream
150 and stream buffer mitigation option and was usually handled by the WRP. He also stated that
151 the buffers on restored streams can also be put toward mitigating impacts to stream buffers.
152
153 Ms. Fox asked for Mr. Dorney to repeat DWQ policy on restoration mitigation ratios. Mr.
154 Dorney said that if 10 acres of wetlands are destroyed then a minimum of 10 acres must be
155 restored or created. Mr. Furness clarified that DWQ only requires stream mitigation for
156 perennial stream. Ms. Fox said that federal guidelines require mitigation for intermittent streams
157 as well.
158
5 5/20/2004
c i
159 Mr. Zarzecki said that if PCS restored/relocated the entire stream and the buffer then
160 they could meet buffer and stream mitigation requirements with that restoration/relocation. Mr.
161 Furness said that it will be similar to Whitehurst Creek and Bailey Creek.
162
163 Mr. Moye discussed DCM mitigation policy, stating that DCM has written mitigation
164 guidelines called 7M but the guidelines are being revised. Personnel turnover at the Raleigh
165 office has not allowed time to revise the mitigation policy. He stated that he was not sure of the
166 details of the new mitigation policy but the DCM hoped to have someone to oversee the effort
167 shortly.
168
169 Mr. Lekson asked if Mr. Moye would be involved in developing mitigation guidelines. Mr.
170 Moye said that he has not been solicited for help on current mitigation projects. Mr. Moye
171 stated that many counties are currently using FEMA funds to clear ditches and drain wetlands.
172
173 Mr. Moye explained that currently, 7M is the written policy, but only DOT can meet the
174 avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements because of the public need requirements
175 found in the policy. Mr. Moye said that this issue was being changed to be more similar to
176 requirements associated with other agency policies.
177
178 Mr. Peed discussed Land Resources (CDLR) mitigation policy. He stated that DLR had
179 no policy, but rather, they deferred to the COE. Mr. Lekson asked Mr. Peed about reclamation.
180 Mr. Peed said that DLR looks at the final reclamation site, but not before. He stated that
181 normally, DLR works with small areas and gives larger areas to other agencies. DLR could also
182 issue permits with agencies approval, citing PCS cadmium capping as an example.
183
184 Mr. Lekson said Mr. Peed has valuable experience with mitigation sites and would be
185 helpful with erosion, which is a common problem at mitigation sites. Mr. Peed replied that they
186 do have recommendations on erosion as well as species plantings.
187
188 Mr. Zarzecki asked if a variance was required on high quality streams or only for trout
189 streams, to which Mr. Peed replied, "Only trout stream buffers".
190
6 5/20/2004
i f
191 Mr. Lekson explained that Mr. McKenna was not present and that Mr. Moye would
192 describe the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) mitigation policy. Mr. Moye gave a handout on
193 DMF mitigation policy (Attachment 4) and said that DMF tries to dovetail with other agencies on
194 mitigation policy. Mr. Moye stated that DMF uses Coastal Habitat Protection Plans and that the
195 DMF had authority to comment on the final mitigation plan. DMF's goal with mitigation is no net
196 loss of coastal marine stocks or habitat.
197
198 Mr. Moye explained that DMF had a habitat and water quality committee that advised on
199 projects that could potentially affect coastal fisheries. Mr. Furness asked who presented the
200 mitigation plan to DMF commissioners, to which Mr. Moye replied, Jess Hawkins. Mr. Moye
201 also stated that he and Mr. Overton were advisors to the committee, as were Doug Rader and
202 Kent Nelson. Mr. Lekson said the COE often attends commission meetings as well. Ms.
203 Alsentzer asked for a fisheries assessment process flow chart.
204
205 Mr. McHenry explained WRC mitigation policy. He stated that WRC has no regulations,
206 but they do have agency policies with direct bearing on mitigation requirements. After
207 explaining the WRC's mission and mitigation goals, Mr. McHenry stated that the cadmium issue
208 was a concern and that the WRC will assess the success of cadmium capping.
209
210 Mr. McHenry was complimented on his presentation (PowerPoint - unavailable for
211 attachment), and then Mr. Zarzecki asked if WRC provided comments to other agencies. Mr.
212 McHenry said WRC provides comments to DCM, DLR, and other agencies. Ms. Alsentzer
213 asked if the WRC also comments on the Draft EIS. Mr. McHenry stated that WRC can provide
214 comment on any stage of the EIS process, but after the EIS goes through the state
215 clearinghouse, the WRC will always provide comment.
216
217 Ms. Alsentzer explained PTRF mitigation goals, saying that PTRF has no mitigation
218 guidelines, but PTRF's policy is very much like Mr. McHenry's description of the WRC mitigation
219 goals. Ms. Jacobs added that PTRF believes avoidance and minimization are the first priority
220 and if compensatory mitigation is required it should be on-site and in-kind and preferably
221 restoration rather than creation, as creation projects often fail. She also stated that mitigation
222 ratios depend on the habitat type and type of mitigation. Mr. Lekson said that it was good that
223 PTRF attended the meetings and that they should be developing a position on mining
7 5/20/2004
f f
224 alternatives. Ms. Alsentzer replied that PTRF always seeks the least environmentally damaging
225 alternative, which at present, appears to be the mining block south of NC 33.
226
227 Mr. Lekson began his presentation on the COE's mitigation policy, and began by stating
228 that PCS mining operations can be seen from space, illustrating the, size of the environmental
229 impact. Mr. Lekson described the history of COE mitigation policy documents (Attachment 5).
230 When discussing the 6 February 1995 EPA/USACE Mitigation MOA, Mr. Lekson stated that
231 PCS needed to consider mitigation as soon as possible in the EIS process. He added that COE
232 mitigation guidance requires more baseline mitigation data than in the past. In discussing
233 mitigation banking, Mr. Lekson stated that many good mitigation banks exist because the
234 success requirements for mitigation banks are very stringent. Mr. Furness asked if there was a
235 master list of mitigation banks and Mr. Lekson said such a list could be found on the COE
236 website under mitigation.
237
238 When discussing the 7 November 2000 Federal Guidance on the Use of In-Lieu-Fee
239 Arrangements Mr. Lekson said that the party accepting the in-lieu payment fee is responsible for
240 the success of the mitigation site. In discussing the 24 December 2002 RGL 02-2 Guidance on
241 Compensatory Mitigation, which describes how mitigation is to be conducted, Mr. Lekson said
242 that new terms had been introduced and that the term rehabilitation refers to a type of
243 restoration equivalent to enhancement. After discussing SMART mitigation planning guidance,
244 Mr. Lekson said that the guidance would be very important for CZR when preparing a mitigation
245 plan. After finishing his presentation, Mr. Lekson stated that all mitigation information can be
246 found on the Corps Wilmington Districts' website.
247
248 Everyone complimented Mr. Lekson on his presentation, and he asked for questions.
249 Ms. Alsentzer asked how banking and in-lieu fee met the no net loss requirement. Mr. Lekson
250 explained that a mitigation bank restores a wetland and then debits are subtracted from the
251 wetland over time. Ms. Alsentzer said that she had a misunderstanding of banking, but now it
252 was clear. Mr. Lekson stated that existing wetlands are often contiguous to restored wetlands
253 and these pre-existing wetlands are often used for preservation credit.
254
255 Mr. Wicker explained that restoration prevents the resource from being lost over time.
256 Ms. Jacobs asked how far away the bank could be from the impact site. Mr. Lekson gave out a
8 5/20/2004
l 0
257 map of state RUCs (Attachment 6) and stated that the bank must be within one digit of the HUC
258 away from the impact site. Mr. Lekson said that two banks have contacted him and are courting
259 PCS.
260
261 Mr. Lekson stated that the COE uses the following mitigation ratios:
262 • Restoration 2:1
263 • Creation 3:1, but they may also use the EPA standard of 6:1
264 • Enhancement 4:1
265 • Preservation 10:1
266
267 Mr. Furness clarified that PCS has not contacted any mitigation banks. Mr. Smith said
268 that PCS would not investigate a bank until the team agreed the bank was acceptable.
269
270 Mr. Lekson said that mitigation has gone beyond the days of plugging ditches and
271 planting trees on prior converted cropland. Mr. Lekson said the preference of the COE was
272 Restoration, Preservation, and Banks, upfront. Mr. Lekson also stated the COE's preferences
273 included watershed corridor reconnection and restoration of headwaters. Mr. Lekson stated
274 preservation credit was available for reclamation areas and the mineral rights under South
275 Creek and Pamlico River. Mr. Sechler asked for an explanation of the last item. Mr. Lekson
276 said that giving up mineral rights under the river is tantamount to preservation. Mr. Moye replied
277 that he didn't agree because preservation refers to land ownership not mineral rights. Mr.
278 Lekson replied that he said it was tantamount not equal to preservation. He further explained
279 that if it were not for the agencies PCS could mine the Pamlico River. Mr. Moye said it is still a
280 leap. Mr. Steffens asked about the lease length and location and requested that PCS provide
281 details on the leasing process, because if the lease is a mitigation issue, such details will be
282 very important.
283
284 Lunch was called at 12:30
285
286 The meeting resumed at 1:35 at which time Mr. Smith began describing the alternatives
287 contained in the package given by CZR dated January 2004. Mr. Smith stated that he asked
288 Mr. Waters to draw a boundary that provided for maximum recovery while avoiding the
289 resources of interest; however, the alternatives should not necessarily be considered
9 5/20/2004
? r
290 practicable, because PCS needed a detailed mine plan for each alternative in order to
291 determine practicability. Mr. Smith also brought up the NCPC barge slip, which was
292 inadvertently not taken into account in the DCM avoidance map. He indicated that the barge
293 slip is CAMA jurisdictional water. Mr. Smith also said that there was a discrepancy between the
294 current permit application boundary and the 7-1 state mine permit area which would be resolved
295 as well.
296
297 Mr. Smith showed the original permit application alternative, the current permit
298 application alternative, the DCM avoidance alternative, and the DWQ perennial stream
299 avoidance alternative, each within the NCPC mining block. Mr. Dorney said that an avoidance
300 of intermittent streams alternative should be developed as well. Mr. Smith said this would be
301 done, and then displayed the minimum pit width alternative that was based on Marston's
302 analysis. Mr. Dorney asked if the alternative assumed three draglines. Mr. Smith replied that it
303 did. Mr. Dorney then clarified that two draglines would mean a narrower minimum pit width and
304 one even less. Mr. Smith replied that this was true. Mr. Furness clarified that the Marston
305 report contained three pit widths: operational, efficient, and safe, and that the alternative shown
306 was based on the efficient width.
307
308 Mr. Smith then showed the maximum recovery alternative for the mining block south of
309 NC 33. Mr. Furness stated that mining engineers have determined that it was currently not
310 economically practicable to mine into the sand ridge, therefore the mine did not extend to the
311 west side of the block boundary except were utility support corridors were needed.
312
313 Mr. Smith then turned the meeting over to Mr. Cooper, who stated that he had little to
314 add to Mr. Smith's descriptions except to say that all streams on NCPC had been surveyed and
315 that surveys of Bonnerton streams and streams south of NC 33 are underway. He also said
316 that CAMA areas south of NC 33 and on NCPC are completed with the exception of the barge
317 slip.
318
319 Mr. Cooper said that the team needs to agree to the boundaries so that PCS can
320 consider developing more detailed mine plans. Ms. Fox asked if there would be an alternative
321 boundary that included intermittent streams and an alternative that included COE jurisdiction.
10 5/20/2004
l I
322 Mr. Cooper replied, "Yes". He further stated that there would be a difference between DWQ and
323 COE intermittent stream areas.
324
325 Mr. Dorney asked if Wetland Areas of Special Concern (WASCS) could be added to
326 these alternatives or used to create as a separate alternative boundary. Mr. Cooper said that
327 this would be done after biotic community maps are updated. However, Mr. Cooper said these
328 highly detailed maps would take a while to complete due to the need to merge old and new data
329 into one GIS layer. Mr. Cooper said the stream maps would be presented as they became
330 available for each mining block.
331
332 Mr. Moye said that DCM accepts the CAMA jurisdictional lines as depicted (with the
333 inclusion of the barge slip). He said that DCM's approval does not last five years as with the
334 COE, but rather the approval applies to a single date. Mr. Smith asked how this will impact the
335 permitting process in the future. Mr. Moye said CAMA lines can be changed by storms and
336 other processes and, therefore, when mining is ready to begin the lines may need to be re-
337 evaluated. Mr. Smith asked if DCM would need to revisit the lines and Mr. Moye replied yes,
338 when necessary. However, he stated that it is likely that little modification will be required
339 because PCS will not be mining right up to the creek.
340
341 Mr. Zarzecki stated that the alternatives had to include buffers. Mr. Furness replied that
342 both the DCM and the DWQ perennial stream buffer requirements are included. Mr. Smith said
343 that a 75-foot buffer was used in the depicted figures. A 75-foot buffer assures the alternative
344 safely excludes buffer and set-back areas. Mr. Cooper stated that final maps presented to
345 DWQ and DCM for concurrence of their respective jurisdictional areas will depict actual
346 regulated areas, compared to the 75-foot area used to determine potential mining alternatives.
347
348 Mr. Wicker asked if one truly avoided impacts to the stream if you avoid the stream itself
349 but mine the surrounding area. He asked if the avoidance line meant jurisdictional stream
350 avoidance or stream impact avoidance. Mr. Cooper said that Dr. Skaggs' work would address
351 the impact of drainage basin reduction on streams. Mr. Dorney said that the DWQ perennial
352 stream avoidance alternative does avoid stream impacts to perennial streams. He stated that
353 Dr. Skaggs presentation suggested that these streams were fed by groundwater and surface
11 5/20/2004

354 flow was not as important. Mr. Moye stated that the DCM avoidance line refers only to
355 jurisdictional avoidance and does not assume that impacts to the resource would not occur.
356
357 Mr. Cooper addressed the intermittent stream avoidance boundary and explained that
358 such an alternative would leave little mining area. Mr. Zarzecki added that once wetlands were
359 added there would be even more impacts. Mr. Smith stated that they will also need to develop
360 a No Action alternative for each block. Mr. Lekson said this was required under NEPA.
361
362 Mr. Smith clarified that Mr. Dorney asked CZR to add a WASC areas to the alternatives
363 maps. Mr. Dorney said that was true. Mr. Lekson added that eventually there would be WASC
364 and wetland avoidance and minimization alternatives. Mr. Furness agreed.
365
366 Mr. Steffens asked if it would be useful to put each resource map and alternative on
367 mylars so they could be overlaid. Mr. Cooper said that would be possible. Mr. Lekson said that
368 the DWQ alternatives could include WASC and DCM areas. Mr. Smith asked if DWQ regulates
369 DCM areas, to which Mr. Cooper replied, "Yes". Mr. Steffens replied it is true for buffers not
370 streams.
371
372 Mr. Smith said that a mine plan for the DWQ perennial stream avoidance alternative for
373 the NCPC tract should be available by the next meeting. Mr. Smith stated that it may be a
374 problem if there are 15 or 20 alternatives that need to be narrowed down. Mr. Dorney agreed
375 and said that there are many permutations on the number of draglines. Also the northeast
376 section of NCPC may have a larger available mining area compared to the middle and southern
377 portion of the mining block. In the latter area fewer draglines may be used compared to the
378 northern portion. Mr. Smith said that the minimum operational pit width is based on a trip north
379 and a return south. Mr. Furness said that there are many permutations, but we need solid
380 alternatives. Mr. Lekson said NEPA and 404 require alternatives to be reasonable and
381 practicable and PCS must put a line on paper based on input from the team. Mr. Dorney said if
382 PCS can't mine between creeks on the NCPC Tract, then PCS can develop mine plans
383 accordingly, and modifications can be made. Mr. Smith asked when in the EIS process will
384 modifications be made, and what boundary is acceptable for PCS to develop a mine plan. Mr.
385 Lekson said what is on paper now is acceptable. Mr. Moye said that he sees the process
386 working in a stepwise way in which PCS develops a mine plan for an alternative that completely
12 5/20/2004

387 avoids the resource then the alternatives are modified as necessary, which is the minimization
388 step. Any resulting impacts will be mitigated. Mr. Smith said the current permit alternative
389 boundary does not avoid streams and CAMA areas. Mr. Lekson said that a mine plan will be
390 made for the current alternatives. Mr. Dorney stated that he agreed with the current alternative
391 boundaries and PCS should proceed with developing mine plans.
392
393 Ms. Alsentzer asked why a COE avoidance boundary was not included. Mr. Lekson said
394 data collection has not reached that point. Mr. Zarzecki recommended that before PCS does a
395 mine plan for every alternative, they should do a mine plan for one of the alternatives and
396 submit it to the team for comment. Mr. Waters stated that he would start with the DWQ
397 perennial stream avoidance alternative. Mr. Smith stated that the mine plan for DWQ perennial
398 stream avoidance alternative should be similar to the mine plan for DCM avoidance alternative.
399 Mr. Smith agreed to this plan.
400
401 Mr. Dorney asked how long until a wetland map would be available. Mr. Cooper said he
402 would have a better estimate after some digital mapping was completed. However, he stated
403 that the process would be very detailed and time consuming because it required merging
404 wetland layers from ten years ago with current stream survey maps. Mr. Wicker asked about
405 the possibility of a preliminary map. Mr. Lekson said that most of the NCPC tract is wetland and
406 referenced maps from the old EIS.
407
408 Mr. Smith said that the mine plan is a predecessor to the economic modeling. PCS has
409 consulted COE counsel about how to look at the results of the economic model without
410 divulging confidential business information. Mr. Wicker stated that the group should avoid
411 economic modeling on each of several stepwise alternatives, but instead should only do
412 economic modeling on practicable alternatives that consider all the important environmental
413 variables. Mr. Furness replied that deciding on economic practicability is the COE's decision.
414 Mr. Smith asked about the intermittent stream avoidance boundary and questioned whether it
415 was even possible to develop a mine plan for such an alternative.
416
417 Ms. Alsentzer said that there were no economists in the group and that we should not be
418 considering economic issues. She stated that it was the team's job to minimize biological
419 impacts and for the COE to decide what is economically viable. Mr. Lekson said that the team
13 5/20/2004
A I
420 should discuss economic issues to have a better understanding of all the issues. Mr. Moye
421 stated that as a commenting agency he would remain on the team even if the project avoided all
422 CAMA jurisdiction. Ms. Alsentzer stated that she does not want the group to limit alternatives
423 based on its economic viability. The team should be considering natural resources. Mr. Smith
424 replied that the team considered all phosphate reserves on the east coast and though the team
425 members are not economists, the team picked a project area boundary.
426
427 Mr. Wicker stated that it would be nice to develop a mine plan in conjunction with an
428 economic model so that viability could be assessed early on.
429
430 Mr. Moye said that the team has these meetings to explore every possibility even though
431 it takes significant time and money. Mr. Lekson stated that we don't want PCS to do mine plans
432 for alternatives they know they can't do. Mr. Waters said that they would look at each
433 alternative and determine if a mine plan is possible.
434
435 Mr. Smith said that he thanked the team members for driving from Raleigh and said that
436 the meeting had been very productive. The rest of the team agreed.
437
438 Mr. Lekson asked the team to give CZR their comments on the last meeting minutes.
439 Mr. Smith said that PCS would develop a mine plan for review and comments. He also stated
440 that PCS had a new plant manager, Richard Atwood, from Augusta, Georgia.
441
442 The meeting ended at 3:30.
443
444 The following figures were presented and discussed at the 28 January 2004 meeting:
445 • NCPC Block current permit boundary
446 • S. of Hwy 33 Block DCM Avoidance Boundary
447 • NCPC Block Original Permit Application Boundary
448 • NCPC Block DCM Avoidance Alternative Boundary
449 • NCPC Block DWQ Perennial Stream Avoidance Alternative Boundary
450 • NCPC Block Minimum Operational Width Alternative Boundary
451
14 5/20/2004
l ,
452 These figures were sent to the permit evaluation team prior to the 28 January 2004
453 meeting. Alternative boundary figures were provided by Robert M. Chiles, P.E. Copies of
454 available mitigation information presented at the meeting are attached with these minutes and
455 listed below.
456
457 Attachments:
458
459 1. Agenda PCS Phosphate Permit Team Meeting - January 28, 2004.
460 2. EPA Region 4 Mitigation Summary presented by Becky Fox.
461 3. Summary of Mitigation Provisions for Wetlands, Streams and Buffers Regulated by the
462 Division of Water Quality presented by John Dorney.
463 4. North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission - Policies for the Protection and
464 Restoration of Marine and Estuarine Resources and Environmental Permit Review and
465 Commenting (Adopted April 13, 1999) presented by David Moye.
466 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mitigation Policy presented by David Lekson.
467 6. Map of Hydrologic Unit Codes for Eastern North Carolina
15 5/20/2004
468 Distribution
Ms. Mary Alsentzer
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Becky Fox
Environmental Protection Agency
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, NC 28789
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. James M. Hudgens
CZR Incorporated
1061 East Indiantown Road
Suite 100
Jupiter, Florida 33477-5143
Mr. Charles Jones
NC Division of Coastal Management
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Scott Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David M. Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David McHenry
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Sean McKenna
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dr. David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David Moye
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Jimmie Overton
NC Division of Water Quality
ESB Lab
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Richard Peed
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
16 5/20/2004
Mr. William A. Schimming
Potash Corp.
Post Office Box 3320
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Ross Smith
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Walker
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Bob Zarzecki
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
17 5/20/2004
ATTACHMENT I
JANUARY 28 AGENDA PCS PHOSPHATE PERMIT MEETING
CESAW-RG-W/Lekson
Opening remarks / Schedule next meeting / Old business
AGENDA PCS PHOSPHATE PERMIT TEAM MEETING
SUBJECT: AID 200110096 / PCS Phosphate mine advance, Beaufort County,
North Carolina.
10:00-10:15
10:15 - Noon
Mitigation Presentations
EPA DWQ
USFWS DCM
NMFS DLR
Noon -1:00
1:00 - 3:30
Lunch
January 28, 2004
DMF PTRF
NCWRC USACE
ED
Alternatives Boundaries Review and Discussion
? Original Permit (Alt. 1)
o Current Permit (1A)
? NCPC - DWQ Perennial Stream Avoidance
? NCPC - DCM Avoidance
? South of NC33 - DCM Avoidance
? Minimum Operational Width
3:30 Wrap-up
ATTACHMENT 2
EPA REGION 4 MITIGATION POLICY SUMMARY
PRESENTED BY BECKY FOX
EPA REGION 4 MITIGATION SUMMARY
(Prepared for mitigation discussion at PCS Phosphate Jan 28, 2004 interagency meeting)
EPA Region 4 Mitigation Policy (1-16-01)
(http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/wetlands)
Highlights of Region 4 wetlands recommendations:
Preference for in-kind, on-site "
Out of kind may be allowed on case by case basis if resource agencies agree it is
environmentally preferable - will generally require higher ratios
If not onsite, policy calls for 11 digit HUC or defers to policies of state
concerning ecoregions, etc.
Functional replacement of losses - if functional analysis not done following ratios
are a guide
Restoration 2:1
Enhancement 4:1
Creation 6:1
Preservation 10:1 to 60:1 generally stand alone not allowed, should be in
conjunction with restoration/enhancement
¦ Wetland mitigation for wetland impact
Stream mitigation for stream impact
¦ Perpetuity protection
Stream Mitigation
Stream Mitigation Guidelines - April 2003
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/Mitigation/stream mitigation.html
Joint interagency guidance for NC (Wilmington District Corps, DWQ, WRC, EPA,
NRCS)
Highlights:
¦ Based on Natural Channel Design techniques using reference reach channels.
¦ Mitigation activities - defined in guidance
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
ATTACHMENT 3
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION PROVISIONS AND MITIGATION TERMINOLOGY
REGULATED BY DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PRESENTED BY JOHN DORNEY
SUMMARY OF
MITIGATION PROVISIONS FOR
WETLANDS, STREAMS AND BUFFERS REGULATED BY THE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
January 28, 2004
1. IMPACTED WETLANDS
Avoidance and Minimization is satisfied
"No Practical Alternatives" is satisfied
Need 1:1 restoration or creation
In subbasin
Riparian versus non-riparian wetlands
Functional replacement - process underway to define and set up process. No
process in place now.
2. IMPACTED STREAM LENGTHS
Perennial only at 1:1 ratio today.
Intermittent - not required now by DWQ but policy will change.
See Joint Agency Guidelines
3. IMPACTED RIPARIAN BUFFERS
3:1 ratio for Zone 1 (first 30 feet) and 1.5:1 ratio for Zone 2 (outer 20 feet) '
RESTORATION : 320 mature stems at 5 years of native hardwood @ 1:1 ratio of
square area
ENHANCEMENT : same @ 3:1 ratio of square area
DONATION OF REAL PROPERTY: see 15A NCAC 02B .0260 (8) a-d (9) a-g
for the multiple conditions of donation.
Can subtract buffers associated with stream mitigation to partially offset buffer
mitigation needs.
with NWPs, GP activities typically cause minimal impact on the aquatic environment.
Where authorized work exceeds the minimal impact threshold, mitigation may be
necessary to lessen effects on aquatic resources.
D. Letters of Permission: Letters of Permission (LOPs) are a type of permit issued
through an abbreviated processing procedure. LOPS include coordination with federal
and state fish and wildlife agencies as required by the FWCA and a public interest
evaluation. They do not require the publishing of an individual public notice. LOPs
apply only to Section 10 authorization in North Carolina.
E. 401 Water Quality Certification: When the District determines that a 404
Permit is required, a 401 Water Quality Certification is also required. The District
determines which type of permit is applicable for the project: an Individual Permit,
Nationwide, or Regional General Permit. An Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
is necessary if an Individual 404 Permit is required. For each Nationwide or Regional
General Permit, DWQ must either issue a matching General Certification, or it must issue
or waive an individual 401 Certification in order for the permit to be utilized. Once the
District has determined which type of GP is needed, the matching General Certification -
can be reviewed on the DWQ Wetlands Unit web page
ho://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/certs.httnl . If written concurrence, is required, then
a formal application and payment of the appropriate fee is needed for the 401 Water
Quality Certification.
4. TERMINOLOGY
? Compensatory Stream Mitigation - The restoration, enhancement, or, for streams of
national or state significance because of the resources they support, preservation of
streams and their associated floodplains for the purpose of compensating for
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable
avoidance and minimization has been achieved. Compensatory stream mitigation
may be required for impacts to perennial and intermittent streams and should be
designed to restore, enhance, and maintain stream uses that are adversely impacted by
authorized activities.
? Perennial Stream - A perennial stream has flowing water year-round during a typical
year. The water table is loczted above the streambed for most of the year.
Groundwater is the primary source of water for stream flow. Runoff from
precipitation is a supplemental source of water for stream flow. (65 FR 12898).
Perennial streams support a diverse aquatic community of organisms year round and
are typically the streams that support major fisheries.
? Intermittent Stream - An intermittent stream has flowing water during certain times
of the year, when ground water provides water for stream flow. During dry periods,
intermittent streams may not have flowing water. Runoff from precipitation is a
supplemental source of water for stream flow. (65 FR 12898). The biological
community of intermittent streams is composed of species that are aquatic during a
6
part of their life history or move to perennial water sources. For the purpose of
mitigation, intermittent streams will be treated as 1' order streams.
? Ephemeral Stream - An ephemeral stream has flowing water only during and for a
short duration after precipitation events in a typical year. Ephemeral streaxnbeds are
located above the water table year-round. Groundwater is not a source of water for
the stream. Runoff from precipitation is the primary source of water for stream flow.
(65 FR 12897). Ephemeral streams typically support few aquatic organisms. When
aquatic organisms are found they typically have a very short aquatic life stage.
? Stable Stream - A stream which, over time (in the present climate), transports the
sediments and flows produced by its watershed in such a manner that the dimension,
pattern and profile are maintained without either aggrading or degrading (Rosgen,
1996).
? Channelized Stream - Stream that has been degraded (straightened) by human
activities. A channelized stream will generally have increased depth, increased width,
and a steeper profile, be disconnected from its floodplain and have a decreased
pattern or sinuosity.
? Ditches Acting as Streams - Ditches that intercept enough groundwater to have
either intermittent or perennial flow. These channels have enough flow to support
aquatic life and would be considered waters of US.
? Natural Channel Design - A geomorphologic approach to stream restoration based
on an understanding of the valley type, general watershed conditions, dimension,
pattern, profile, hydrology and sediment transport of natural, stable channels
(reference condition) and applying this understanding to the reconstruction of an
unstable channel.
? Stream Classification - Ordering or arranging fluvial systems into groups or sets
based on their similarities or relationships. A morphological classification system
categorizes a stream based on its physical and geomorphic characteristics. Rosgen
(1994) proposed a geomorphic classification system that is widely used in stream
restoration and mitigation. Classification allows for predicting the behavior of these
systems, extrapolating knowledge of one system to another, and provides a consistent
and reproducible frame of reference for communication among those interested in
these systems. Alternatively, for North Carolina streams, DWQ has a classification
system that is based on water quality standards. This system is a regulatory
convention for establishing water quality standards based on a stream's "best use".
(Use-support ratings are a method to analyze water quality information and to
determine whether the quality is sufficient to support the uses for which the
waterbody has been classified by DWQ. The word "use" refers to such activities as
swimming, fishing and water supply. All surface waters in the state have been
assigned this type of classification.)
7
? Stream Order A method for classifying, or ordering, the hierarchy of natural
channels within a catchment. One of the most popular methods for assigning stream
orders was proposed by Strahler (1957). The uppermost channels in a catchment with
no upstream tributaries are first order downstream to their first confluence. A second
order stream is formed below the confluence of two first order streams. A third order
stream is formed by the confluence of 2 second-order streams and so on. The
confluence of a channel with another channel of lower order does not raise the order
of the stream below the confluence.
? Reference Reach/Condition - A stable stream reach or, in some instances,
condition, generally located in the same physiographic region (see Appendix III),
climatic region, and valley type as the project and serves as the blueprint for the
dimension, pattern, and profile of the-channel to be restored.
o Bankfull stage - The point at which water begins to overflow onto its floodplain.
This may or may not be at the top of the stream bank on entrenched streams.
Typically, the bankfull discharge recurrence interval is between one and two years. It
is this discharge that is most effective at moving sediment, forming and removing
bars, shaping meanders and generally doing work that results in the morphological
characteristics of channels. (Dunne and Leopold, 1978)
o Channel Dimension - The two-dimensional, cross sectional profile of a channel
taken at selected points on a reach, usually taken at riffle locations. Variables that are
commonly measured include width, depth, cross-sectional area, floodprone area and
entrenchment ratio. These variables are usually measured relative to the bankfull
stage.
o Channel Pattern - The sinuosity or meander geometry of a stream. Variables
commonly measured include sinuosity, meander wavelength, belt width, meander
width ratio and radius of curvature.
o Channel Profile The longitudinal slope of a channel. Variables commonly
measured include water surface slope, pool-to-pool spacing, pool slope and riffle
slope.
? Flood-Prone Area - Floodplain width measured at an elevation corresponding to
twice the maximum bankfull depth. This area often correlates to an approximate 50-
year flood or less. (Rosgen,1994)
o Stream Restoration - The process of converting an unstable, altered, or degraded
stream corridor, including adjacent riparian zone (buffers) and flood-prone areas, to
its natural stable condition considering recent and future watershed conditions. This
process should be based on a reference condition/reach for the valley type and
includes restoring the appropriate geomorphic dimension (cross-section), pattern
(sinuosity), and profile (channel slopes), as well as reestablishing the biological and
chemical integrity, including transport . of the water and sediment produced by the
stream's watershed in order to achieve dynamic equilibrium.
? Stream Enhancement - Stream rehabilitation activities undertaken to improve water
quality or ecological function of a fluvial system. Enhancement activities generally
will include some activities that would be required for restoration. These activities
may include in-stream or stream-bank activities, but in total fall short of restoring one
or more of the geomorphic variables: dimension, pattern and profile. Any proposed
stream enhancement activity must demonstrate long-term stability.
o Enhancement Level I - Mitigation category that generally includes improvements to
the stream channel and riparian zone that restore dimension and profile. This
category may also include other appropriate practices that provide improved channel
stability, water quality and stream ecology. Work will be based on reference reach
information.
? Enhancement Level H - Mitigation category for activities that augment channel
stability, water quality and stream ecology in accordance with a reference condition
but fall short of restoring both dimension and profile. Examples of enhancement level
II activities may include stabilization of streambanks through sloping to restore the
appropriate dimension and vegetating a riparian zone that is protected from livestock
by fencing, construction of structures for the primary purpose of stream bank
stabilization and, when appropriate, reattaching a channel to an adjacent floodplain.
? Streambank Stabilization - The in-place stabilization of an eroding streambank.
Stabilization techniques, which include primarily natural materials, like root wads and
log crib structures, as well as sloping stream banks and revegetating the riparian zone
may be considered for mitigation. When streambank stabilization is proposed for
mitigation, the completed condition should be based on a reference condition. Stream
stabilization techniques that consist primarily of "hard" engineering, such as concrete
lined channels, rip rap, or gabions, while providing bank stabilization, will not be
considered for mitigation. An exception to this may be considered for short reaches
when mitigating for urban stream impacts.
? Stream Relocation - Movement of a stream to a new location to allow an authorized
project to be constructed in the stream's former location. In general, relocated
streams must reflect the dimension, pattern and profile indicated by a natural
reference reach/condition in order to be adequate compensation for the authorized
stream impact. Relocated streams will generally require wooded protected buffers of
sufficient width (see buffer section). Relocations resulting in a reduced channel
length will generally require mitigation.
'This definition of stream restoration describes a category of mitigation for use with
this guidance, rather than a generic definition of stream restoration.
slope according to a reference reach and, when appropriate, reattaching to an adjacent
floodplain.
9
? Stream Preservation - Protection of ecologically important streams, generally, in
perpetuity through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical mechanisms.
Preservation may include the protection of upland buffer areas adjacent to streams as
necessary to ensure protection or enhancement of the overall stream. Preservation
must protect both sides of the channel. Generally, stream preservation should be in
combination with restoration or enhancement activities. Under exceptional
circumstances, preservation may stand-alone where high value waters will be
protected or ecologically important waters may be subject to development pressure
(Refer to Section 6 regarding preservation criteria). Stand-alone preservation may
generally be most acceptable in mitigating impacts associated with nationwide and
regional general permits. Preservation may be utilized for relatively undisturbed
areas that require little or no enhancement activities other than protective measures.
Although minimal streambank revegetation may be required in some cases, if
mitigation requires extensive streambank revegetation, the mitigation will be
considered to be Enhancement Level 11.
? Vegetated Buffer - An upland or wetland area vegetated with native trees and shrubs
next to rivers, streams, lakes, or other open waters that separate aquatic habitats from
developed areas, including agricultural land.
? Stream Riparian Zone - A riparian zone is the area of vegetated land along each
side of a stream or river that includes, but is not limited to, the floodplain. The
quality of this terrestrial or wetland habitat varies depending on width and vegetation
growing there. As with vegetated buffers, functions of the riparian zone include
reducing floodwater velocity, filtering pollutants such as sediment, providing wildlife
cover and food, and shading the stream. The ability of the riparian zones to filter
pollutants that move to the stream from higher elevations results in this area being
referred to as a buffer zone. The riparian zone should be measured landward from the
bankfull elevation on each side of a stream or river.
? Biological Integrity - A measure of the state of health in aquatic communities. A
healthy aquatic community is a balanced community of organisms having a species
composition, diversity and functional organization, comparable to that found in
natural (unimpaired) habitats in the region (Karr, et al. 1986).
? Best Management Practices (BMPs) - Policies, practices, procedures, or structures
implemented to mitigate the adverse environmental effects on surface water quality
resulting from development and other land disturbing activities. BMPs are
categorized as structural or non-structural. (See Section 10 for further BMP
discussion.)
? Conservation Easement - A legally binding, recorded instrument approved by the
District and DWQ offices of counsel to protect and preserve mitigation sites.
10
? 303 (d) Listed Waters - Section 303(d)(1) of the Clean Water Act, requires
states/tribes to provide a list of impaired waters to EPA every two years.
Waterbodies are designated as impaired by a state or tribe when existing pollution
controls are not stringent enough to attain and maintain the water quality standards
the stateltribe has set for them.
? Mountain Counties - Counties in which the WRC has Designated Public Mountain
Trout Waters and consists of the. following: Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe,
Burke, Caldwell, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon,
Madison, McDowell, Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford, Stokes, Surry, Swain, Transylvania,
Watauga, Wilkes and Yancey.
5. MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
Final compensatory mitigation requirements of Department of the Army permits will be
commensurate with the type and amount of impact associated with the permitted activity.
Proposed compensatory mitigation will be coordinated with the appropriate review
agencies and final mitigation requirements will be determined on a project-by-project
basis. DWQ may also require stream mitigation for its 401 Certification. For the
purposes of defining compensatory stream mitigation options, this guidance establishes
four levels or types of mitigation (Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement Level
II and Preservation) that may be used to compensate for unavoidable impacts to
intermittent and perennial streams. 't'hese mitigation categories are defined in the
Terminology Section (Section 4) and do not directly relate to the Rosgen Priority Levels
of Stream Restoration.
11
ATTACHMENT 4
MITIGATION POLICY OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION
PRESENTED BY DAVID MOYE
NORTH CAROLINA MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION
POLICIES FOR THE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION OF
MARINE AND ESTUARINE RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT REVIEW AND COMMENTING
(ADOPTED APRIL 13,1999)
Issue
This document establishes the policies of the NC Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission)
regarding overall protection and restoration of the state=s marine and estuarine resources, and
for environmental permit review for proposed projects with the potential to adversely impact
those resources.
Background
The Amarine and estuarine resources- of North Carolina are defined broadly as A[a] I I fish,
except inland game fish, found in the Atlantic Ocean and in coastal fishing waters; all fisheries
based upon such fish; all uncultivated or undomesticated plant and animal life, other than
wildlife resources, inhabiting or dependent upon coastal fishing waters; and the entire ecology
supporting such fish, fisheries, and plant and animal life.- N.C.G. S. 3113-129(1I).- The
Commission is charged with the duty to A(m)anage, restore, develop, cultivate, conserve,
protect, and regulate the marine and estuarine resources within its jurisdiction= N.C.G.S.
3143B-289.51(b)(I).
Two powers of the Commission constitute its primary authorities to effectuate that charge, and
thereby to protect and restore North Carolina marine and estuarine resources. First, the
Commission is specifically empowered A[t]o comment on and otherwise participate in the
determination of permit applications received by state agencies that may have an effect on the
marine and estuarine resources of the state.- N.C.G.S. 3143b-289.52(2)(9). Second, the
Commission has to power and duty to participate in the development, approval and
implementation of Coastal Habitat Protection Plans (Habitat Plans) for all Acritical fisheries
habitats= N.C.G.S. 33143B-279.8; 143B-289.52(a)(11). The goal of such Habitat Plans is Athe
net long-term enhancement of coastal fisheries associated with each coastal habitat identified.=-
N. C.G.S. 3142B-279.8. The Commission by unanimous vote has delegated its permit
commenting authority to its Habitat and Water Quality Standing Advisory Committee
(Committee) for the sake of efficiency and effectiveness. Likewise, the Commission has
designated the Committee as its participating body in the development of Habitat Plans, which
will then be approved and implemented by the full Commission. However, since the formal
preparation of Habitat Plans will not begin until at least 1 July 1999, it will be some time before
final Habitat Plans can be developed and implemented in order to help protect against the
impacts of coastal development and other human activities that adversely affect North
Carolina=s marine and estuarine resources. Consequently, the Commission=s environmental
permit review authority currently constitutes the primary vehicle by which the Commission can
effectuate its duty to protect and enhance the state=s marine and estuarine resources.
Discussion
There are two equally serious challenges to the Commission=s successfully maintaining and
enhancing North Carolina=s marine and estuarine resources: (1) the lack of necessary
information on the current nature and status of many of those resources; and (2) the lack of
obvious mechanisms to account for and ameliorate the ever accumulating changes that impair
the functioning of critical fisheries habitats and otherwise adversely affect fisheries stocks. The
Commission cannot hope to comply with its statutory duties to protect and enhance marine and
estuarine resources without the abilities to identify and monitor changes in those resources, to
compensate for losses to critical fisheries habitats, and to enhance the overall functioning of the
altered coastal ecosystem.
Cumulative adverse resource impacts from both large and small scale human activities constitute
the principal impediment to the Commission=s ability to achieve its statutory mandate of
conserving, protecting and restoring North Carolina=s marine and estuarine resources. Many of
the activities that contribute to coastal resource destruction or impairment require no
environmental permits. As a consequence, their impacts are not accounted for, to the long-term
detriment of marine and estuarine resources. Even for permitted activities, the adverse impacts
on marine and estuarine resources may be individually minor, causing them to fall below the
thresholds that require compensatory mitigation under existing state policy.
However, where specific projects requiring environmental permits pose a threat to resources
under the Commission=s jurisdiction, it is reasonable to expect the permittee to contribute to
resolving both the informational and resource protection dilemmas faced by the Commission to
ensure that unacceptable impacts to marine and estuarine resources do not occur. A direct
precedent to such action by a state agency is found in the N.C. Division of Water Quality--s
current requirement that NPDES pennittees conduct upstream and downstream monitoring as a
condition of their permits, to ensure that state water quality standards are not violated. In
addition, that agency has worked with dischargers in certain river basins to establish industry -
funded, integrated monitoring networks to track water quality trends in those waters.
2
Specific action by the Commission is required if it is to meet its charge of protecting and
restoring the state--s marine and estuarine resources. To the greatest extent possible, activities
that potentially threaten those resources must be prevented from contributing to overall resource
degradation. Instead, adequate measures must be implemented to ensure a long-term, net
improvement in the quantity and quality of fisheries stocks and critical fisheries habitats under
the Commission=s jurisdiction. To achieve that end, two goals must be attained. First, adequate
compensatory and resource enhancement measures must be incorporated into existing
environmental permitting processes. Second, resource restoration and enhancement programs
must be developed to offset losses from activities not requiring permits. The proposed policies
set out below are primarily intended to achieve the first of these goals.
Proposed Resource Protection and Environmental Permit Review and Commenting Policies
It shall be the policy of the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission that the overall goal of
its marine and estuarine resource protection and restoration programs is the long-term
enhancement of the extent, functioning and understanding of those resources.
Toward that end, in implementing the Commission=s permit commenting authority pursuant to
N.C.G.S. 3143B-289.52(a)(9), the Habitat and Water Quality Standing Advisory Committee
shall, to the fullest extent possible, ensure that state or federal permits for human activities that
potentially threaten North Carolina marine and estuarine resources:
(1) are conditioned on (a) the permittee=s avoidance of adverse impacts to marine and
estuarine resources to the maximum extent practicable; (b) the permittee=s minimization
of adverse impacts to those resources where avoidance is impracticable; and (c) the
permittee=s provision of compensatory mitigation for all reasonably foreseeable impacts
to marine and estuarine resources in the form of both informational mitigation (the
gathering of base-line resource data and/or prospective resource monitoring) and
resource mitigation (in kind, local replacement, restoration or enhancement of impacted
fish stocks or habitats); and
(2) result, at a minimum, in no net loss to coastal fisheries stocks, nor functional loss to
marine and estuarine habitats and ecosystems.
h&wq/polld-
3
ATTACHMENT 5
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MITIGATION POLICY
PRESENTED BY DAVID LEKSON
Regulatory Authorities
• 13Nov86 - Regulatory Programs of the Corps of
Engineers; Final Rule (33 CFR 320.4(r))
• 06Feb90 - MOA between the EPA/DA Concerning the
Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act
404(bXl) Guidelines
• 23Aug93 - Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 93-2,
Establishment and Use of Wetland Mitigation Banks in the
Clean Water Action Section 404 Regulatory Program
Regulatory Authorities (e?nt
• 28Nav95 - Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use
and Operation of Mitigation Banks, 60 FR 228
• 07Nov00 - Federal Guidance on the Use of In-Lieu-Fee
Arrangements for Compensatory Mitigation under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act
• 24Dec02 - RGL 02-2, Guidance on Compensatory
Mitigation Projects for Aquatic Resource Impacts Under
the Corps Regulatory Program
AIrOI
ON 23Aug93 RGL 93-2
• Provided general guidelines for the
establishment and use of wetland mitigation
banks
• Generally, banks should be in place and
functioning before debiting is allowed
• Permittee remains responsible for ensuring that
the mitigation requirements are satisfied
28Nov95 Federal Mitigation
r Banking Guidance
- Protocol for establishing mitigation banks
• Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT)
Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI)
• Sponsor's tole I MBRT's role
• Threshold issues
- Credits (composition, release schedule)
- Geographic service area
- Financial assurances
- Final property disposition
- Accounting procedures
' 07Nov00 Federal Guidance On The
Use Of In-Lieu-Fee Arrangements
• Elaborates on the discussion of in-lieu-
fee mitigation in the 28Nov95 Federal
Mitigation Banking Guidance
- Outlines the circumstances where in-lieu-fee
mitigation may be used
24Dec02 RGL 02-2 Guidance on
Compensatory Mitigation (e.r'a)
- Also addresses
• Buffers
• Uplands
• Riparian Areas
• Streams
• Financial Assurances
• Site Protection (conservation easements
preferred)
NRC Guidelines
uz w..r am.
1. Consider hydrogeomorphic and ecological
landscape and climate
2. Adopt a dynamic landscape perspective
3. Restore or develop naturally variable hydrologic
conditions
4. Whenever possible, choose wetland restoration
over creation
5. Avoid over-engineered structures in the wetland's
design
.,,c.... NRC Guidelines
6. Pay particular attention to planting elevation, depth,
soil type and seasonal timing
7. Provide appropriately heterogeneous topography
8. Pay attention to subsurface conditions, including soil and
sediment geochemistry and physics, groundwater quantity and
quality, and infaunal communities
9. Consider complications associated with creation or
restoration in disturbed sites
10. Conduct early monitoring as part of adaptive
management
p?

The Factors of Failuret.e
Vi Nq C«?
rr.i•.-orM
- Lack of oversight during construction and planting
• Poorly written mitigation plan (not SMAR I?
• Lack of commitment on the part of the project
sponsor
• Lack of communication between the project
sponsor and the regulatory agencies
What Are Success Criteria?
Easily measurable, external attributes that
are established prior to the development of a
mitigation site, and subsequently, must be
exhibited by the site indicating that the
specific mitigation goals have been met.
LN
Establishing Success Criteria
• Site-specific water budget modeling
• Site-specific hydrogeomorphic conditions
• Structural requirements of the type of
wetland or stream proposed
• Reference Area / Reference Reach Analysis
• Scientific Literature
• Experience
4
M1
Success??
w.p.n Ci..h
• Ultimately, mitigation success is dictated by
what the site can support!
• Therefore, site selection is key
The SMART Approach to
Developing a Mitigation Plan
1. Specific / Measurable / Attainable /
Reasonable / Trackable
2. Consider the Factors of Failure
3. Consider the "Foundation"
a. Goals
b. Functions
c. Structure
Information Regarding
Wilmington's Regulatory Division
Mitigation Program
www.saw.usace.anny.mil/wetlands/mitigation/index.html
ATTACHMENT 6
MAP OF HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODES FOR EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA
a^

4
ZR
INCORPORATED
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1725
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
TO: See Distributio
&
FROM: Samuel Cooper Julia Ber9e
DATE: 27 May 2004
RE: Minutes of the 20 April 2004 meeting for the PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation
permit application review.
1 The twelfth meeting for the review of PCS Phosphate's Mine Continuation permit
2 application was held at the Washington Regional Office of the North Carolina Department of
3 Environment and Natural Resources on 20 April 2004. The following people attended:
4
5 Tom Walker - USACE
6 Scott Jones - USACE
7 Heather Jacobs - PTRF
8 Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate
9 Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate
10 Jerry Waters - PCS Phosphate
11 Sean McKenna - NCDMF
12 Terry Moore - NCDCM
13 John Dorney - NCDWQ
14 Jimmy Overton - NCDWQ
ti
15 Tom Steffens - NCDWQ
26
16 Maria Tripp - NCWRC
17 David Cox - NCWRC
18 Bob Zarzecki - NCDWQ

19
David Moye - NCDCM MM
20 Mike Wicker - USFWS

21 Richard Peed - NCDLR V -.

22
Samuel Cooper - CZR ?a

23 Julia Berger - CZR
24 Jim Hudgens - CZR r
25 Becky Fox -USEPA, via speaker phone

_3
.rVt
27 The meeting began at 10:20, after a brief delay waiting for a few tardy attendees. It
28 followed rather closely the anticipated agenda shown in Attachment 1. Mr. Walker opened with
29 the announcement that Mr. Lekson had a last minute schedule conflict and was unable to attend
1
1061 EAST INDIANTOWN ROAD - SUITE 100 - JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5143
TEL [phone] - FAX [phone] - [e-mail] - www.CZRINC.com
4
30 the meeting. He congratulated the team on the good job done to this point with a Purpose and
31 Need established and a Project Area identified. He went on to say the team is now at the point
32 of establishing alternatives and that in-house discussion at the Corps made them realize that
33 alternatives based only on minimization may not be the best approach. Up to now, he said the
34 process was bordering on avoidance driving alternative development. This would deviate from
35 standard procedures, as the applicant is supposed to develop alternatives based on the
36 accepted Purpose and Need. Mr. Walker then summarized the criteria under the Clean Water
37 Act under which the Corps can permit a discharge:
38
39 1) they must choose the LEDPA (Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative);
40 2) the activity must be consistent with state and federal laws;
41 3) there can be no significant degradation to aquatic environment; and
42 4) all minimization must be considered before permit can be issued
43
44 He said the MOA between the Corps and EPA dictates the following sequence regarding
45 impacts to wetlands:
46 a. avoidance
47 b. minimization
48 c. mitigation
49 Mr. Walker stated that NEPA process, triggered by Federal Action (permit), requires the
50 examination of all reasonable alternatives and he made the important point that reasonable
51 does not always equate to practicable. He said the Corps alone does not have the authority to
52 make the applicant explore this or that alternative. The Corps may, however, deny a permit if a
53 lesser environmentally damaging practicable alternative exists.
54
55 Mr. Walker said that up to now, avoidance of certain jurisdictional areas was driving the
56 alternative process even before all environmental resources were identified. If allowed to
57 proceed in this fashion, the group could spend a lot of money, resources, and time
58 unnecessarily. The onus should remain on the applicant to demonstrate the MOA sequence
59 and he stated that the Corps' role is reactionary to presented alternatives.
60
61 Mr. Walker went on to discuss some considerations with regard to development of
62 alternatives:
2 5/20/2004
i
63 1) "mine blocks" have been defined and are useful to account/quantify resources, but
64 alternatives should not be confined to "mine blocks".
65 2) A meeting on 31 March 2004 in Wilmington discussed eliminating block designations
66 and using the entire project area (which includes all three "mining blocks") as a whole for
67 alternative development. This would allow for more long-range planning and deeper
68 analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts. It remains to be seen how far PCS can
69 project into future.
70 3) group needs to start thinking about this approach and he asked for their input
71 4) agency mitigation presentations at last meeting were helpful and good, but question
72, remains just how far down mitigation path PCS/group can go at this point. Mitigation can
73 be talked about in a general way and general options presented by PCS for feedback
74 from agencies, but group and PCS must remain aware that any actual or perceived
75 "buying down of impacts" must be avoided. To date, there have been no "Nos" about
76 any mitigation approach that has been mentioned but there is also no commitment yet
77 from anyone. PCS should not go too far with mitigation before alternatives are
78 developed/ approved.
79
80 Mr. Walker then went to the subject of WASCs and said that some 1991 areas met the
81 criteria but no longer do and some were not WASC in 1991, but maybe now they are. A site
82 visit or two might be required to look at such sites in order to be consistent with previous
83 evaluations.
84
85 Mr. Wicker asked for clarification on the alternative approach and how they will be
86 developed. Mr. Walker responded that within the project area (all three blocks), there may be
87 mixed alternatives and that the group needs to avoid thinking that each block has to be thought
88 of independently. When looked at holistically, the Corps may select a different LEDPA than if
89 looked at in a shorter timeframe. His big point is that all environmental information must be on
90 map before starting to draw alternatives.
91
92 Mr. Wicker asked if environmental information was being gathered on just the three
93 blocks or on extra areas. Mr. Cooper responded that a larger project area, based on phosphate
94 deposits, was evaluated earlier in this EIS process and that the current project area was
95 comprised of the three referenced mining blocks. Other blocks (River, Edward, and Grace
3 5/20/2004

96 Tract) had been eliminated for further study in this EIS. Mr. Cooper said that when it comes to
97 alternatives, "block" will be removed as a reference. Mr. Cooper also stated that some areas
98 between the blocks were included in the permit from the previous EIS evaluation.
99
100 Mr. Moye disagreed with an earlier statement of Mr. Walker's and said that NCPC was
101 not the least environmentally damaging approach because the creeks show on the NCPC block
102 as being in the block (orthophoto figure displayed on wall and as shown in CZR's Figure 1
103 NCPC boundary). Mr. Walker said he did not intend to suggest that.
104
105 Mr. Furness understood from the Wilmington meeting in March that the approach in the
106 past was the applicant asked for a permit, then came and asked for another permit, and then
107 another. He thought that the Corps wanted to take this new holistic approach to gain insight into
108 what PCS is planning in order to take a longer view of the entire process. By PCS looking at a
109 longer time frame, a possible staged permit (i.e. automatic renewal if no violation) could be
110 issued to allow longer range planning.
ill
112 Mr. Walker said "Exactly." But questions remain, how well can the long term impacts be
113 addressed and for how long can the Corps issue a permit? He said both questions are
114 unknowns at the moment and that it must be a group decision. He inquired whether or not Mr.
115 Moye's concern was resolved.
116
117 Mr. Moye replied that the three blocks represent areas where PCS wants to get a permit
118 now, and they need to know where in these areas the agencies want them to avoid; but he has
119 no idea that these block lines represent any avoidance or minimization as they are currently
120 shown.
121
122 Mr. Walker agreed. Mr. Smith interjected that these three areas are seen as feasible
123 from an equipment perspective... they "can" be mined but that the economics have yet to be
124 determined. Mr. Walker added that it all comes back to what is reasonable and that economics
125 or environmental concerns may eliminate areas within these three blocks and he reminded the
126 group that the blocks are the project area only. He said that alternatives were being evaluated
127 by the group within these block boundaries. Mr. Walker then turned the floor to CZR.
128
4 5/20/2004

129 Mr. Cooper asked for the comment period on meeting minutes to be a bit tighter and for
130 the group to please have their comments in within a couple of weeks of receipt of the draft
131 minutes. Ms. Fox mentioned her edits and said she was emailing them. Mr. Overton indicated
132 that his name was not on the September 2003 meeting summary.
133
134 Mr. Cooper then went over the package that CZR sent out prior to the meeting
135 (Attachment 2) to make sure everyone had all the materials. Mr. Cooper then began describing
136 the methodology of the biotic community mapping and stated that as much information from the
137 last EIS as possible is being incorporated into the current one. He said the last EIS showed
138 wetlands on one figure and biotic communities on another. For this EIS CZR is showing both
139 resources on same figure with WASC areas hatched in. Wetland information from early 1990's,
140 which only covered NCPC and Bonnerton, is being incorporated into the revised information.
141 New wetland information is being collected for the Southern Area. CZR's approach is to
142 incorporate all survey data from the three blocks and update the biotic communities using recent
143 aerial photos (which were the USGS 1998 CIR when the current EIS process began). He
144 indicated that some ground truthing was done and 2001 timber information was also used for
145 the updates. He mentioned that some areas may have lost or gained a WASC designation
146 depending on the status of the stands.
147
148 Mr. Wicker expressed concern about the information pieces being set in time and that
149 both sides of the ledger should be used so that changes that have resulted in more WASC
150 areas are also examined, not just those changes that have removed the designation.
151
152 Mr. Cooper assured the group that the reevaluation goes both ways and is balanced
153 using the best information available. However, he stated that the intent was not to re-evaluate
154 communities one by one again. Mr. Cooper mentioned that CZR is familiar with Schafele and
155 Weakley's classification of natural communities, but that many of the areas under scrutiny are
156 highly disturbed sites so some deviation of community nomenclature is to be expected. He
157 went on to say that as shown in Figure 2, the streams have only been reviewed in the field by
158 DWQ and that the Corps is still verifying streams in all three blocks. Mr. Cooper went over the
159 public trust areas as shown and discussed the beaver pond which is depicted as a large green
160 polygon since it was called an intermittent stream by DWQ. He also notified the group that the
5 5/20/2004

161 scale of the figure doesn't show it, but that all stream lines are polygons so that area and stream
162 length can be determined.
163
164 Mr. Dorney requested a color change for the green and blue stream lines because it is
165 hard to distinguish between the two as shown (see these edits in new version of Figure 2 in
166 Attachment 2).
167
168 Mr. Cooper then referred to Figure 3 as being exactly the same as Figure 2 but with the
169 WASC areas hatched. He stated that everyone is aware that there are other methods in the
170 works for evaluation of wetlands but something had to be used then.and something has to be
171 used now to help prioritize wetlands.
172
173 Mr. Dorney interjected that since he recently moved he knows that he still has all data
174 from the previous WASC field visits and determinations. It is his recollection that the DWQ
175 wetland rating forms were used to make the WASC calls and maybe some other method
176 regarding wildlife was used as well.
177
178 Mr. Furness said he didn't recall the forms being used but that PCS' main concern is that
179 the WASC determinations were based on something that was defensible.
180
181 Mr. Dorney suggested comparing the WASC map to the NCCREWS data where
182 wetlands were evaluated on a three-tiered schema.
183
184 Mr. Smith asked if there was actual data used in the previous EIS by wetland type and
185 Mr. Dorney replied, "Yes."
186
187 Mr. Cooper then referred to the Bonnerton areas that had changed from last EIS: there
188 were some timbered areas that would no longer be classified as WASC and there are some
189 previous shrub/scrub areas that could now be considered WASC (young bay forest) using the
190 previous criteria. He solicited comments and edits from the group so that process can remain
191 consistent with last EIS process and asked for all concerns or ideas.
192
g 5/20/2004
i
193 Mr. Walker said that regarding defensibility of WASC, he understands PCS's concerns
194 and although he has not seen the data to which Mr. Dorney referred, the collective experience
195 of the group and the consensus approach should be fine as a defense. He reminded the group
196 that there was no challenge on the last process. Mr. Dorney again stated that the NCCREWS
197 data might be useful to compare their high value wetlands with the WASC areas.
198
199 Mr. Furness expressed concern about the regrowth of bays which were not WASC last
200 time. He questioned the southern part of Bonnerton in particular, and wondered if we shouldn't
201 do some new forms there and he also reiterated his concern about defensibility.
202
203 Mr. Walker said that was the point of revisiting the whole WASC concept, although it
204 does require time and energy to reevaluate areas and to get everyone's calendars to jive
205 efficiently.
206
207 Mr. Dorney mentioned timing with a good example being the big block at the southern
208 end of the Southern Area that was recently logged in the past few weeks. Mr. Cooper said that
209 area is mapped as hardwood even though it obviously is no longer. Mr. Furness said we could
210 be constantly updating.
211
212 Mr. Wicker shared that he would be reluctant to remove a designation of pocosin/bay
213 forest unless evidence other than vegetative cover was used. He said that USFWS has been
214 water/soil monitoring for 10 years in lots of pocosin restoration areas underlain by deep peats
215 and although he recognizes that the Bonnerton area may not have deep peats, their data show
216 that peat soils are very important in denitrification and overall protection of water quality, even
217 when they have been denigrated from a vegetation standpoint. His suggestion would be to give
218 highest values to those areas with proximity to streams and drainages. He also said he would
219 be happy to share his data.
220
221 Mr. Furness asked Mr. Dorney if their rating system was still used and valuable. It was
222 mentioned that proximity to streams was already included in the DWQ rating system. Mr.
223 Dorney suggested that for those streams that go through non-WASC areas, maybe just adding
224 a 50' buffer would be good approach.
225
7 5/20/2004
t
226 Mr. Wicker said a buffer would solve some of his concern. He also said that the current
227 methodology is a very primitive way to look at functional values but he, knows it is the norm. He
228 thinks that soil types, topography, etc., are far more accurate and that a single point in time
229 should not be used, that history and the future should be a part of the analysis. He said he was
230 not suggesting this method because it would be impractical as this process is well underway.
231
232 Ms. Jacobs asked about the criteria used in the WASC determination process. Mr.
233 Dorney said he would be happy to pull that information but he won't have a chance to get to it
234 until after May, so he invited her to come look at his files if she wanted. Mr. Walker told Ms.
235 Jacobs that he had a copy of Wayne Wright's 1991 letter that lists the criteria and that he would
236 be happy to provide her a copy.
237
238 Mr. Wicker stated that he agreed with Mr. Walker about mitigation but wanted the group
239 to recognize that down the road functional loss will have to be looked at in some fashion. He
240 drew an analogy by telling a fishing story: someone who is ready to go fishing (all equipment in
241 order, packed, and poised) will be better able to go fishing when asked. Those who are not
242 ready will be left behind. He cautioned PCS to be really thinking ahead to what was going to be
243 required of them and to have functional replacement in mind in regard to wetland mitigation.
244
245 Mr. Smith said that is exactly the kind of dialog that needs to happen and the purpose of
246 these meetings.
247
248 Mr. Cooper reiterated what Mr. Wicker and Mr. Dorney had suggested as ways to
249 improve on the last WASC determinations: 1) include additional 50' buffer area as new WASC
250 areas around those streams that go through non-WASC wetland areas and, 2) new WASC
251 areas to be added because of vegetative cover and rating (i.e., DWQ) and/or on-site evaluation
252 by the team.
253
254 Mr. Dorney said that 50' buffer protects water quality but WASC areas were designated
255 not just for water quality issues and that maybe a wider buffer would enhance wildlife functions?
256 Mr. Wicker added that aquatic degradation to adjacent estuary is where the real concern is, not
257 just terrestrial impacts. He said that avoidance/minimization will be looked at differently this
258 time e.g. interjurisdictional fish and blue crabs.
8 5/20/2004
t
259
260 Mr. Cox stated that the stream buffers as Mr. Dorney described are correct from their
261 point of view regarding wildlife value - 100' for perennial and 50' for intermittent. They would
262 like to see communities ranked by type and value, although he knows it's a tough road, a
263 functional assessment is needed. He said that a good pocosin may actually be better than a
264 bad bottomland and that it will require field work to develop analysis. Mr. Cox supported the use
265 of NCCREWS data overlaid on WASC because their methods included position in landscape,
266 size of wetland, and the habitats are not so affected by cover type.
267
268 Mr. Walker agreed with all that had been said thus far, but he recognized that within
269 North Carolina there is no agreed upon functional assessment and NCCREWS does have
270 flaws. He doesn't want the group to get hung or engrossed in any sole method because there is
271 no formal functional assessment method which has been accepted by all review and regulatory
272 agencies within North Carolina. Mr. Walker indicated that the group does have the option to
273 drop the WASC concept completely and deal with wetlands as they come up within each
274 alternative.
275
276 Mr. Furness said that he wanted to revisit Mr. Wicker's fishing story. He understood the
277 story but asked if Mr. Wicker was saying that when it comes to mitigation that it has to be based
278 on functional assessment?
279
280 Mr. Wicker said that it simply may be best to preserve pocosins and to recognize at the
281 beginning that estuarine impacts will be frowned upon and that he has already brought up things
282 like waste water recycling. He recognized that it is complicated, but just doesn't want anyone to
283 wait until last minute to get ready to fish because they will be in a tight spot and in a pinch.
284
285 Mr. Furness said that they've clearly been told that there is no accepted way to quantify
286 functional values. Mr. Wicker countered by saying that clearly we all know what functional
287 losses are, just not the way to assess them. Mr. Walker mentioned that maybe Dr. Skaggs'
288 proposed work will help identify some aspects of functions. Mr. Wicker said that Skaggs' work
289 will not satisfy USFWS because significant degradation must be avoided- there must be a break
290 even scenario on a relative scale. Mr. Wicker also said he will not squabble about units, that it
g 5/20/2004

291 is types not number that are more important. He said again that FWS will be happy to share
292 data and provide input.
293
294 Mr. Walker mentioned that Skaggs' information will be the closest data toward a
295 functional assessment that we can get because we can not lock into a particular functional
296 assessment method because there isn't any accepted method.
297
298 Mr. Cooper said CREWS data can easily be laid onto the community maps if that helps
299 the group make decisions about WASC approach. He revisited inclusions of new buffers into
300 existing non-WASC areas and stated that Bonnerton would not present a problem but that
301 NCPC would be problematic because there are many drains through uplands. Maybe it would
302 be best to get the group out to look at some of these areas and do some forms?
303
304 Mr. Wicker said they have 10 years of data about water quality for pocosins and that
305 walking around and kicking dirt is not enough, other data will be more helpful. Mr. Walker asked
306 in the absence of data what can be done? Mr. Wicker suggested more emphasis on soil, soil
307 chemistry, hydrology, and topography.
308
309 Mr. Cooper remembers doing some DWQ forms during WASC identification efforts and
310 asked Mr. Dorney the date the DWQ wetland rating forms were finalized? Mr. Dorney replied
311 1994 but that they were virtually unchanged from what was used earlier and that he recalled
312 that PCS was the first large test case for use of the forms. Mr. Cooper said he would also like to
313 see the forms from the last WASC process.
314
315 Mr. Wicker listed the parameters that are important for their pocosin study: budget,
316 precipitation, groundwater in/out, nitrogen and mercury sequestration and output and that the
317 main results demonstrate that hydrology in these areas can be managed to affect nitrogen
318 release. He said he would like to see analysis of the type that X activity here will result in Y and
319 Z variables over there so that functional replacement is included. He remains skeptical about
320 what Skaggs' data will show and said it will show inputs and outputs, but so what? What about
321 the quality of the water?
322
10 5/20/2004
I
323 Mr. Cooper said that a combination of CREWS, DWQ forms, and Skaggs' analysis could
324 be incorporated in development of alternatives.
325
326 Mr. Walker summarized by saying that today's discussion identified that the WASC
327 process has problems regarding how defensible our position would be and that it must be
328 consistent for every block. He said that before lunch, the date for the next meeting needs to be
329 determined and asked how much time CZR needed to complete the NCPC biotic community
330 mapping. Mr. Cooper said that NCPC should be done in the next few weeks and that the
331 Southern Area would follow approximately a month after getting the survey data.
332
333 After calendar comparisons, 2 June 10:00 am was set for the 13th meeting which would
334 focus on agency guidance about WASC and NCPC biotic communities. A date for the 14th
335 meeting was also set for 14 July 10:00 am where PCS would have some draft alternatives to
336 present (not detailed mine plans). Mr. Walker suggested to the group the possibility of just the
337 agency members meeting prior to the next meeting, to review suggested guidance to PCS.
338
339 The group broke for lunch at noon and reconvened at 1:00 pm with Mr. Walker inviting
340 PCS to present information about some preliminary mine plan scenarios.
341
342 Mr. Smith showed a Powerpoint slide show (Attachment 3) based, in part, on the permit
343 boundary in the current application and showed the group the step-by-step process in general
344 mine plan development using the holistic approach of an approximate 50-year plan. The first
345 slide was called Pre-strip advance by Year 2006-Alt 1 A. He described the pre-strip process: as
346 the ore body is 100 feet below surface and buried even deeper to the northeast, the machines
347 are not able to get the entire overburden so they have to pre-strip the top 30 feet which is
348 carried off-site by slurry or conveyor. The pre-stripping creates a bench from which the rest of
349 the overburden is excavated. The pre-strip process generally precedes actual mining by
350 several years. There are different cut sequences for the end of 3 different production machines.
351 The ore is mapped as a geologic body with different production rates by different type of
352 machine, differences in the ore body, and differences in the overburden. With every "area
353 move" or equipment pick up, e.g. like those driven by avoidance of streams in NCPC, the mine
354 plan becomes more complicated. Of course the most efficient mine advance is quite
355 straightforward and does not consider avoidance. Mr. Smith described the white areas shown
11 5/20/2004

356 between colored sections in the figure as berms that are left behind that delimit and contain
357 future reclamation areas.
358
359 Slide 2 showed the dragline advance by year which generated a number of questions.
360
361 Mr. Moye asked about the white-colored, berm areas. Mr. Smith said they are an
362 approximate bench 50' wide, from which the draglines work. Mr. Smith told the group that the
363 slide does not incorporate a waste disposal plan and that it is not uncommon for the waste
364 disposal plan to actually dictate the mine plan, i.e., the tail wags the dog. Mr. Smith stated that
365 there are fixed guidelines for a cut sequence and concentrate production for a mine plan- e.g., a
366 minimum of 5 million tons of wet concentrate per year.
367
368 Mr. Wicker inquired whether the ore concentrate is the same in NCPC and asked what
369 are the sizes of the blocks shown in the figure. Mr. Waters and Mr. Smith replied that the areas
370 are about equivalent in acreage although the geometry creates an illusion otherwise and that
371 the concentrate values are very different between NCPC, Bonnerton, and Southern Area.
372
373 Mr. Moye asked about the shift in dragline sequence orientation as shown on the figure
374 where it goes perpendicular to the areas between creek mouths and wondered why they
375 changed orientation. Mr. Waters responded that bucketwheel mechanics and depressurization
376 issues dictate sequence and orientation and accessibility. He said that sometimes one
377 orientation works best for the dragline but not for the bucketwheel. Mr. Smith informed the
378 group that the Castle Hayne aquifer requires more depressurization in the northeast section of
379 NCPC because of the dip of the formation. He told the group that PCS is very sensitive to
380 depressurization and said that although their permit is for a 78mgal/day withdrawal and up to
381 now they have never used the maximum, they will need all of their allotment in the northeast
382 corner of NCPC.
383
384 Mr. Smith then moved to slide three which showed a spreadsheet list of all the results
385 derived from any detailed mine plan and included items such as pumped tons, in-situ ore tons,
386 dragline waste volume, pre-strip volume, stripping ratio, pumped tons, reject, clay, sand, etc.
387 Ton/miles in every cost model is a very significant factor in overall economics.
388
12 5/20/2004

389 Slide four was a display of the proposed +/-50 mining year sequence broken into the
390 three PCS-preferred segments; NCPC, Bonnerton, and Southern Area. NCPC includes Years
391 1-23 with Years 23-33 in Bonnerton followed by Years 33-59 in the Southern Area. Mr. Smith
392 indicated that the last six years of the current permit was lumped into the years shown (six years
393 needed to be subtracted from any mine Year to accurately project into the future). Mr. Smith
394 described that the preferred route would proceed from the southern end of NCPC westward to
395 the Bonnerton area and subsequently from the southern end of Bonnerton into the northwestern
396 quadrant of the Southern Area as shown. The groundwater consultants determined that the
397 transition to Bonnerton from NCPC and then from Bonnerton to Southern Area can be
398 simultaneous because two open pits in these areas can work within the cone of depression in
399 the Castle Hayne. However, this scenario will not be true in every configuration of mine
400 sequence.
401
402 Mr. Walker asked about the distribution of cone of depression under different scenarios.
403 Mr. Furness said that northeastern NCPC and the Southern Area could not happen
404 simultaneously, for instance.
405
406 Mr. Steffens inquired, from a depressurization point of view, whether the sequence could
407 go in a clockwise fashion instead of counter-clockwise as depicted. Mr. Waters replied yes, but
408 it would be close.
409
410 Mr. Walker then asked about the ramification of moving the mill to the Southern Area.
411 Mr. Waters replied that this was considered but analysis resulted in the decision to leave where
412 it is. He said that moving it would be good for the ore process and sand tailing deposition but if
413 it was moved, the blend would end up being moved twice which would be inefficient and costly
414 (cost of building new mill is $60M which of course would have to be recovered). In addition,
415 certain waste handling issues preclude moving the mill.
416
417 Mr. Wicker inquired whether the material that is transported is the same everywhere or
418 dependent on locality. Mr. Waters answered that it is mostly the cost per ton/mile that
419 determines cost. Mr. Smith gave the example that every mile of transport requires a booster
420 pump station.
421
13 5/20/2004

422 Mr. Furness asked how long it takes the mining consultants to develop a detailed mine
423 plan. Mr. Waters replied that once they have the geologic model of the ore body, which takes
424 about a month to create, a mine plan can be completed in about three weeks.
425
426 Mr. Overton asked for further clarification from Mr. Smith about the dragline and cut
427 sequence lines shown on the figure that trend in a northeast fashion.
428
429 Mr. Moye asked what happens at Year 59- what comes next? Mr. Waters answered that
430 this preferred mine plan is based on ore quality and sequence. Mr. Furness added that the next
431 logical resource areas would be Edward Tract, Grace Tract, and Core Point areas. Mr. Waters
432 ventured that it is impossible to predict mine technology advances, or the future of the world's
433 phosphate needs, or the likelihood that a phosphate replacement is discovered, or the demand
434 for phosphate is eliminated. However, it is his personal opinion that should the world's demand
435 remain as it is now, that "the government will say 'go get it'" even if all the ore that remains lies
436 beneath the river and the creeks.
437
438 There followed some general discussion about the need for NCPC to be mined
439 clockwise and Bonnerton counterclockwise and Southern Area in a back and forth, west to east
440 fashion because of ore quality and closeness. The group was reminded by PCS that a waste
441 disposal plan was not part of the layout as shown, and those plans would be developed only in
442 a detailed mine plan, and what was being shared today was just a holistic general plan. Mr.
443 Walker stated that by considering the holistic plan, avoidance is permanent and not just a
444 delayed impact.
445
446 Mr. Steffens wondered if future reclamation was going to produce areas that were more
447 useful than the existing R-areas since they were built 15 years ago and still of no use to anyone
448 or anything. Mr. Smith said that the detailed mine plan would take waste plans into account and
449 again showed the group the summary mine plan slide with all the variables. Mr. Steffens asked
450 if variables identified in the table were used in the economic model. Mr. Smith said that this
451 information was incorporated into economic information for the model. The group was reminded
452 by Mr. Smith that the actual reclamation plan can sometimes dictate the front-end sequence.
453
14 5/20/2004

454 Mr. Wicker stated that all this is very good, but if you think long term, he wonders how
455 this relates to the entire analysis?
456
457 Mr. Hudgens brought up the fact that the last EIS process was criticized for not
458 examining enough alternatives and that determining all avoidances now should distance/satisfy
459 those critics. Mr. Wicker agreed that this approach to the process is good but avoidance and
460 delay is a mixture that must be clearly identified. Mr. Hudgens reiterated that the holistic plan is
461 a much better method than a block-by-block comparison, when considering avoidance vs. delay
462 issues.
463
464 Mr. Walker indicated that permanent avoidance is one special benefit of the holistic
465 approach but that the question before the group now is how much of a holistic approach can be
466 taken. When it comes to alternative development, he said it appears as though the group was
467 agreeable (at least no one disagreed audibly) to examine all three areas as one. He also said
468 the group needs to decide where to go about the WASC issue and that the agencies probably
469 need to talk among themselves before the next meeting or maybe even have an agency
470 meeting prior to the next group meeting. Mr. Walker presented the group with some questions.
471 Do we proceed using the same WASC identification methods as before, or do we re-examine,
472 or even evaluate wetlands on a case-by-case basis? He said there is the timing question with
473 regard to lifespan of the permit, whether it is going to be 20 years or 50 years. Mr. Walker said
474 that at the moment there are at least two alternatives on the table that could be developed; the
475 original application and the second (current) application. It is certainly reasonable to explore
476 although it may not be practicable.
477
478 Mr. Smith inquired about the alternative boundary lines, and how the Corps sees the
479 flow of the alternative development process. Does PCS put a boundary down with avoidance,
480 and then the group says ok or not, and adds "tweaks" and then PCS develops a mine plan.
481 Group seemed to agree that this was the best way to proceed.
482
483 Mr. Wicker asked if alternative analysis should involve technique and sequence, and
484 could a template be developed. He wondered again whether or not avoidance was in reality
485 only a delay. He gave the example of if you go around the three areas clockwise or
486 counterclockwise over a 50-year period, aren't they essentially the same alternative? He said
15 5/20/2004
4 ,
487 the alternative analysis process and the group really is after something that has true meaning.
488 Mr. Wicker indicated that different sequences could be less damaging to the environment (i.e.
489 timing of how habitats are impacted or maybe reclamation is better).
490
491 Mr. Walker said that maybe once the Corps determines the length of the permit; it will
492 help with the vision and direction of alternative analysis. He expects to have that answer
493 shortly. Mr. Hudgens added that avoidance could be a form of off-site mitigation which is less
494 environmentally damaging and better supports the Purpose and Need.
495
496 Mr. Dorney said whatever the Corps decides to permit is what it will be. He reminded
497 the group that 10 years ago DWQ had no buffer rules and that a permit from the Corps would
498 not exempt the applicant from any changes in laws.
499
500 Mr. Smith indicated that PCS will be skeptical if the permit requires some incremental
501 review and that there has to be some middle ground where everyone is comfortable with the
502 permit conditions remaining firm. Mr. Walker reminded the group that their permit allows for
503 reconsideration of any permit subject to changes in federal or state laws.
504
505 Mr. Moye added that historically, alternatives are based on avoidance of areas
506 determined by regulatory authority such that with avoidance, agencies might be removed from
507 process, e.g. CAMA. His understanding of the alternative process is that it is always within a
508 regulatory frame.
509
510 Mr. Smith said that if DWQ is taken as an example, that PCS could propose an
511 alternative to avoid most of DWQ's designated avoidance areas and Mr. Dorney interjected with
512 the query of how much minimization is enough minimization. Ms. Fox replied that is where
513 mitigation comes in to play. Mr. Smith said they will come up with an alternative, get input and
514 stay away from as much sensitive areas as possible, but the group must recognize that there
515 will be some areas that can't be practicably avoided and that there will be give and take and
516 back and forth in the analysis and finalization of proposed alternatives.
517
518 Mr. Wicker asked when the length of the permit would be known. Mr. Walker replied he
519 is keeping it on the front burner at the Corps and that by Monday or Tuesday next it should be
16 5/20/2004
I
520 clear. Everyone knows there is precedent in Florida but he also said it is not his decision to
521 make.
522
523 Mr. Smith indicated that PCS must have a ROD in 2006 to maintain production.
524
525 Mr. Walker summarized the expectations for the next meeting by saying that the WASC
526 issue would be decided by 2 June if not before, so that agency guidance would be given to PCS
527 on this issue. Mr. Smith said that PCS would welcome the onus created by knowing the
528 avoidance areas.
529
530 Mr. Wicker asked why should WASC be done as before? Mr. Dorney said that he thinks
531 using the NCCREWS data will be instructive and will affect people's perceived comfort level with
532 the last WASC methods. The group asked if CZR could provide copies of the CREWS data on
533 the WASC areas to the agencies before the next meeting to help them decide about the WASC
534 issue. CZR agreed to provide this figure ASAP.
535
536 Mr. McKenna asked Mr. Walker if other agencies would be consulted about the length of
537 the permit. Mr. Walker replied that group input would be requested where appropriate. Mr.
538 Dorney brought up the fact that there are some existing permits within federal and state
539 programs with long permit periods. He gave the example of dams and lakes where the Corps
540 issues 40-year permits. Mr. Dorney indicated that DWQ can or does add clauses to tnese type
541 permits. He said he would be happy to provide the language of said clause(s). Mr. Peed
542 indicated that the mine permit itself is for a 10-year period, so that any changes that have
543 occurred since the last issuance can be reviewed/added. Mr. Peed questioned the value of a
544 permit with a long time frame from the Corps if, at selected intervals, the permit could be
545 completely re-evaluated.
546
547 Meeting adjourned at 2:25 pm
548
549 Post meeting: Mr. Peed was looking at large figures on the wall that CZR had put up at
550 the beginning of the meeting (Figure 1 and a large plot of the 1998 orthophoto of the Bonnerton
551 block). He asked PCS to please adjust future figures to show areas that are currently permitted
17 5/20/2004
552 (or have been permitted in past) with dates so that there is less confusion about mining years
553 projected into the future
554
555
556 Attachments:
557
558 1. Meeting agenda for 20 April 2004 PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation permit application
559 review team.
560 2. CZR handout at 20 April 2004 meeting; Figures 1 through 4 (Figures 2 and 3 - color revised
561 28 April 2004 as per agency request); DRAFT Review of Biotic Community and
562 Wetland/Upland Mapping Process for the Bonnerton Mine Development Block for PCS
563 Phosphate Inc. (dated 9 April 2004); outline of Skaggs Proposed Tasks for Assessment of
564 Drainage Basin Reduction to be addressed in the PCS Phosphate EIS (dated 13 April 2004).
565 3. PCS Powerpoint presentation at 20 April 2004 meeting (4 slides).
566
567 Distribution
Ms. Mary Alsentzer 1061 East Indiantown Road
Pamlico Tar River Foundation Suite 100
Post Office Box 1854 Jupiter, Florida 33477-5143
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Becky Fox
Environmental Protection Agency
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, NC 28789
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Charles Jones
NC Division of Coastal Management
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Scott Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David M. Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. James M. Hudgens
CZR Incorporated
Mr. Sean McKenna
Division of Marine Fisheries
18 5/20/2004
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dr. David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Ms. Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Regulatory Section USEPA/EAB
Wetlands Management Division
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David Moye
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Jimmie Overton
NC Division of Water Quality
ESB Lab
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Richard Peed
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. William A. Schimming
Potash Corp.
Post Office Box 3320
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Ross Smith
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Ms. Maria Tripp
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
Habitat Conservation Section
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Walker
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Bob Zarzecki
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
19 5/21/2004
ATTACHMENT1
MEETING AGENDA FOR 20 APRIL 2004 PCS PHOSPHATE
MINE CONTINUATION PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW TEAM
AGENDA ITEMS FOR PCS EIS TEAM MEETING
20 APRIL 2004
WASHINGTON, NC
10:00 -10:15 am
Old business/Schedule next meeting - Corps
10:15 -11:00 am
Summary of process to date and ideas on future directions - Corps
11:00 am -12:00 noon
Presentation of Bonnerton maps - CZR
12:00 -1:OOpm LUNCH
1:00 -1:15 pm
WASC - criteria review and discussion - CZR and Corps
1:15 - 2:15 pm
Presentation of preliminary mine plan - PCS
2:15 - 3:00 pm
Group discussion about alternatives' general approach and appearance
3:00 pm ADJOURN
ATTACHMENT 2
CZR HANDOUT AT 20 APRIL 2004 MEETING
FIGURES 1 - 4; DRAFT REVIEW OF BIOTIC COMMUNITY AND WETLAND/
UPLAND MAPPING PROCESS FOR THE BONNERTON MIN DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK FOR PCS PHOSPHATE INC. (DATED 9 APRIL 2004);
OUTLINE OF SKAGGS PROPOSED TASKS FOR ASSESSMENT OF DRAINAGE
BASIN REDUCTION TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE PCS PHOSPHATE EIS
(DATED 13 APRIL 2004)
r
?

8 V 1s
7 8
5

8

22 I 18 8 ° 9

9
7 22 1
B

IB 22 ° 7 e
1
B
IB 17
3
°
9

° a 9

9 1)
7 1B
7 7
6
Ic B 31
21
1s

21 e
15 5 B

7 ]

7
°
?, La

°

a a
a
s a C
e
1B 8 s 1 7 9
7 1 22
)
°

6 4

a 21

7

6 8

6

9

7 a
7 18 9
i] 1B
8
6 1a 1S
7 ] B 2
7
18 ] 17 I 1] 7 7
7 n
I7 -IA 1

a

Is
e

9

8 9

B 19 a
° 7 9
1
ZZ 21 1B
9 B
7

15
9 g
9

Yl/ 7 xq

IB 17 19
a IB is

ie 22
5 ] B 7
y 3

a
22 8
°
1 s 7
21 9 19 17
17 22 22 15
S a
IB
9
is s

1

I Ff:FNf]

??
22 B e BONNERTON MINE DEVELOPMENT BLOCK 2806.00
1 9
° CREEKS/OPEN WATER
1A PUBLIC TRUST WATERS 2950 LF 0.35
fy s a ] 7 e 1B PERENNIAL STREAM 8042 LF 1.57
4 1C INTERMITTENT STREAM 7034 LF 4.46
e a 2 WETLAND BRACKISH MARSH COMPLEX 0.00
14 3 WERAND BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD FOREST 71.23
7
4
WETLAND DISTURBED HERBACEOUS ASSEMBLAGE
48.38
° 9 is 5 WETLAND DISTURBED SCRUB - SCRUB ASSEMBLAGE 276.82
a
s 6 WETLAND PINE PLANTATION 205.72
7 WETLAND HARDWOOD FOREST 526.50
20 (!\,20 6. is 17 8 WETLAND MIXED PINE - HARDWOOD FOREST 498.02
1 fa 2z 9 WETLAND PINE FOREST 211.21
is e B IB ° 10 WETLAND POCOSIN - BAY FOREST 264.00
Is 6 Is 11 WETLAND SAND RIDGE FOREST 21.60
7 n a n 12 POND 0.21
18 1
° ° a
7 5 13 WETLAND MAINTAINED AREA 0.00
0
1 1 7
0

s 14
15 UPLAND DISTURBED HERBACEOUS ASSEMBLAGE
UPLAND DISTURBED SHRUB - SCRUB ASSEMBLAGE 5.32
83.26
9
Q a 1 4 IT

1 9 5 17 UPLAND HARDWOOD
FOREST 42.63
10 18 UPLAND MIXED PINE - HARDWOOD FOREST 119.90
1s s 19 UPLAND PINE FOREST 16.28

2 20 UPLAND SAND RIDGE FOREST 42.46
7
11 s 5 21 UPLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND 246.55
e is
1e is 22 UPLAND NON - VEGETATED/MAINTAINED AREA 52.18
y m a
is
17 7 17 7 ° s
i s
a -!5:, 1 x
WETLAND AREAS
2130.07
s Is
a xo s 15 s 1
UPLAND AREAS
675.82

s 1s y
s s
iS a
s1
Is
S a i 15

A 3
a

5
y 1 10 1
1
° 7

s 10 1e
14
0 )
0 1800
3600
1
3 a I 10
1 7
3
10 ggia
scA IN fIIT gial

1O Ise Is 20 7
1 7
BONNERTON
2 1° ° 7
Is
IB BIOTIC
WETLAND COMMUNITIES MAP
PCS PHOSPHATE
AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TU
04/02/04 FRXI 8"ERTON MGM tau
CP# 1745.62.04
nos couEaE vacs oRrrt
i/ MlYM0/0N. NORTH aR011W ? 2
asRSSR47BO 7a
I" V000". oop/sas2 -uss FIGURE 1
-s1sR
O
O
(o
O
Q ON
0 -Nn't0 0r-WMO?NN
M???DrOOtnNN
I- N
O 00
N
I
M
O b
0
or, to onwNNON-00 -ON W*V)0CO0 nm
no-*ONnmr, o NO00NonNNtOc N" tut
O_: 4 O? Oo ow- OONMIlNM ONWN
d -d d n
I??I,ONM-ION WO
NN L0It NN N
JJJ
W w
N0O0N U
:5 w :5 m Um WOO
W F V) of
N? w mV) W Q
WW O Wa Of C)
Of V)
0 w V) m z
X001
< LL_
Gi CK p Q O Q
m00(1) O W (n 0 z
D O
OOUI in 0001 Owl ° ~p\
626 mmzwx }w w 0 S- Of V)
6<M 0< wZ0
?dWVQxWCAM° j BMW Of O_OK OOf 0 w<
o Of SI wV) w °m(nQ? ?w??
cn? x °w°wZ0?Of o W°pz°WwCD w
3S-Q?y0OfOf °?p° <MMa0aoo I>
C?LLJOf air LMW 20-ZaxZaxo
mOf W
z_pppppppppp p°°a ?ocnaz
Yo_o ZHzzzzgOz ocappp°°
WWam-tr LLLLLr?o?mmmmmmmm
0 3333333333x3» » » »

O?N U1tOf?000 7N
NMd ?cOroDm M d - ?? - -NNN
0
M
o
o a
N
O
w m w
Qr N00W g
mm
?mN w gV) W <
m Q
wWa O wQ o
x0V) O w (f)CO Z
wwQa 0 QZ a
CL 0
2OON O W ?N O Z
O
0C)o 3: !Qn QUOQm v~imd OW UQ I I-W NO\
1+1?WN?XX00Xx QO Wm7co w z C,
ZWM w w
QI?? xwU?o? mw ?wxoai 0JQ
W~? ZOOM I 0 O ??ww(r)W?0
<D ZV) mm °Odoz - KWWW500?'xct>
a?V0>jaDOw p ?Wxa3°..W?71
z z? wxww O
Uz z o0 00
0wM
S21 x XQMMaaa=ma-0-0 moozQXZ?Up
\aa.wzooooo0omo0 o0oax5 a N az
N Zzzzzzzz 000000000
W¢mU g5g!m5nz?zzzzzggg5
U 333333333o0.3»j»»»
O NI,- t00nMNN0N?00- 0NW'*n000W nM M LO MOO
O Mod'ONnwrloONO(ONOnNN(DMNtLo- t PI) NpnO
0 O' d 0 ,M00(Dw-,q- -OOif)K)I,NO?tDNcON ro O"Nd
00 ?` r,oNm ON 00(O t.-- t t0 O r, r, c0
N w w w NNNd NN N (O NN
JJJ

E
GR
M
O J R N P ? o
o
a

• •+
SICPSON
CEMETERY
/WEST ST T \ BRRE
TCEMETERY
MATTHEWS
CHURCH MATTHEWS
CHURCH
CEMETERY CEMETERY
/ \

1 WEST MOORES
N.BONNERTON?
CEMETERY CHURCH
,CEMETERY
/
/ , •+
CHORES
CHURCH
CEMETERY

CUTLER \
PLOT
• -
TER
REE
ER
CREE

/
K
K
CEMETER
I
\

i r\
i r

? r
? r

i

1 LEGEND
1 ?
J --- - - - -- - BONNERTON MINE DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
/
- - STREAM

O CEMETERY (5)
\ ? ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
4
(
)
+ CHURCH (0)

/
I GUILFORD
CEMETERY /
0 1.800 3.800

SCME IN RR
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES, CEMETERIES, AND CHURCHESI
IN THE BONNERTON MINE DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
PCS PHOSPHATE MINE CONTINUATION
APPROVED BY:
-- - CP#1745.67.17
.TO• wucoc oats Dalvc
i
waaaaros. I- c?wouw wx•mx 1 n
m olo/asx-•uT 4
FIGURE
r.x nop•z-
DRAFT
Review of Biotic Community and Wetland/Upland Mapping Process for the Bonnerton Mine
Development Block for PCS Phosphate Inc.
9 April 2004
1.0 Goal of Project
The objective of this mapping project was to create a detailed and accurate figure that
would combine both the biotic communities found within each mining block and the wetland
and upland boundaries approved by the Corps in 1991. This biotic community wetlands map
would also contain all flagged and surveyed lines including 404 Jurisdictional wetlands,
CAMA AEC areas, perennial and intermittent streams and ponds.
2.0 Protocol for Mapping
Biotic communities were mapped using 1998 georeferenced color-infrared aerial
photographs supplied by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), limited field truthing, and first-
hand knowledge of the Project Area. A stretched version of the 1996 FEIS Section 404
Jurisdictional Areas figure (Fig. 5-8) was then overlaid onto the draft biotic community map.
Upland/wetland boundaries, as approved and depicted in the 1996 FEIS were maintained in
the new mapping. Boundaries within wetland and uplands were revised and adjusted based
on recent timber and management practices, 1998 aerial photograph community signatures,
beaver activity, and active mine areas. Biotic communities were revised to reflect conditions
from 2001, using a January 2002 aerial photograph and timber harvest data from PCS
Phosphate.
3.0 Preliminary Biotic Community Definitions for PCS Phosphate EIS Mapping
Creeks. The creeks community includes all permanent water bodies that are connected to the
Pamlico River/South Creek estuarine system and are subject to wind tides.
Brackish marsh complex. This community includes all areas fringing the creek systems that
are dominated by herbaceous vegetation that is subject to, and tolerant of, flooding by
brackish water. Such plants include needle rush (Juncus roemerianus), cordgrass (Spartina
spp.), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), saw grass (Cladium jamaicense), cat-tail (Typha spp.),
rose mallow (Hibiscus moscheutos), and seashore mallow (Kosteletskya virginica). This
community type also includes shrubby transition zones between the marsh and adjacent
communities, provided they contain at least a regular scattering of the above-listed plants.
Common shrubs include wax myrtle (Cerothamnus ceriferus) and silverling (Baccharis
halimifolia).
Bottomland hardwood forest. Bottomland hardwood forests are swampy areas along creeks
and drainageways. They are subject to at least occasional flooding by water coming from
5/20/2004
CZR Incorporated
creek channels or overland flow. Bottomland hardwood forests may be dominated by any
combination of swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum), pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), red maple (Acer rubrum), American elm (Ulmus americana), laurel oak
(Quercus laurifolia), and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii).
Disturbed herbaceous assemblage. This community includes all areas dominated by
herbaceous vegetation that are not maintained on a regular basis and that typically are not
subject to widespread, long-term flooding or ponding. Coverage of woody plants is less than
50 percent. The plant community is dominated by non-marsh species. Typical marsh species
such as cat-tail, rushes (Juncus spp.), bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), and spike-rushes (Eleocharis
spp.) may be present, but do not dominate extensive areas of the community.
Disturbed shrub-scrub assemblage. This community consists of areas that have greater than
50 percent coverage of shrubs and/or saplings, but a sparse or absent tree canopy. The
dominant woody vegetation is less than 20 feet tall. A wide variety of woody species occurs
in this community. Recently timbered areas and young pine plantations may be included in
this community.
Pine plantation. Stands of planted pines (usually loblolly pine, Pinus taeda) comprise this
community. These stands can be distinguished from natural pine stands because the trees are
planted in rows, often on raised beds. Hardwoods normally are not an important part of the
canopy composition of pine plantations, although older plantations may have a well-
developed subcanopy of hardwood trees and shrubs. Young stands of planted pines that are
less than 20 feet tall are considered either disturbed herbaceous or disturbed shrub-scrub,
depending on the areal coverage of the pines.
Hardwood forest. This community consists of stands of hardwood forest that are not directly
associated with streams or drainageways. Tree species composition can vary greatly with
landscape position and management history, but generally is not dominated by typical swamp
species such as tupelo and cypress. Pines and other conifers comprise less than 30 percent of
the canopy.
Mixed pine-hardwood forest. This forest community may be predominantly hardwood or
predominantly pine, but it always includes at least 30 percent of the minority component in
the canopy. The minority component is scattered throughout the majority component; small
patches of one component that are readily apparent on the photo should be mapped
separately.
Pine forest. Pine forest consists of natural pine stands (usually loblolly pine) with less than
30 percent hardwoods in the canopy. Older pine stands may have a substantial subcanopy of
hardwoods, but are still considered pine forests if the canopy is more than 70 percent pine.
Pine plantations that have not been managed and have lost most of their row structure are
included in this community.
2 5/20/2004
CZR Incorporated
Pocosin-bay forest. This community is forested with some combination of pond pine (Pinus
serotina), red bay (Persea palustris), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), and/or loblolly bay
(Gordonia lasianthus). Loblolly pine, red maple, and other tree species may be codominant,
but by themselves are not diagnostic of this community. Pocosin-bay forest typically occurs
only on muck or mucky sand soils.
Sand ridge forest. Sand ridge forest occurs on relict sand dunes along the Suffolk Scarp.
Unless altered by timbering operations, this community is usually characterized by a canopy
dominated by longleaf pine. Pond pine and loblolly pine often are present, but generally do
not predominate over longleaf pine. Scrub oaks such as turkey oak (Quercus Levis), blue-
jack oak (Quercus incana), black jack oak (Quercus marilandica), post oak (Quercus
stellata), and southern red oak (Quercus falcata) often are present beneath the pines.
Composition of the herb and shrub/sapling layers varies greatly depending on the degree of
fire suppression and soil moisture, but some wiregrass (Aristida stricta) is usually present.
Ponds. This community consists of permanent bodies of standing fresh water. Most ponds
in the Project Area are man made, but any natural ponds that may exist are included in this
community. Canals with permanent water that are large enough to be mapped out and are
not channelized streams also are included in this community.
Non-vegetated/maintained areas. This community includes all buildings, parking lots,
maintained roads, railroads, maintained lawns, etc. This community does not include mowed
utility corridors (e.g., power lines) or unpaved roads that are used so infrequently that they
are dominated by herbaceous vegetation. Such corridors and roads are included in the
disturbed herbaceous assemblage community.
4.0 Wetland Areas of Special Concern
During the last PCS Phosphate EIS process, the regulatory and review agencies
developed the concept of Wetland Areas of Special Concern (WASC) as a way of evaluating
impacts to those jurisdictional wetlands that were perceived to be of particularly high value.
WASC areas in the Bonnerton Block were field - delineated and mapped as part of the last
EIS process. This existing mapping was incorporated into the current mapping of Bonnerton.
Recent aerial photography (1998), along with first-hand knowledge of the Project Area, was
used to remove any WASC areas that had been logged since the original mapping was
performed and to map areas that were added to the Bonnerton Area since the field
delineation. WASC areas are broken out by habitat type so that acreages can be calculated
and alternatives developed. WASC types include creeks/river, brackish marsh complex,
bottomland hardwood forest, pocosin-bay forest, and certain high-quality areas of wetland
hardwood forest and wetland pine forest.
Most of the WASC in the Bonnerton Block consists of wetland hardwood forest,
bottomland hardwood forest, and pocosin-bay forest that is scattered throughout the block.
The upper part of Porter Creek, which is considered Public Trust by NCDCM, extends into
this block.
5/20/2004
CZR Incorporated
4 4
Table 1. Biotic Communities and Wetland Types of the PCS Phosphate Project Area
Community Type Wetland Upland
Creeks X
Brackish Marsh Complex X
Bottomland Hardwood Forest X
Disturbed Herbaceous Assemblage X X
Disturbed Shrub-Scrub Assemblage X X
Pine Plantation X X
Hardwood Forest X X
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest X X
Pine Forest X X
Pocosin-Bay Forest X
Sand Ridge Forest X X
Ponds X
4
5/20/2004
CZR Incorporated

Table 2. Wetland and Upland Biotic Communities Map Legend for PCS Phosphate
Community Type Map Legend
Public Trust Waters lA
Perennial Stream 1B
Intermittent Stream 1C
Brackish Marsh Complex 2
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 3
Wetland Disturbed Herbaceous Assemblage 4
Wetland Disturbed Shrub-Scrub Assemblage 5
Wetland Pine Plantation 6
Wetland Hardwood Forest 7
Wetland Mixed-Pine Hardwood Forest 8
Wetland Pine Forest 9
Pocosin-Bay Forest 10
Wetland Sand Ridge Forest 11
Pond 12
Wetland Maintained Area 13
Upland Disturbed Herbaceous Assemblage 14
Upland Disturbed Shrub-Scrub Assemblage 15
Upland Pine Plantation 16
Upland Hardwood Forest 17
Upland Mixed-Pine Hardwood Forest 18
Upland Pine Forest 19
Upland Sand Ridge Forest 20
Upland Agricultural Land 21
Upland Non-Vegetated/Maintained Area 22
5
5/20/2004
CZR Incorporated
4 r
SUMMARY OUTLINE OF TASKS FOR
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OF DRAINAGE BASIN REDUCTION
TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE PCS PHOSPHATE EIS
OUTLINE PREPARED BY CZR BASED ON DR. R. W. SKAGGS PROPOSAL
DATED 2 MARCH 2004
1.0 Delineate watershed boundaries
1.1 CZR defines watersheds
1.2 Field visit by Skaggs, PCS, and CZR to determine how best to model the watershed (flow
directions and boundaries) and to collect information on properties of soils, vegetation, and
landscape features
1.2.1 NCPC-will utilize information obtained from existing data on Jacks, Tooley, and Huddles
Cut
1.2.2 South of 33 agricultural fields- will be examined with Dan Windley (retired SCS technician
with 60 years experience in Aurora) to document characteristics of drainage systems, crop
rotations, planting times, tillage practices, etc.
1.2.2.1 Suffolk Scarp- will be carefully examined and modeled as a contributing area
and source of base flow for much of year
1.2.3 Bonnerton-will duplicate NCPC approach, assuming hydrology is similar. If not, monitoring
may be necessary.
2.0 Determine soil properties, site parameters, watershed characteristics and vegetation inputs to DRAINMOD
based models
2.1 NCPC-most inputs can be determined from existing NCPC data collection and modeling efforts and
field examination of watersheds to be impacted. However, if soils are dissimilar in other NCPC
watersheds, it may be necessary to measure dominant soil properties.
2.2 South of 33-some data from Cypress Run collected but not analyzed. Complete suite of data will
be collected from Cypress Run and applied to estimate impacts on Bailey Creek and Broomfield
Swamp.
2.2.1 Suffolk Scarp-two approaches suggested: 1) model without flow measurements or 2) set
gauging stations in 1 or 2 ditches near scarp base (1- 2 years data collection) in
conjunction with careful watershed delineation.
2.3 Bonnerton-watersheds assumed to be similar to NCPC, but more analysis will clarify.
3.0 Conduct long-term (at least 50 years) DRAINMOD simulations for the watersheds pre- and post-mining
condition
3.1 NCPC-results from existing study used to define model inputs for other watersheds
3.2 South of 33- as DRAINMOD developed specifically for this land use and type, inputs will be
straightforward
3.3 Bonnerton-results from application of NCPC approach assumptions (or monitoring data if collected)
3.4 Post-mining condition-hydrology of affected watershed will be modeled to determine effects of
reduced outflow and compared to long-term average outflow modeled for unaffected watershed.
Conclusions will be drawn from the modeling about monthly, seasonal, and annual outflow.
13 April 2004
a
ATTACHMENT 3
PCS POWERPOINT PRESENTATION AT
20 APRIL 2004 MEETING
04

Q
Plq
(ED
V
z
.0

W
PON"

O
•
M
•
. % I -"
imap:Hbob.zarzecki %40dwq.denr.ncmail.net @ cros.ncmail.net:143/fe ...
Siff'j ect: PCS EIS Team 20 April agenda
From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:40:19 -0400
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
mike [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]
greetings all: Tom Walker asked me to circulate the attached rough agenda for the
next EIS Team meeting.
regards,
Julia Berger
Senior Environmental Scientist
file: 1745.62.09
CZR Incorporated
4709 College Acres Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
1 of 1 4/16/2004 1:59 PM
0, t I _,.
AGENDA ITEMS FOR PCS EIS TEAM MEETING
20 APRIL 2004
WASHINGTON, NC
10:00 -10:15 am
Old business/Schedule next meeting - Corps
10:15 -11:00 am
Summary of process to date and ideas on future directions - Corps
11:00 am -12:00 noon
Presentation of Bonnerton maps - CZR
12:00 -1:OOpm LUNCH
1:00 -1:15 pm
WASC - criteria review and discussion - CZR and Corps
1:15 - 2:15 pm
Presentation of preliminary mine plan - PCS
2:15 - 3:00 pm
Group discussion about alternatives' general approach and appearance
3:00 pm ADJOURN
?CZR
INCORPORATED
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1725
NTAL CONSULTANTS TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL [e-mail]
TO: Ms. Mary Alsentzer (PTRF)
Mr. John Dorney (NCDWQ)
Ms. Becky Fox (USEPA)
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness (PCS)
Mr. James M. Hudgens (CZR)
Mr. Scott Jones (USACE)
Mr. Tom Steffens (NCDWQ)
Mr. David M. Lekson (USACE)
Mr. David Cox (NCWRC)
Mr. Mike Wicker (USFWS)
Dr. David McNaught (ED)
FROM: Samuel Cooper and Julia K. Berger
DATE: 13 April 2004
SUBJECT: See Below
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
Mr. David Moye (NCDCM)
Mr. Jimmie Overton (NCDWQ)
Mr. Richard Peed (NCDLR)
Mr. William A. Schimming (Potash)
Mr. Ron Sechler (NMFS)
Mr.. Ross Smith (PCS)
Mr. Tom Walker (USACE)
Mr. Sean McKenna (NCDCF)
Mr. Bob Zarzecki (NCDWQ)
Mr. Terry Moore (NCDCM)
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
APR 14 2004
® Attached via UPS WATER QUALITY SECTION
Copies Date Description
1 8 April 2004 REVISED Minutes of the 24 September 2003 meeting for the
PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation permit application review
1 9 April 2004 DRAFT Minutes of the 28 January 2004 meeting for the PCS
Phosphate Mine Continuation permit application review
1 CZR Incorporated Handouts for PCS Phosphate EIS Team
Meeting 20 April 2004
Figures 1 through 4; DRAFT Review of Biotic Community and
Wetland/Upland Mapping Process for the Bonnerton Mine
Development Block for PCS Phosphate. Inc. (dated 9 April
2004); and Outline of Skaggs Proposed Tasks for Assessment
of Drainage Basin Reduction to be Addressed in the PCS
Phosphate EIS (dated 13 April 2004)

THESE ARE TRANSMITTED: ® For review ® For your information
f
Signed: kl,
r
ulia . Berger
1061 EAST INDIANTOWN ROAD • SUITE 100 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5143
TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • [e-mail] • www.CZRINC.com
Q?
-ZR 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
INCORPORATED WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1725
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
MEMORANDUM
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
TO: See Distribution
APR 14 2004
FROM: Samuel Cooper, Mark Grippo
DATE: 8 April 2004 WATER QUALITY SECTION
RE: REVISED Minutes of the 24 September 2003 meeting for the PCS Phosphate
Mine Continuation permit application review.
1 The tenth meeting for the review of PCS Phosphate's Mine Continuation permit
2 application was held at the Washington Regional Office of the North Carolina Department
3 of Environment and Natural Resources on 24 September 2003. The following people were
4 in attendance:
5
6 David Lekson - USACE 13 Tom Steffens - NCDWQ
7 Mary Alsentzer - PTRF 14 Bob Zarzecki - NCDWQ
8 Tom Walker - USACE 15 David Moye - NCDCM
9 Pat McClain - NCDLR 16 Mike Wicker - USFWS
10 Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate 17 Samuel Cooper - CZR Incorporated
11 Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate 18 Mark Grippo - CZR Incorporated
12 Bill Schimming - Potash Corp. 19 Becky Fox - USEPA (via tele-conference)
20
21 Meeting began at 10:05 a.m. Mr. Lekson began by introducing Becky Fox of the
22 Environmental Protection Agency who was sitting in for Kathy Matthews. Ms. Fox stated
23 she was interim. Everyone present introduced themselves.
24
25 Mr. Lekson brought up the minutes from the 26 August meeting and stated that he
26 had not reviewed the minutes from that meeting. Mr. Lekson asked Mr. Cooper if he had
27 distributed the meeting minutes, to which Mr. Cooper replied, "yes".
1
1061 EAST INDIANTOWN ROAD • SUITE 100 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5143
TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • [e-mail] • www.CZRINC.com
29 Mr. Lekson scheduled the next meeting. He asked Mr. Furness how much
30 information would be available for the next meeting. Mr. Cooper said two months was
31 enough time to finish NCPC and Bonnerton, but South of NC 33 would take longer because
32 of the expanded area. The meeting was scheduled for Wednesday 3 December at 10:00.
33 Ms. Fox said that they would have Kathy Mathews' permanent replacement by then.
34
35 Mr. Lekson stated that the presentations by Marston and Dr. Skaggs from the 26
36 August meeting would be attached at the end of the 26 August meeting minutes. Mr.
37 Smith said that Dr. Skaggs presentation had been given to the Division of Water Quality in
38 Raleigh. Mr. Cooper said that copies of the presentations were available.
39
40 Mr. Wicker made some comments on the minutes from the 26 August meeting.
41 Referring to his comments in the minutes, he stated that in lines 313-315 where he is
42 summarizing Dr. Skaggs' presentation up to that point, the term "catchment basin" should
43 be used instead of "rainfall". He also stated that he would be willing to provide PCS, for
44 no charge, technical assistance on the use of discharge water for wetland creation.
45
46 Mr. Lekson said that the line numbering in the minutes appeared to be different in
47 copies sent to the team members. Mr. Cooper proposed to send hard copies to everyone
48 so that there would be no confusion with the line numbers.
49
50 Mr. Lekson presented the CZR document entitled PCS Phosphate EIS Reference
51 Information for Discussion of Alternatives. The document presented the most current
52 jurisdictional areas and alternatives available for each mining block. He asked Mr. Cooper
53 to send a copy to Ms. Fox and to go over the document with the group. Mr. Cooper
54 proceeded to discuss Alternatives presented on page 1 of the document. Mr. Cooper said
55 that the figures displayed alternatives on USGS topographic maps and aerial photos for
56 reference, but future figures may exclude reference maps when presenting/comparing
57 alternatives. Mr. Moye asked if unnamed tributaries could be given labeled names on the
58 USGS topographic map. Mr. Cooper replied, "yes". Mr. Cooper said that Alternatives with
59 an asterisk had corresponding figures in the document. Mr. Cooper said that the DWQ
2 8 April 2004
60 stream limits/buffers in the Bonnerton mining block were based on the upper stream limits
61 located by CZR with GPS. With regard to the block South of NC 33, Mr. Cooper stated
62 that 3 points (upper limits of CAMA jurisdiction) needed to be reviewed and surveyed.
63
64 Mr. Steffens asked about the upper limit of a stream in the South of NC 33 block
65 near Idalia. Mr. Cooper said that he thought the stream went to the road (SR 1425). Mr.
66 Furness said that they would double check the exact location of the block boundary in this
67 area. Mr. Moye said that the headwaters of South Creek should be identified as out of the
68 block boundary. Ms. Fox asked if the figure included intermittent streams and Mr. Cooper
69 replied, "yes". Upper limits of a stream shown on the topographic map in the vicinity of
70 Prescott also needed to be confirmed. The Prescott boundary also needed to be checked.
71
72 Mr. Cooper gave an update on the work needed to complete each alternative
73 boundary. Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Smith to comment on Alternative 1 (additional land to
74 Alternative E boundary) for the NCPC block. Mr. Smith briefly described the alternative
75 and said he would need assurance that the return pass outside of Alternative E would be
76 permitted or they would miss resources. Mr. Smith also indicated that they were soon to
77 be in an area where timing was critical for proceeding with planning with this alternative.
78
79 Mr. Cooper explained stream determinations on NCPC and said that not all survey
80 data were available for CAMA areas. He stated that the topographic map would be helpful
81 in evaluating the alternative. Mr. Cooper stated that the DWQ stream surveys were
82 complete and CAMA data would be added when available. He asked if DWQ was
83 confident making an alternative boundary based only on stream delineation. Mr. Cooper
84 was asked to overlay the upper stream limits on the existing avoidance boundary. Mr.
85 Cooper said this could be done in a few days. Mr. Cooper stated that he believed the
86 original avoidance boundary was based more on wetlands than streams. Mr. Furness said
87 that that was not necessarily true.
88
89 Mr. Smith asked if DWQ could draw an avoidance boundary based on stream origin
90 and buffer areas so that PCS could develop a mine plan. Mr. Steffens and Mr. Lekson
3 8 April 2004
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
indicated they could. Mr. Smith asked if PCS could meet with DWQ individually to develop
an alternative boundary, or did the whole group need to be present. Mr. Lekson said he
wanted everyone to be involved, but asked the group what they thought. Mr. Smith said
DWQ could draw a boundary and then PCS could send it to the group for review. Mr.
Moye said that they wouldn't be changing a DWQ boundary anyway so he didn't see the
problem if PCS met with DWQ individually to draw the boundary. Mr. Cooper asked if the
same was true of the other alternative boundaries such as CAMA. Mr. Moye said that the
CAMA boundary would be similar to that of the last EIS and they would identify resources,
and PCS would draw a line of avoidance. Mr. Lekson said that it was up to PCS to make
the avoidance line. Mr. Smith replied that PCS would develop a mine plan based on the
avoidance line drawn by the agencies.
Mr. Lekson said that CAMA areas were not surveyed under the original permit
except for the upper most point of CAMA jurisdiction. Widths and sinuosity were not
surveyed. He stated these areas were also COE jurisdiction and Wetland Areas of Special
Concern (WASC) and therefore a different looking map will be produced. He said that the
WASC would require another plat and that WASC must be mapped for the other blocks as
well.
Mr. Moye asked about CAMA areas in the Bonnerton and South of NC 33 mining
blocks. Mr. Cooper replied that only Porter Creek needed to be surveyed and only a few
points in the block South of NC 33. Mr. Furness stated that the survey of NCPC was
almost finished, and only Huddy Gut remained.
Mr. Furness asked if the stream and buffer avoidance boundary and the old NCDWQ
avoidance boundary from the last permit process could be combined into one alternative.
Mr. Lekson asked if the original permit application was based on DWQ avoidance. Mr.
Furness replied, "no". DWQ members stated that their avoidance line may not avoid all
stream origins.
4 8 April 2004
121 In reference to the block South of NC 33, Mr. Cooper said that the survey is
122 underway and that there are only two CAMA public trust points within the mining blocks.
123 He then stated that he needed DWQ to confirm their jurisdictional steam limits. DWQ
124 indicated they would need to discuss the option of combining the stream origin and buffer
125 avoidance alternative and the DWQ high quality avoidance boundary.
126
127 Mr. Furness said that it will take time to delineate the expanded block South of NC
128 33 and asked Mr. Cooper if CZR could provide a biotic community map for all but the
129 expanded area, to which Mr. Cooper said, "yes". Mr. Furness asked if it was worth it to
130 provide such a map. Mr. Lekson said that seeps from the expanded area may be
131 connected to the eastern portion of the tract. Mr. Furness said it probably was not
132 worthwhile to provide an incomplete biotic community map of the block South of NC 33.
133 Mr. Lekson asked how much of the expanded area had been delineated. Mr. Cooper said
134 10 percent, and then said that the delineation would not delay alternative development for
135 the NCPC or Bonnerton blocks. Mr. Smith said that PCS had to develop a mine plan for
136 each alternative so it was fine if the alternatives were developed sequentially.
137
138 Mr. Cooper said that the mine plan PCS developed for the block South of NC 33
139 added "spurs: to the expanded area and asked Mr. Smith to comment. Mr. Smith said that
140 the mine plan stops at the toe of the scarp because their mining planners do not
141 recommend mining into the scarp and that the spurs represent areas needed for utilities
142 and mining related facilities. Mr. Smith said that access to the current permit area required
143 the expansion of the block boundary to the north. Mr. Furness said there were five spurs
144 that needed to be added to the boundary. Mr. Moye asked if the spurs could be adjusted
145 so that they would not affect residences. Mr. Smith said that residences were not a
146 problem because the potentially affected residences were owned or likely acquirable by
147 PCS. Mr. Lekson said that that the boundary line was drawn in deference to houses and
148 that if the houses were not really a problem then the team may need to re-think the
149 boundary. Mr. Smith said the boundary was based on avoiding existing residences and
150 structures along the scarp. Mr. Lekson said he would have to think about adjusting the
151 boundary.
5 8 April 2004
152
153 Mr. Steffens said that the boundary looks like it is located in a swamp. Mr. Smith said
154 PCS would take that into account based on the DWQ avoidance areas and that PCS may
155 move the boundary based on DWQ calls. Mr. Lekson commented that PCS should provide
156 specific information on which residences are to be avoided. Mr. Smith indicated that PCS
157 and CZR would evaluate residence information along the scarp.
158
159 Mr. Steffens said that perhaps the boundary could be changed if PCS doesn't intend
160 to mine past the mine plan boundary. Mr. Lekson said, "no", PCS needed to delineate the
161 expanded area and said that PCS needed to examine the five spurs. Mr. Lekson said that
162 he would reopen the Edward tract if the houses on the scarp were acquirable or owned by
163 PCS. Mr. Moye responded that from what he knew about the west side of 306, the
164 residences would probably have to be avoided, whereas the east side of 306 is mainly
165 uninhabited structures.
166
167 Mr. Wicker said that in the decision matrix the economic analysis will reduce
168 alternatives. Redefining block boundaries changes the economic analysis and therefore the
169 new spurs on the western boundary are good because the boundary is more realistic. The
170 spurs will allow a more legitimate economic model. Mr. Lekson said that CZR should
171 increase the delineation area to include the bump outs and that Mr. Smith needed to get
172 information on the houses. Mr. Lekson added that we should have gotten the information
173 on the availability of the houses before the team agreed on the new boundary. Mr.
174 Schimming said that the mine engineers can try to change the boundary to avoid the spurs.
175 Mr. Lekson asked Mr. Smith to include his entire team when developing future mine plans.
176
177 Ms. Alsentzer said that the group needed to avoid this problem by getting maps
178 before the meeting and if the maps are incomplete we need to move the meeting to a later
179 date. Mr. Lekson agreed that three or four weeks between agency meetings may not have
180 been enough time to prepare and distribute information for the group to evaluate prior to
181 the meeting.
182
6 8 April 2004
183 Mr. Cooper continued to describe the figures in the document. Referring to the
184 Bonnerton mine block Mr. Steffens noted that there was a stream above SR 1942 that did
185 not appear to be surveyed on the stream survey figures. Mr. Cooper replied that CZR
186 would look into it and said that there are streams on the topographic map that were not
187 claimed as jurisdictional in the field.
188
189 Referring to the maximum planned recovery alternative for Bonnerton, Mr. Lekson
190 asked if the utility corridor fit in the Bonnerton block boundary. Mr. Smith replied that it
191 does.
192
193 Mr. Cooper summed up by saying the provided reference information/document
194 served to update team members and new survey information would be incorporated as it
195 becomes available.
196
197 Mr. Lekson called for lunch at 12:00.
198
199 The meeting resumed at 1:00 p.m. During a discussion of the DWQ avoidance line
200 the DWQ team members stated that the DWQ jurisdiction line is subject to buffer
201 protection rules and that a DWQ avoidance line may be lower than a DWQ/404 line. Mr.
202 Moye replied that he was confused on why the DWQ avoidance line would move into the
203 buffer area. Mr. Moye stated that, for DCM, and avoidance line refers to avoidance of
204 jurisdictional areas and it sounded like the DWQ avoidance line was not based on the same
205 principle. Mr. Steffens replied that the DWQ avoidance line means the line that DWQ can
206 live with. Mr. Moye responded that once DWQ line moves out of its jurisdiction, the line
207 needs to be submitted to the group for discussion and that this could not be done in a one
208 on one meeting as was discussed before lunch. Mr. Zarzecki said that he assumed that the
209 original DWQ avoidance line was going to be generated by DWQ alone and not a product
210 of a group decision. Mr. Moye responded that the current EIS process was different.
211
212 Ms. Fox asked if the avoidance line would include intermittent streams, to which
213 Mr. Zarzecki replied that it was difficult to say.
7 8 April 2004
214
215 Mr. Lekson said that he understood Mr. Moye's concern and that if the DWQ's
216 avoidance line ended up in CAMA or 404 jurisdictions then it needed to be considered by
217 the group. Mr. Furness asked if PCS can get agency boundaries and then generate a
218 alternative line for group discussion. Mr. Lekson asked PCS if they could draw a line
219 around the upper limits of streams and produce a mine plan based on that information. Mr.
220 Furness said they could try, but with all the headwaters he was not sure if they could
221 produce a mine plan. Mr. Furness said that the term DWQ minimization line was a better
222 term than avoidance line.
223
224 At this point the agencies representatives began to talk among themselves.
225
226 Mr. Lekson said that the DWQ line is a stream line not a wetland line. Mr. Zarzecki
227 said that there could be a 401, CAMA, and stream avoidance line. Mr. Lekson said that
228 the team needed to be clear in describing the thought process used in alternative
229 development. Mr. Furness said that the terminology was the problem. For example, one
230 alternative has been called the wetland areas of special concern (WASC) avoidance
231 alternative, yet WASCs were impossible to avoid. He stated that the alternative name
232 should be changed to WASC minimization line. Mr. Furness asked DWQ if they could
233 create a line that they could live with and they replied, "yes".
234
235 Mr. Overton said that the term "avoidance" was used because in the last EIS those
236 areas had to be avoided for the permit. Now it seems that we want to base the
237 alternatives on jurisdictional avoidance.
238
239 Mr. Lekson turned the discussion to mitigation and said that PCS would have to
240 look at mitigation cost in their economic analysis. Mr. Lekson stated that in North Carolina
241 there were three mitigation options: project specific, mitigation banks, and in-lieu fee. Mr.
242 Lekson stated he wanted to brainstorm on mitigation options under these categories (see
243 Attachment 1).
244
8 8 April 2004
245 When stream mitigation was discussed Ms. Fox said that you must consider both
246 the quality of the stream being impacted and the type of mitigation activity (restoration,
247 enhancement I, enhancement II, or preservation) when determining mitigation
248 requirements. She also stated that you must get linear feet of streams once surveyed.
249 Mr. Lekson asked Ms. Fox if linear feet needed to be broken down into swamp or tidal
250 estuary. Mr. Lekson said that this was a permit question because the permit will require
251 exact footage. Mr. Wicker said that we may have to measure linear feet from the mouth
252 upstream to its limit. Mr. Lekson agreed. Mr. Wicker said that the Corps of Engineers
253 mitigation guidelines needed to be followed. Ms. Fox said stream quality should also be
254 considered because this influences the amount of mitigation.
255
256 Mr. Lekson said that he received a call regarding from Mr. Don Carr representing the
257 Great Dismal Swamp Mitigation Bank. The Bank is interested in providing credits to PCS
258 and Mr. Carr may be contacting them. Mr. Wicker said that Mr. McHenry had mentioned
259 Weyerhaeuser property for sale off the Pungo River and that this area had many tidal
260 creeks.
261
262 Mr. Lekson noted that the majority of the mitigation options were preservation and
263 that preservation would be an important component of the mitigation plan. Mr. Wicker
264 stated that the USFWS was skeptical of WRP mitigation options. Mr. Lekson said that,
265 although he agreed based on the scale of the mitigation need, we should stick to the
266 brainstorming and discuss WRP later. Mr. Lekson asked about available mitigation acreage
267 at the Parker Farm. Mr. Cooper said that there was about 200 acres of preservation, 150
268 acres of enhancement, less than 20 acres of creation and the rest was restoration. Mr.
269 Zarzecki asked if PCS wanted to impact stream buffers and Mr. Furness replied, "yes".
270 Mr. Zarzecki stated that preservation is not an option under buffer rules, only restoration
271 and enhancement are allowed.
272
273 Mr. Smith asked agencies if they had any suggestions regarding mitigation. Mr.
274 Wicker responded that the use of mine depressurization water could be put to beneficial
275 use. Mr. Moye stated that once you get to CAMA jurisdictional areas, DCM's definition of
9 8 April 2004
276 acceptable mitigation is very strict and that the rules for mitigation vary with area. Mr.
277 Smith said he would like to discuss use of mining water. Mr. Wicker said that mining
278 water would be a good source of potential mitigation that could be used to enhance
279 aquatic productivity in the area. Mr. Smith said that Mr. Sechler had brought up the
280 possibility of stream creation to extend the headwater areas of some creeks. Mr. Steffens
281 said that 78 million gallons a day is a lot of water and alternatives that make use of this
282 water should be developed. Mr. Zarzecki said that DWQ could donate property to WRP for
283 buffer mitigation.
284
285 Mr. Lekson asked the group if agencies should give presentations on mitigation.
286 Mr. Smith said that would be helpful.
287
288 Ms. Alsentzer asked if "Eagle" is using our bought rights to use the water. Mr.
289 Smith said that they have the option, but we do not know how much they will use at this
290 time. Ms. Alsentzer replied that Eagle may use it all. Mr. Lekson indicated that could be a
291 problem. Mr. Lekson also said that the water supply will only last the life of the project.
292 Ms. Alsentzer asked how much water is required for potential mitigation use. Mr. Wicker
293 said, "the more water the better", as there is a direct correlation between the amount of
294 water and production. Mr. Smith said there may be enough water for Eagle and a stream
295 mitigation project. Mr. Lekson said that this could be discussed at the next meeting.
296
297 Mr. Lekson asked about the possibility of another Parker Farm. Mr. Smith said that
298 there needs to be discussion of acceptable mitigation locations and if the agencies can
299 identify acceptable areas that do not affect potential mining alternatives. Mr. Lekson said
300 that they would certainly consider that, and that he was looking for full replacement of
301 lost/impacted (jurisdictional) functions.
302
303 The large poccosin Weyerhaeuser owns was mentioned, as well as the fact that
304 Weyerhaeuser is looking to sell land. Mr. Moye mentioned that the upper Pungo River
305 could also be a potential restoration site for streams.
306
10 8 April 2004
307 Mr. Lekson said that the team also needed to discuss on-site, in-kind mitigation.
308 Lekson indicated we would review areas close to PCS, and then review other regional area.
309 Mr. Lekson indicated that many of the areas referenced on the potential mitigation areas
310 map provided by Mr. Wicker were already in state or federal ownership. Mr. Lekson asked
311 Mr. Wicker if there was much opportunity for mitigation in the PCS area. Mr. Wicker
312 replied that there was a lot of opportunity. Mr. Lekson mentioned the Bay City low
313 poccosin. Mr. Steffens mentioned the Engelhart area and said that if the riser was
314 removed it would flood the area. Mr. Moye said that the city would fight it because the
315 city planners do not want additional wetlands.
316
317 Mr. Moye asked about areas near Short Creek, and Long Creek, and the clay ponds.
318 Mr. Furness said that elevation of most of the clay ponds are 40 feet, but don't take it off
319 the table. Mr. Lekson said this was just a brainstorming session and there would be
320 additional suggestions in the future. Mr. Lekson also suggested a field trip to the Parker
321 Farm and Bailey Creek. Mr. Lekson also said that reviewing the recent stream mitigation
322 information on the Corps website would be a helpful resource.
323
324 Ms. Alsentzer asked if wetlands could be created in association with stormwater
325 uses. Ms. Fox said that measures required to meet NPDES stormwater requirements can
326 not be used for mitigation. Mr. Furness brought an old NC-CREWS map. Mr. Cooper said
327 that PCS has looked but has not fully evaluated all mitigation options.
328
329 Mr. Lekson asked for final questions. There were none and the meeting was
330 adjourned at 2:30.
331
11 8 April 2004
332 Distribution
Ms. Mary Alsentzer
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Becky Fox
Environmental Protection Agency
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, NC 28789
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. James M. Hudgens
CZR Incorporated
1061 East Indiantown Road
Suite 100
Jupiter, Florida 33477-5143
Mr. Charles Jones
NC Division of Coastal Management
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Scott Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David M. Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David McHenry
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Sean McKenna
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dr. David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Ms. Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Regulatory Section USEPA/EAB
Wetlands Management Division
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David Moye
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Jimmie Overton
NC Division of Water Quality
ESB Lab
1621 Mall Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
12 8 April 2004

Mr. Richard Peed
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. William A. Schimming
Potash Corp.
Post Office Box 3320
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Ross Smith
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Walker
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Bob Zarzecki
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
13
8 April 2004
Attachment 1
Table of mitigation options discussed ruing 24 September 2003 meeting. Abbreviations as
follows: Preservation (P), Restoration (R), Creation (C), and Enhancement (E).
Project Specific Mitigation Banks WRP (in-lieu fee)
Parker Farm (P/R/C) Great Dismal Swamp (R)
South Creek Corridor (P/E) North River/Ottoway (R)
Grace Tract (P)
Pamlico River/Durham Creek mining
lease (P)
Weyerhauser lands for sale (P)
Other Natural Heritage Properties (P)
Bay City Poccosin (P)
Using mine water for streams (R/E/C)
Extension of headwaters (C)
DWQ donation of property
Another Parker Farm (R/E/P)
Open grounds (R/E/P)
Extension of Goose Creek Park (P)
West of Arch Bell Point (P)
Bay City low poccosin (P)
Upper Pungo River Heritage Lands
(P)
Engelhard (R/P)
Short and Long Creek (R/C)
VOA sites (P/R)
R1,2,3
Core Point
Municipal stormwater
14 8 April 2004

I
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
APR 14 2004
1
2
3
4
15 Jimmy Overton - NCDWQ
16 Tom Steffens - NCDWQ
17 Maria Tripp - NCDWQ
18 Bob Zarzecki - NCDWQ
19 David Moye - NCDCM
20 Mike Wicker - USFWS
21 Richard Peed - NCDLR
22 Samuel Cooper - CZR
23 Mark Grippo - CZR
25 The meeting began at 10:00 and generally followed the agenda as presented in
26 Attachment 1. Mr. Lekson asked for comments on the September 24 2003 meeting minutes.
27 He said Ms. Fox had some comments and asked when CZR Incorporated (CZR) would like all
28 comments. Ms. Fox said that she could e-mail her comments to CZR. Mr. Smith asked the
TO: See Distribution
FROM: Samuel Cooper, Mark Grippo
.dam YhK-11,
DATE: 9 April 2004
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
WATER QUALITY SECTION
RE: Minutes of the 28 January 2004 meeting for the PCS Phosphate Mine
Continuation permit application review.
The eleventh meeting for the review of PCS Phosphate's Mine Continuation permit
application was held at the Washington Regional Office of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources on 28 January 2004. The following people attended:
5 David Lekson - USACE
6 Tom Walker - USACE
7 Mary Alsentzer - PTRF
8 Heather Jacobs - PTRF
9 Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate
10 Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate
11 Jerry Waters - PCS Phosphate
12 Ron Sechler - NMFS
13 David McHenry - NCWRC
14 John Dorney - NCDWQ
24
1
r

29 group if there were any comments that had a bearing on today's meeting or future meetings.
30 There was no response. Mr. Lekson said that the group should get comments to CZR within the
31 next couple weeks.
32
33 Mr. McHenry announced that he would be leaving the team and his interim replacement
34 would be David Cox, his supervisor at the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). A final
35 replacement should be in place within a month.
36
37 At Ms. Alsentzer request, everyone introduced themselves. Mr. Lekson introduced Tom
38 Walker as his replacement. He stated that since CZR, PCS, and the Corps of Engineers (COE)
39 would be in much closer contact in the future stages of the project and Mr. Walker is in
40 Wilmington, his participation as team leader would be helpful. Mr. Walker said that he had 10
41 years experience at the COE and was a special projects manager at Wilmington. Mr. Walker
42 stated that he was from Aurora and had several relatives who worked for PCS. He stated that
43 COE attorneys have determined that there is no conflict of interest, and the COE is comfortable
44 with Mr. Walker's involvement with the project. Mr. Walker stated that he hoped the team
45 members could vouch for his integrity in prior projects, but if anyone on the team had questions
46 about his suitability as team leader, they may contact him, Ken Jolly (Chief, Wilmington District,
47 Regulatory Division) or Jim Sterling (Chief, Wilmington District, Office of Council) to discuss.
48 Mr. Lekson remarked that regardless of who served as the team leader, the final decision on the
49 EIS will be made by the District Engineer.
50
51 Mr. Lekson asked about any old business. Mr. Sechler asked for a brief overview of this
52 project from the COE's perspective. Mr. Lekson said that the Public Notice, Notice of Intent,
53 and the Purpose and Need stages were over and that the EIS was in the data collection and
54 alternatives development phases. He also said that he believed the team should address
55 mitigation throughout the process and that is why it was being discussed today. He said the
56 process would be quickening now that alternatives were being developed. Mr. Smith said that
57 they have had very good cooperation from the COE, Division of Coastal Management (DCM)
58 and Division of Water Quality (DWQ) in reviewing areas in a timely manner. Mr. Cooper said
59 the meetings were helpful because it provided an opportunity to update the group on progress
60 of data collection and allowed for the group's input for developing alternatives. Mr. Lekson
2 4/9/2004
t
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
discussed potential next meeting dates and scheduled the next meeting for 31 March at 10:00
a.m. in Washington. Mr. Lekson asked for CZR to provide new information to the team at least
a week before the meeting, if possible.
Mr. Lekson began a discussion on mitigation. He stated that avoidance and
minimization were the goal, but if wetland impacts were unavoidable then mitigation would be
necessary. He asked the members of the team to discuss their agency's mitigation guidelines.
After some discussion it was agreed that Mr. Lekson would go last.
Ms. Fox began by saying her presentation would focus on stream mitigation. Ms. Fox
first covered USEPA Region 4 wetland mitigation policy and followed with a description of
Region 4's stream mitigation policy (Attachment 1). During Ms. Fox's description, Ms. Alsentzer
stated that her definition of preservation seemed different from the EPA's, and asked if Ms. Fox
could define what she meant by the term. Ms. Fox replied that on-site avoidance is not
preservation because avoidance should be done automatically. The term preservation requires
long-term protection. Ms. Fox then read the EPA definition of preservation. Ms. Alsentzer said
she better understands the difference. Mr. Lekson said that definitions are very important and
everyone needs to have the same understanding of these terms. Mr. Dorney said that he could
print a list of definitions from the stream mitigation manual.
Mr. Wicker asked whether the mitigation ratio would differ for a low quality wetland, to
which Ms. Fox said the minimum ratio would be 1:1. Ms. Fox recommended the intermittent
stream evaluation form on the COE website to evaluate on-site streams. Mr. Furness asked if
there was a numeric cut-off for each of the stream quality rating categories (i.e. fair, good,
excellent). Ms. Fox said that the COE has been hesitant to assign numerical cut-off points. Mr.
Dorney said that macrobenthic indicators were not sufficient to use for coastal plain stream
evaluations. Ms. Jacobs asked what would be used in its place, and Mr. Dorney replied that a
form of habitat assessment would be used. Mr. Furness stated that CZR did some preliminary
stream evaluations using the COE form but not the DWQ evaluation form. Mr. Zarzecki said
that the DWQ form is used primarily to distinguish ephemeral drains from perennial and
intermittent streams. Mr. Dorney said that a functional assessment protocol is being developed
but it may be a long time until it becomes available.
3 4/9/2004
t
94 Ms. Fox continued by discussing stream selection criteria (Attachment 2). Mr. Lekson
95 said the Region 4 and COE websites are good sources of information. Mr. Zarzecki said that he
96 wanted to clarify that preservation is a stream mitigation option. Mr. Dorney pointed out that the
97 stream selection criteria referenced in the attachment are "should be" not "shall be".
98
99 Mr. Wicker began discussing mitigation relative to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
100 (USFWS). He stated that his agency follows EPA guidelines. He indicated that the USFWS
101 would like to see mitigation via restoration at 1:1 and preservation of "keystone properties" at
102 10:1. Mr. Wicker stated that preservation would be a good mitigation option because the
103 expansive waterfront development in southeastern North Carolina could begin to move to the
104 Aurora area. With regard to existing and past PCS restoration projects, Mr. Wicker stated that
105 efforts have been "insulting to aquatic productivity" and therefore restoration will be an important
106 component of mitigation. He pointed out that estuarine restoration would benefit crabs, and
107 headwater restoration would help the recovery of river herring. He recommended existing
108 restoration sites associated with North River and Timberlake Bank as potential areas for stream
109 restoration.
110
i l l He also stated that PCS mine water could be useful for wetland restoration and creation
112 and the mitigation sites could remain as permanent wetland if the land was graded
113 appropriately. He also mentioned that previously mined areas could be donated or put in
114 landtrusts to be managed by agencies as restoration sites. He stated that cadmium capping at
115 PCS has been successful and these previously mined areas had future restoration potential.
116 Mr. Wicker cited the USFWS's restoration efforts at the Pungo River as a slow but successful
117 restoration project. He felt that PCS could donate reclaimed land to the Service for restoration.
118
119 Ms. Fox asked about the 1:1 mitigation ratio mentioned by Mr. Wicker, stating that the
120 EPA prefers 2:1. Mr. Wicker replied that he meant a no net loss of wetlands using a
121 combination of 10:1 and 1:1. Mr. Smith asked if this would meet EPA requirements and Ms.
122 Fox replied, probably.
123
124 Mr. Sechler began discussing the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the
125 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) mandate under the Magnuson-Stevenson Act. The EFH
126 assessment requires that NMFS take a very close look at EFH and requires mitigation in the
4 4/9/2004
l
127 case of impacts. NMFS has no mitigation guidelines but rather defers to EPA and COE.
128 NMFS does want headwater and forested wetlands to be considered as well as other EFH
129 support habitat. Mr. Sechler also supported the use of PCS's mine water resources for multiple
130 resource mitigation. Mr. Lekson stated that the team would be careful to meet the requirements
131 of EFH assessment.
132
133 Mr. Zarzecki asked if NMFS had any definition for "supportive habitat" and how far
134 supportive habitat extends up the creeks and rivers. Mr. Sechler referenced definitions and
135 guidance referenced in EFH material, but mentioned no specifics. Mr. Lekson stated that EFH
136 assessment requires a formal coordination process that CZR will document.
137
138 Mr. Dorney discussed DWQ policy on wetland mitigation (Attachment 3). He stated that
139 they used a 1:1 mitigation ratio, mitigation must occur in the same sub basin and match riparian
140 or non-riparian. Mr. Dorney said that mitigation beyond 1:1 is up to COE/EPA, but 1:1 meets
141 DWQ requirements. He stated that monitoring follows COE guidance and that a functional
142 assessment guideline is being developed but may not be available for a long time. Mr. Dorney
143 said that, currently, DWQ only requires mitigation for perennial streams, but this will change in
144 the future.
145
146 Mr. Dorney next discussed the buffer rules. He stated that DWQ requires 3:1 for
147 impacts in Zone 1 (first 30 feet) and 1.5:1 for Zone 2 (outer 20 feet). Donation was a stream
148 and stream buffer mitigation option and was usually handled by the WRP. He also stated that
149 the buffers on restored streams can also be put toward mitigating impacts to stream buffers.
150
151 Ms. Fox asked for Mr. Dorney to repeat DWQ policy on restoration mitigation ratios. Mr.
152 Dorney said that if 10 acres are destroyed then 10 needed to be restored. Mr. Furness clarified
153 that DWQ only requires mitigation for perennial stream. Ms. Fox said that federal guidelines
154 require mitigation for intermittent streams as well.
155
156 Mr. Zarzecki said that if PCS moved the entire stream and the buffer then they could
157 meet buffer and stream mitigation requirements. Mr. Furness said that it will be similar to
158 Whitehurst Creek and Bailey Creek.
159
5 4/9/2004

160 Mr. Moye discussed DCM mitigation policy, stating that DCM has written mitigation
161 guidelines called 7M but the guidelines are being revised. Personnel turnover at the Raleigh
162 office has not allowed time to revise the mitigation policy. He stated that he was not sure of the
163 details of the new mitigation policy but the DCM hoped to have someone to oversee the effort
164 shortly.
165
166 Mr. Lekson asked if Mr. Moye would be involved in developing mitigation guidelines. Mr.
167 Moye said that he has not been solicited for help on current mitigation projects. Mr. Moye
168 stated that many counties are currently using FEMA funds to clear ditches and drain wetlands.
169
170 Mr. Moye explained that currently, 7M is the written policy, but only DOT can meet the
171 avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements because of the public need requirements
172 found in the policy. Mr. Moye said that this issue was being changed to be more similar to
173 requirements associated with other agency policies.
174
175 Mr. Peed discussed Land Resources (CDLR) mitigation policy. He stated that DLR had
176 no policy, but rather, they deferred to the COE. Mr. Lekson asked Mr. Peed about reclamation.
177 Mr. Peed said that DLR looks at the final reclamation site, but not before. He stated that
178 normally, DLR works with small areas and gives larger areas to other agencies. DLR could also
179 issue permits with agencies approval, citing PCS cadmium capping as an example.
180
181 Mr. Lekson said Mr. Peed has valuable experience with mitigation sites and would be
182 helpful with erosion, which is a common problem at mitigation sites. Mr. Peed replied that they
183 do have recommendations on erosion as well as species plantings.
184
185 Mr. Zarzecki asked if a variance was required on high quality streams or only for trout
186 streams, to which Mr. Peed replied, "Only trout stream buffers".
187
188 Mr. Lekson explained that Mr. McKenna was not present and that Mr. Moye would
189 describe the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) mitigation policy. Mr. Moye gave a handout on
190 DMF mitigation policy (Attachment 4) and said that DMF tries to dovetail with other agencies on
191 mitigation policy. Mr. Moye stated that DMF uses Coastal Habitat Protection Plans and that the
g 4/9/2004
192 DMF had authority to comment on the final mitigation plan. DMF's goal with mitigation is no net
193 loss of coastal marine stocks or habitat.
194
195 Mr. Moye explained that DMF had a habitat and water quality committee that advised on
196 projects that could potentially affect coastal fisheries. Mr. Furness asked who presented the
197 mitigation plan to DMF commissioners, to which Mr. Moye replied, Jess Hawkins. Mr. Moye
198 also stated that he and Mr. Overton were members of the commission, as were Doug Rader
199 and Kent Nelson. Mr. Lekson said the COE often attends commission meetings as well. Ms.
200 Alsentzer asked for a fisheries assessment process flow chart.
201
202 Mr. McHenry explained WRC mitigation policy. He stated that WRC has no regulations,
203 but they do have agency policies with direct bearing on mitigation requirements. After
204 explaining the WRC's mission and mitigation goals, Mr. McHenry stated that the cadmium issue
205 was a concern and that the WRC will assess the success of cadmium capping.
206
207 Mr. McHenry was complimented on his presentation (PowerPoint - unavailable for
208 attachment), and then Mr. Zarzecki asked if WRC provided comments to other agencies. Mr.
209 McHenry said WRC provides comments to DCM, DLR, and other agencies. Ms. Alsentzer
210 asked if the WRC also comments on the Draft EIS. Mr. McHenry stated that WRC can provide
211 comment on any stage of the EIS process, but after the EIS goes through the state
212 clearinghouse, the WRC will always provide comment.
213
214 Ms. Alsentzer explained PTRF mitigation goals, saying that PTRF has no mitigation
215 guidelines, but PTRF's policy is very much like Mr. McHenry's description of the WRC mitigation
216 goals. Ms. Jacobs added that PTRF believes avoidance and minimization are the first priority
217 and if compensatory mitigation is required it should be on-site and in-kind and preferably
218 restoration rather than creation, as creation projects often fail. She also stated that mitigation
219 ratios depend on the habitat type and type of mitigation. Mr. Lekson said that it was good that
220 PTRF attended the meetings and that they should be developing a position on mining
221 alternatives. Ms. Alsentzer replied that PTRF always seeks the least environmentally damaging
222 alternative, which at present, appears to be the mining block south of NC 33.
223
7 4/9/2004
224 Mr. Lekson began his presentation on the COE's mitigation policy, and began by stating
225 that PCS mining operations can be seen from space, illustrating the size of the environmental
226 impact. Mr. Lekson described the history of COE mitigation policy documents (Attachment 5).
227 When discussing the 6 February 1995 EPA/USACE Mitigation MOA, Mr. Lekson stated that
228 PCS needed to consider mitigation as soon as possible in the EIS process. He added that COE
229 mitigation guidance requires more baseline mitigation data than in the past. In discussing
230 mitigation banking, Mr. Lekson stated that many good mitigation banks exist because the
231 success requirements for mitigation banks are very stringent. Mr. Furness asked if there was a
232 master list of mitigation banks and Mr. Lekson said such a list could be found on the COE
233 website under mitigation.
234
235 When discussing the 7 November 2000 Federal Guidance on the Use of In-Lieu-Fee
236 Arrangements Mr. Lekson said that the party accepting the in-lieu payment fee is responsible for
237 the success of the mitigation site. In discussing the 24 December 2002 RGL 02-2 Guidance on
238 Compensatory Mitigation, which describes how mitigation is to be conducted, Mr. Lekson said
239 that new terms had been introduced and that the term rehabilitation refers to a type of
240 restoration equivalent to enhancement. After discussing SMART mitigation planning guidance,
241 Mr. Lekson said that the guidance would be very important for CZR when preparing a mitigation
242 plan. After finishing his presentation, Mr. Lekson stated that all mitigation information can be
243 found on the Corps Wilmington Districts' website.
244
245 Everyone complimented Mr. Lekson on his presentation, and he asked for questions.
246 Ms. Alsentzer asked how banking and in-lieu fee met the no net loss requirement. Mr. Lekson
247 explained that a mitigation bank restores a wetland and then debits are subtracted from the
248 wetland over time. Ms. Alsentzer said that she had a misunderstanding of banking, but now it
249 was clear. Mr. Lekson stated that existing wetlands are often contiguous to restored wetlands
250 and these pre-existing wetlands are often used for preservation credit.
251
252 Mr. Wicker explained that restoration prevents the resource from being lost over time.
253 Ms. Jacobs asked how far away the bank could be from the impact site. Mr. Lekson gave out a
254 map of state RUCs (Attachment 6) and stated that the bank must be within one digit of the HUC
255 away from the impact site. Mr. Lekson said that two banks have contacted him and are courting
256 PCS.
8 4/9/2004
257
258 Mr. Lekson stated that the COE uses the following mitigation ratios:
259 • Restoration 2:1
260 • Creation 3:1, but they may also use the EPA standard of 6:1
261 • Enhancement 4:1
262 • Preservation 10:1
263
264 Mr. Furness clarified that PCS has not contacted any mitigation banks. Mr. Smith said
265 that PCS would not investigate a bank until the team agreed the bank was acceptable.
266
267 Mr. Lekson said that mitigation has gone beyond the days of plugging ditches and
268 planting trees on prior converted cropland. Mr. Lekson said the preference of the COE was
269 Restoration, Preservation, and Banks, upfront. Mr. Lekson also stated the COE's preferences
270 included watershed corridor reconnection and restoration of headwaters. Mr. Lekson stated
271 preservation credit was available for reclamation areas and the mineral rights under South
272 Creek and Pamlico River. Mr. Sechler asked for an explanation of the last item. Mr. Lekson
273 said that giving up mineral rights under the river is tantamount to preservation. Mr. Moye replied
274 that he didn't agree because preservation refers to land ownership not mineral rights. Mr.
275 Lekson replied that he said it was tantamount not equal to preservation. He further explained
276 that if it were not for the agencies PCS could mine the Pamlico River. Mr. Moye said it is still a
277 leap. Mr. Steffens asked about the lease length and location and requested that PCS provide
278 details on the leasing process, because if the lease is a mitigation issue, such details will be
279 very important.
280
281 Lunch was called at 12:30
282
283 The meeting resumed at 1:35 at which time Mr. Smith began describing the alternatives
284 contained in the package given by CZR dated January 2004. Mr. Smith stated that he asked
285 Mr. Waters to draw a boundary that provided for maximum recovery while avoiding the
286 resources of interest; however, the alternatives should not necessarily be considered
287 practicable, because PCS needed a detailed mine plan for each alternative in order to
288 determine practicability. Mr. Smith also brought up the NCPC barge slip, which was
289 inadvertently not taken into account in the DCM avoidance map. He indicated that the barge
9 4/9/2004
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
slip is CAMA jurisdictional water. Mr. Smith also said that there was a discrepancy between the
current permit application boundary and the 7-1 state mine permit area which would be resolved
as well.
Mr. Smith showed the original permit application alternative, the current permit
application alternative, the DCM avoidance alternative, and the DWQ perennial stream
avoidance alternative, each within the NCPC mining block. Mr. Dorney said that an avoidance
of intermittent streams alternative should be developed as well. Mr. Smith said this would be
done, and then displayed the minimum pit width alternative that was based on Marston's
analysis. Mr. Dorney asked if the alternative assumed three draglines. Mr. Smith replied that it
did. Mr. Dorney then clarified that two draglines would mean a narrower minimum pit width and
one even less. Mr. Smith replied that this was true. Mr. Furness clarified that the Marston
report contained three pit widths: operational, efficient, and safe, and that the alternative shown
was based on the efficient width.
Mr. Smith then showed the maximum recovery alternative for the mining block south of
NC 33. Mr. Furness stated that mining engineers have determined that it was currently not
economically practicable to mine into the sand ridge, therefore the mine did not extend to the
west side of the block boundary except were utility support corridors were needed.
Mr. Smith then turned the meeting over to Mr. Cooper, who stated that he had little to
add to Mr. Smith's descriptions except to say that all streams on NCPC had been surveyed and
that surveys of Bonnerton streams and streams south of NC 33 are underway. He also said
that CAMA areas south of NC 33 and on NCPC are completed with the exception of the barge
slip.
Mr. Cooper said that the team needs to agree to the boundaries so that PCS can
consider developing more detailed mine plans. Ms. Fox asked if there would be an alternative
boundary that included intermittent streams and an alternative that included COE jurisdiction.
Mr. Cooper replied, "Yes". He further stated that there would be a difference between DWQ and
COE intermittent stream areas.
10 4/9/2004
322 Mr. Dorney asked if Wetland Areas of Special Concern (WASCS) could be added to
323 these alternatives or used to create as a separate alternative boundary. Mr. Cooper said that
324 this would be done after biotic community maps are updated. However, Mr. Cooper said these
325 highly detailed maps would take a while to complete due to the need to merge old and new data
326 into one GIS layer. Mr. Cooper said the stream maps would be presented as they became
327 available for each mining block.
328
329 Mr. Moye said that DCM accepts the CAMA jurisdictional lines as depicted (with the
330 inclusion of the barge slip). He said that DCM's approval does not last five years as with the
331 COE, but rather the approval applies to a single date. Mr. Smith asked how this will impact the
332 permitting process in the future. Mr. Moye said CAMA lines can be changed by storms and
333 other processes and, therefore, when mining is ready to begin the lines may need to be re-
334 evaluated. Mr. Smith asked if DCM would need to revisit the lines and Mr. Moye replied yes,
335 when necessary. However, he stated that it is likely that little modification will be required
336 because PCS will not be mining right up to the creek.
337
338 Mr. Zarzecki stated that the alternatives had to include buffers. Mr. Furness replied that
339 both the DCM and the DWQ perennial stream buffer requirements are included. Mr. Smith said
340 that a 75-foot buffer was used in the depicted figures. A 75-foot buffer assures the alternative
341 safely excludes buffer and set-back areas. Mr. Cooper stated that final maps presented to
342 DWQ and DCM for concurrence of their respective jurisdictional areas will depict actual
343 regulated areas, compared to the 75-foot area used to determine potential mining alternatives.
344
345 Mr. Wicker asked if one truly avoided impacts to the stream if you avoid the stream itself
346 but mine the surrounding area. He asked if the avoidance line meant jurisdictional stream
347 avoidance or stream impact avoidance. Mr. Cooper said that Dr. Skaggs' work would address
348 the impact of drainage basin reduction on streams. Mr. Dorney said that the DWQ perennial
349 stream avoidance alternative does avoid stream impacts. He stated that Dr. Skaggs
350 presentation suggested that these streams were fed by groundwater and surface flow was not
351 as important. Mr. Moye stated that the DCM avoidance line refers only to jurisdictional
352 avoidance and does not assume that impacts to the resource would not occur.
353
11 4/9/2004
354 Mr. Cooper addressed the intermittent stream avoidance boundary and explained that
355 such an alternative would leave little mining area. Mr. Zarzecki added that once wetlands were
356 added there would be even more impacts. Mr. Smith stated that they will also need to develop
357 a No Action alternative for each block. Mr. Lekson said this was required under NEPA.
358
359 Mr. Smith clarified that Mr. Dorney asked CZR to add a WASC areas to the alternatives
360 maps. Mr. Dorney said that was true. Mr. Lekson added that eventually there would be WASC
361 and wetland avoidance and minimization alternatives. Mr. Furness agreed.
362
363 Mr. Steffens asked if it would be useful to put each resource map and alternative on
364 mylars so they could be overlaid. Mr. Cooper said that would be possible. Mr. Lekson said that
365 the DWQ alternatives could include WASC and DCM areas. Mr. Smith asked if DWQ regulates
366 DCM areas, to which Mr. Cooper replied, "Yes". Mr. Steffens replied it is true for buffers not
367 streams.
368
369 Mr. Smith said that a mine plan for the DWQ perennial stream avoidance alternative for
370 the NCPC tract should be available by the next meeting. Mr. Smith stated that it may be a
371 problem if there are 15 or 20 alternatives that need to be narrowed down. Mr. Dorney agreed
372 and said that there are many permutations on the number of draglines. Also the northeast
373 section of NCPC may have a larger available mining area compared to the middle and southern
374 portion of the mining block. In the latter area fewer draglines may be used compared to the
375 northern portion. Mr. Smith said that the minimum operational pit width is based on a trip north
376 and a return south. Mr. Furness said that there are many permutations, but we need solid
377 alternatives. Mr. Lekson said NEPA and 404 require alternatives to be reasonable and
378 practicable and PCS must put a line on paper based on input from the team. Mr. Dorney said
379 that PCS can't mine between creeks on NCPC and that PCS can develop mine plans, and then
380 modifications can be made. Mr. Smith asked when in the EIS process will modifications be
381 made, and what boundary is acceptable for PCS to develop a mine plan. Mr. Lekson said what
382 is on paper now is acceptable. Mr. Moye said that he sees the process working in a stepwise
383 way in which PCS develops a mine plan for an alternative that completely avoids the resource
384 then the alternatives are modified as necessary, which is the minimization step. Any resulting
385 impacts will be mitigated. Mr. Smith said the current permit alternative boundary does not avoid
386 streams and CAMA areas. Mr. Lekson said that a mine plan will be made for the current
12 4/9/2004
387 alternatives. Mr. Dorney stated that he agreed with the current alternative boundaries and PCS
388 should proceed with developing mine plans.
389
390 Ms. Alsentzer asked why a COE avoidance boundary was not included. Mr. Lekson said
391 data collection has not reached that point. Mr. Zarzecki recommended that before PCS does a
392 mine plan for every alternative, they should do a mine plan for one of the alternatives and
393 submit it to the team for comment. Mr. Waters stated that he would start with the DWQ
394 perennial stream avoidance alternative. Mr. Smith stated that the mine plan for DWQ perennial
395 stream avoidance alternative should be similar to the mine plan for DCM avoidance alternative.
396 Mr. Smith agreed to this plan.
397
398 Mr. Dorney asked how long until a wetland map would be available. Mr. Cooper said he
399 would have a better estimate after some digital mapping was completed. However, he stated
400 that the process would be very detailed and time consuming because it required merging
401 wetland layers from ten years ago with current stream survey maps. Mr. Wicker asked about
402 the possibility of a preliminary map. Mr. Lekson said that most of the NCPC tract is wetland and
403 referenced maps from the old EIS.
404
405 Mr. Smith said that the mine plan is a predecessor to the economic modeling. PCS has
406 consulted COE counsel about how to look at the results of the economic model without
407 divulging confidential business information. Mr. Wicker stated that the group should avoid
408 economic modeling on each of several stepwise alternatives, but instead should only do
409 economic modeling on practicable alternatives that consider all the important environmental
410 variables. Mr. Furness replied that deciding on economic practicability is the COE's decision.
411 Mr. Smith asked about the intermittent stream avoidance boundary and questioned whether it
412 was even possible to develop a mine plan for such an alternative.
413
414 Ms. Alsentzer said that there were no economists in the group and that we should not be
415 considering economic issues. She stated that it was the team's job to minimize biological
416 impacts and for the COE to decide what is economically viable. Mr. Lekson said that the team
417 should discuss economic issues to have a better understanding of all the issues. Mr. Moye
418 stated that as a commenting agency he would remain on the team even if the project avoided all
419 CAMA jurisdiction. Ms. Alsentzer stated that she does not want the group to limit alternatives
13 4/9/2004
420 based on its economic viability. The team should be considering natural resources. Mr. Smith
421 replied that the team considered all phosphate reserves on the east coast and though the team
422 members are not economists, the team picked a project area boundary.
423
424 Mr. Wicker stated that it would be nice to develop a mine plan in conjunction with an
425 economic model so that viability could be assessed early on.
426
427 Mr. Moye said that the team has these meetings to explore every possibility even though
428 it takes significant time and money. Mr. Lekson stated that we don't want PCS to do mine plans
429 for alternatives they know they can't do. Mr. Waters said that they would look at each
430 alternative and determine if a mine plan is possible.
431
432 Mr. Smith said that he thanked the team members for driving from Raleigh and said that
433 the meeting had been very productive. The rest of the team agreed.
434
435 Mr. Lekson asked the team to give CZR their comments on the last meeting minutes.
436 Mr. Smith said that PCS would develop a mine plan for review and comments. He also stated
437 that PCS had a new plant manager, Richard Atwood, from Augusta, Georgia.
438
439 The meeting ended at 3:30.
440
441 The following figures were presented and discussed at the 28 January 2004 meeting:
442 • NCPC Block current permit boundary
443 • S. of Hwy 33 Block DCM Avoidance Boundary
444 • NCPC Block Original Permit Application Boundary
445 • NCPC Block DCM Avoidance Alternative Boundary
446 • NCPC Block DWQ Perennial Stream Avoidance Alternative Boundary
447 • NCPC Block Minimum Operational Width Alternative Boundary
448
449 These figures were sent to the permit evaluation team prior to the 28 January 2004
450 meeting. Alternative boundary figures were provided by Robert M. Chiles, P.E. Copies of
451 available mitigation information presented at the meeting are attached with these minutes and
452 listed below.
14 4/9/2004
453
454 Attachments:
455
456 1. Agenda PCS Phosphate Permit Team Meeting - January 28, 2004.
457 2. EPA Region 4 Mitigation Summary presented by Becky Fox.
458 3. Summary of Mitigation Provisions for Wetlands, Streams and Buffers Regulated by the
459 Division of Water Quality presented by John Dorney.
460 4. North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission - Policies for the Protection and
461 Restoration of Marine and Estuarine Resources and Environmental Permit Review and
462 Commenting (Adopted April 13, 1999) presented by David Moye.
463 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mitigation Policy presented by David Lekson.
464 6. Map of Hydrologic Unit Codes for Eastern North Carolina
15 4/9/2004
465 Distribution
Ms. Mary Alsentzer
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Becky Fox
Environmental Protection Agency
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, NC 28789
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. James M. Hudgens
CZR Incorporated
1061 East Indiantown Road
Suite 100
Jupiter, Florida 33477-5143
Mr. Charles Jones
NC Division of Coastal Management
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Scott Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David M. Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David McHenry
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Sean McKenna
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dr. David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Ms. Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Regulatory Section USEPA/EAB
Wetlands Management Division
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David Moye
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Jimmie Overton
NC Division of Water Quality
ESB Lab
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
16 4/9/2004
Mr. Richard Peed
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. William A. Schimming
Potash Corp.
Post Office Box 3320
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Ross Smith
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Walker
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Bob Zarzecki
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
17 4/9/2004
ATTACHMENT 1
JANUARY 28 AGENDA PCS PHOSPHATE PERMIT MEETING
CESAW-RG-W/Lekson
January 28, 2004
AGENDA PCS PHOSPHATE PERMIT TEAM MEETING
SUBJECT: AID 200110096 / PCS Phosphate mine advance, Beaufort County,
North Carolina.
10:00 -10:15 Opening remarks / Schedule next meeting / Old business
10:15 - Noon Mitigation Presentations
EPA DWQ DMF PTRF
USFWS DCM NCWRC USACE
NMFS DLR ED
Noon -1:00 Lunch
1:00 - 3:30 Alternatives Boundaries Review and Discussion
? Original Permit (Alt. 1)
? Current Permit (1A)
? NCPC - DWQ Per ennial Stream Avoidance
? NCPC - DCM Avoidance
? South of NC33 - DCM Avoidance
? Minimum Operational Width
3:30 Wrap-up
ATTACHMENT 2
EPA REGION 4 MITGATION POLICY SUMMARY
PRESENTED BY BECKY FOX
EPA REGION 4 MITIGATION SUMMARY
(Prepared for mitigation discussion at PCS Phosphate Jan 28, 2004 interagency meeting)
EPA Region 4 Mitigation Policy (1-16-01)
(http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/wetlands)
Highlights of Region 4 wetlands recommendations:
¦ Preference for in-kind, on-site
Out of kind may be allowed on case by case basis if resource agencies agree it is
environmentally preferable - will generally require higher ratios
If not onsite, policy calls for 11 digit HUC or defers to policies of state
concerning ecoregions, etc.
¦ Functional replacement of losses - if functional analysis not done following ratios
are a guide
Restoration 2:1
Enhancement 4:1
Creation 6:1
Preservation 10:1 to 60:1 generally stand alone not allowed, should be in
conjunction with restoration/enhancement
¦ Wetland mitigation for wetland impact
Stream mitigation for stream impact
¦ Perpetuity protection
Stream Mitigation
Stream Mitigation Guidelines - April 2003
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/Mitigation/stream mitigation.html
Joint interagency guidance for NC (Wilmington District Corps, DWQ, WRC, EPA,
NRCS)
Highlights:
¦ Based on Natural Channel Design techniques using reference reach channels.
¦ Mitigation activities - defined in guidance
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
• Relocations - chamiel moved according to natural chatuiel design and no net
linear loss of footage will generally not require additional mitigation.
¦ Determination of mitigation requirement -- 2 Step Process
1. Evaluate quality of stream being impacted - method for evaluation still being
developed - Corps website has interim evaluation sheet.
Poor to fair 1:1
Good 2:1
Excellent 3:1
So if impact is to 10001f of a "good" stream, mitigation requirement would be
20001f. This is then carried to Step 2
2. This step takes the requirement from Step 1 and incorporates the type of
mitigation activity (R, El, EII, P) and determines a final mitigation
requirement.
Multipliers Final requirement for 1000 if impact to good stream*
R 1.0 20001f
El 1.0 to 1.5 2000 to 30001f
Ell 1.5 to 2.5 3000 to 50001f
P 2.5 to 5.0 5000 to 10000 If
*Multiply the mitigation activity multiplier used by the mitigation
requirement from Step 1 to give the following linear foot requirement for
impact to 1000 if of good quality stream.
Mitigation Stream Selection Criteria
1. Be within one stream order of stream being impacted, i.e., if stream
impacted is 2nd order, mitigation can be 1St, 2"d or 3rd order.
2. Same stream habitat class as impacted stream , i.e., cold, cool or warm
3. Same 8 digit HUC and physiographic province and as close to site as
possible.
¦ Minimum buffer in CP is 50 feet both sides of stream.
¦ Stream mitigation should be for maximum level of improvement needed but
Rest/Enh should not be "over designed" to generate more credit
¦ Mitigation plan approved before impacts occur. Mitigation should be
implemented prior to or concurrent to project commencement.
¦ See guidance for monitoring requirements, success criteria and monitoring field
sheets.
ATTACHMENT 3
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION PROVISIONS AND MITIGATION TERMINOLOGY
REGULATED BY DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PRESENTED BY JOHN DORNEY
SUMMARY OF
MITIGATION PROVISIONS FOR
WETLANDS, STREAMS AND BUFFERS REGULATED BY THE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
January 28, 2004
1. IMPACTED WETLANDS
Avoidance and Minimization is satisfied
"No Practical Alternatives" is satisfied
Need 1:1 restoration or creation
In subbasin
Riparian versus non-riparian wetlands
Functional replacement - process underway to define and set up process. No
process in place now.
2. IMPACTED STREAM LENGTHS
Perennial only at 1:1 ratio today.
Intermittent - not required now by DWQ but policy will change.
See Joint Agency Guidelines
3. IMPACTED RIPARIAN BUFFERS
3:1 ratio for Zone 1 (first 30 feet) and 1.5:1 ratio for Zone 2 (outer 20 feet)
RESTORATION : 320 mature stems at 5 years of native hardwood @ 1:1 ratio of
square area
ENHANCEMENT : same @ 3:1 ratio of square area
DONATION OF REAL PROPERTY: see 15A NCAC 02B .0260 (8) a-d (9) a-g
for the multiple conditions of donation.
Can subtract buffers associated with stream mitigation to partially offset buffer
mitigation needs.
with NWPs, GP activities typically cause minimal impact on the aquatic environment.
Where authorized work exceeds the minimal impact threshold, mitigation may be
necessary to lessen effects on aquatic resources.
D. Letters of Permission: Letters of Permission (LOPs) are a type of permit issued
through an abbreviated processing procedure. LOPs include coordination with federal
and state fish and wildlife agencies as required by the FWCA and a public interest
evaluation. They do not require the publishing of an individual public notice. LOPS
apply only to Section 10 authorization in North Carolina.
E. 401 Water Quality Certification: When the District determines that a 404
Permit is required, a 401 Water Quality Certification is also required. The District
determines which type of permit is applicable for the project: an Individual Permit,
Nationwide, or Regional General Permit. An Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
is necessary if an Individual 404 Permit is required. For each Nationwide or Regional
General Permit, DWQ must either issue a matching General Certification, or it must issue
or waive an individual 401 Certification in order for the permit to be utilized. Once the
District has determined which type of GP is needed, the matching General Certification
can be reviewed on the DWQ Wetlands Unit web page
htty://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/certs.html . If written concurrence is required, then
a formal application and payment of the appropriate fee is needed for the 401 Water
Quality Certification.
4. TERMINOLOGY
? Compensatory Stream Mitigation - The restoration, enhancement, or, for streams of
national or state significance because of the resources they support, preservation of
streams and their associated floodplains for the purpose of compensating for
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable
avoidance and minimization has been achieved. Compensatory stream mitigation
may be required for impacts to perennial and intermittent streams and should be
designed to restore, enhance, and maintain stream uses that are adversely impacted by
authorized activities.
? Perennial Stream - A perennial stream has flowing water year-round during a typical
year. The water table is located above the streambed for most of the year.
Groundwater is the primary source of water for stream flow. Runoff from
precipitation is a supplemental source of water for stream flow. (65 FR 12898).
Perennial streams support a diverse aquatic community of organisms year round and
are typically the streams that support major fisheries.
? Intermittent Stream - An intermittent stream has flowing water during certain times
of the year, when ground water provides water for stream flow. During dry periods,
intermittent streams may not have flowing water. Runoff from precipitation is a
supplemental source of water for stream flow. (65 FR 12898). The biological
community of intermittent streams is composed of species that are aquatic during a
6
part of their life history or move to perennial water sources. For the purpose of
mitigation, intermittent streams will be treated as 1$` order streams.
? Ephemeral Stream - An ephemeral stream has flowing water only during and for a.
short duration after precipitation events in a typical year. Ephemeral streambeds are
located above the water table year-round. Groundwater is not a source of water for
the stream. Runoff from precipitation is the primary source of water for stream flow.
(65 FR 12897). Ephemeral streams typically support few aquatic organisms. When
aquatic organisms are found they typically have a very short aquatic life stage.
? Stable Stream - A stream which, over time (in the present climate), transports the
sediments and flows produced by its watershed in such a manner that the dimension,
pattern and profile are maintained without either aggrading or degrading (Rosgen,
1996).
? Channelized Stream - Stream that has been degraded (straightened) by human
activities. A channelized stream will generally have increased depth, increased width,
and a steeper profile, be disconnected from its floodplain and have a decreased
pattern or sinuosity.
? Ditches Acting as Streams - Ditches that intercept enough groundwater to have
either intermittent or perennial flow. These channels have enough flow to support
aquatic life and would be considered waters of US.
? Natural Channel Design - A geomorphologic approach to stream restoration based
on an understanding of the valley type, general watershed conditions, dimension,
pattern, profile, hydrology and sediment transport of natural, stable channels
(reference condition) and applying this understanding to the reconstruction of an
unstable channel.
? Stream Classification - Ordering or arranging fluvial systems into groups or sets
based on their similarities or relationships. A morphological classification system
categorizes a stream based on its physical and geomorphic characteristics. Rosgen
(1994) proposed a geomorphic classification system that is widely used in stream
restoration and mitigation. Classification allows for predicting the behavior of these
systems, extrapolating knowledge of one system to another, and provides a consistent
and reproducible frame of reference for communication among those interested in
these systems. Alternatively, for North Carolina streams, DWQ has a classification
system that is based on water quality standards. This system is a regulatory
convention for establishing water quality standards based on a stream's "best use".
(Use-support ratings are a method to analyze water quality information and to
determine whether the quality is sufficient to support the uses for which the
waterbody has been classified by DWQ. The word "use" refers to such activities as
swimming, fishing and water supply. All surface waters in the state have been
assigned this type of classification.)
7
? Stream Order - A method for classifying, or ordering, the hierarchy of natural
channels within a catchment. One of the most popular methods for assigning stream
orders was proposed by Strahler (1957). The uppermost channels in a catchment with
no upstream tributaries are first order downstream to their first confluence. A second
order stream is formed below the confluence of two first order streams. A third order
stream is formed by the confluence of 2 second-order streams and so on. The
confluence of a channel with another channel of lower order does not raise the order
of the stream below the confluence.
? Reference Reach/Condition - A stable stream reach or, in some instances,
condition, generally located in the same physiographic region (see Appendix III),
climatic region, and valley type as the project and serves as the blueprint for the
dimension, pattern, and profile of the-channel to be restored.
? Bankfull stage - The point at which water begins to overflow onto its floodplain.
This may or may not be at the top of the stream bank on entrenched streams.
Typically, the bankfull discharge recurrence interval is between one and two years. It
is this discharge that is most effective at moving sediment, forming and removing
bars, shaping meanders and generally doing work that results in the morphological
characteristics of channels. (Dunne and Leopold, 1978)
? Channel Dimension - The two-dimensional, cross sectional profile of a channel
taken at selected points on a reach, usually taken at riffle locations. Variables that are
commonly measured include width, depth, cross-sectional area, floodprone area and
entrenchment ratio. These variables are usually measured relative to the bankfull
stage.
? Channel Pattern - The sinuosity or meander geometry of a stream. Variables
commonly measured include sinuosity, meander wavelength, belt width, meander
width ratio and radius of curvature.
? Channel Profile -The longitudinal slope of a channel. Variables commonly
measured include water surface slope, pool-to-pool spacing, pool slope and riffle
slope.
? Flood-Prone Area - Floodplain width measured at an elevation corresponding to
twice the maximum bankfull depth. This area often correlates to an approximate 50-
year flood or less. (Rosgen, 1994)
o Stream Restoration - The process of converting an unstable, altered, or degraded
stream corridor, including adjacent riparian zone (buffers) and flood-prone areas, to
its natural stable condition considering recent and future watershed conditions. This
process should be based on a reference condition/reach for the valley type and
includes restoring the appropriate geomorphic dimension (cross-section), pattern
(sinuosity), and profile (channel slopes), as well as reestablishing the biological and
8
chemical integrity, including transport of the water and sediment produced by the
stream's watershed in order to achieve dynamic equilibriums.
? Stream Enhancement - Stream rehabilitation activities undertaken to improve water
quality or ecological function of a fluvial system. Enhancement activities generally
will include some activities that would be required for restoration. These activities
may include in-stream or stream-bank activities, but in total fall short of restoring one
or more of the geomorphic variables: dimension, pattern and profile. Any proposed
stream enhancement activity must demonstrate long-term stability.
? Enhancement Level I - Mitigation category that generally includes improvements to
the stream channel and riparian zone that restore dimension and profile. This
category may also include other appropriate practices that provide improved channel
stability, water quality and stream ecology. Work will be based on reference reach
information.
? Enhancement Level II - Mitigation category for activities that augment channel
stability, water quality and stream ecology in accordance with a reference condition
but fall short of restoring both dimension and profile. Examples of enhancement level
II activities may include stabilization of streambanks through sloping to restore the
appropriate dimension and vegetating a riparian zone that is protected from livestock
by fencing, construction of structures for the primary purpose of stream bank
stabilization and, when appropriate, reattaching a channel to an adjacent floodplain.
? Streambank Stabilization - The in-place stabilization of an eroding streambank.
Stabilization techniques, which include primarily natural materials, like root wads and
log crib structures, as well as sloping stream banks and revegetating the riparian zone
may be considered for mitigation. When streambank stabilization is proposed for
mitigation, the completed condition should be based on a reference condition. Stream
stabilization techniques that consist primarily of "hard" engineering, such as concrete
lined channels, rip rap, or gabions, while providing bank stabilization, will not be
considered for mitigation. An exception to this may be considered for short reaches
when mitigating for urban stream impacts.
? Stream Relocation - Movement of a stream to a new location to allow an authorized
project to be constructed in the stream's former location. In general, relocated
streams must reflect the dimension, pattern and profile indicated by a natural
reference reach/condition in order to be adequate compensation for the authorized
stream impact. Relocated streams will generally require wooded protected buffers of
sufficient width (see buffer section). Relocations resulting in a reduced channel
length will generally require mitigation.
'This definition of stream restoration describes a category of mitigation for use with
this guidance, rather than a generic definition of stream restoration.
slope according to a reference reach and, when appropriate, reattaching to an adjacent
floodplain.
? Stream Preservation - Protection of ecologically important streams, generally, in
perpetuity through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical mechanisms.
Preservation may include the protection of upland buffer areas adjacent to streams as
necessary to ensure protection or enhancement of the overall stream. Preservation
must protect both sides of the channel. Generally, stream preservation should be in
combination with restoration or enhancement activities. Under exceptional
circumstances, preservation may stand-alone where high value waters will be
protected or ecologically important waters may be subject to development pressure
(Refer to Section 6 regarding preservation criteria). Stand-alone preservation may
generally be most acceptable in mitigating impacts associated with nationwide and
regional general permits. Preservation may be utilized for relatively undisturbed
areas that require little or no enhancement activities other than protective measures.
Although minimal streambank revegetation may be required in some cases, if
mitigation requires extensive streambank revegetation, the mitigation will be
considered to be Enhancement Level Il.
? Vegetated Buffer - An upland or wetland area vegetated with native trees and shrubs
next to rivers, streams, lakes, or other open waters that separate aquatic habitats from
developed areas, including agricultural land.
? Stream Riparian Zone - A riparian zone is the area of vegetated land along each
side of a stream or river that includes, but is not limited to, the floodplain. The
quality of this terrestrial or wetland habitat varies depending on width and vegetation
growing there. As with vegetated buffers, functions of the riparian zone include
reducing floodwater velocity, filtering pollutants such as sediment, providing wildlife
cover and food, and shading the stream. The ability of the riparian zones to filter
pollutants that move to the stream from higher elevations results in this area being
referred to as a buffer zone. The riparian zone should be measured landward from the
bankfull elevation on each side of a stream or river.
? Biological Integrity - A measure of the state of health in aquatic communities. A
healthy aquatic community is a balanced community of organisms having a species
composition, diversity and functional organization comparable to that found in
natural (unimpaired) habitats in the region (Karr, et al. 1986).
? Best Management Practices (BMPs) - Policies, practices, procedures, or structures
implemented to mitigate the adverse environmental effects on surface water quality
resulting from development and other land disturbing activities. BMPs are
categorized as structural or non-structural. (See Section 10 for further BMP
discussion.)
? Conservation Easement - A legally binding, recorded instrument approved by the
District and DWQ offices of counsel to protect and preserve mitigation sites.
10
? 303 (d) Listed Waters - Section 303(d)(1) of the Clean Water Act, requires
states/tribes to provide a list of impaired waters to EPA every two years.
Waterbodies are designated as impaired by a state or tribe when existing pollution
controls are not stringent enough to attain and maintain the water quality standards
the state/tribe has set for them.
? Mountain Counties - Counties in which the WRC has Designated Public Mountain
Trout Waters and consists of the following: Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe,
Burke, Caldwell, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon,
Madison, McDowell, Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford, Stokes, Surry, Swain, Transylvania,
Watauga, Wilkes and Yancey.
5. MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
Final compensatory mitigation requirements of Department of the Army permits will be
commensurate with the type and amount of impact associated with the permitted activity.
Proposed compensatory mitigation will be coordinated with the appropriate review
agencies and final mitigation requirements will be determined on a project-by-project
basis. DWQ may also require stream mitigation for its 401 Certification. For the
purposes of defining compensatory stream mitigation options, this guidance establishes
four levels or types of mitigation (Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement Level
II and Preservation) that may be used to compensate for unavoidable impacts to
intermittent and perennial streams. These mitigation categories are defined in the
Terminology Section (Section 4) and do not directly relate to the Rosgen Priority Levels
of Stream Restoration.
11
ATTACHMENT 4
MITIGATION POLICY OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION
PRESENTED BY DAVID MOYE
NORTH CAROLINA MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION
POLICIES FOR THE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION OF
MARINE AND ESTUARINE RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT REVIEW AND COMMENTING
(ADOPTED APRIL 13,1999)
Issue
This document establishes the policies of the NC Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission)
regarding overall protection and restoration of the state=s marine and estuarine resources, and
for environmental permit review for proposed projects with the potential to adversely impact
those resources.
Background
The Amarine and estuarine resources= of North Carolina are defined broadly as A[a]11 fish,
except inland game fish, found in the Atlantic Ocean and in coastal fishing waters; all fisheries
based upon such fish; all uncultivated or undomesticated plant and animal life, other than
wildlife resources, inhabiting or dependent upon coastal fishing waters; and the entire ecology
supporting such fish, fisheries, and plant and animal life.- N.C.G.S. 3113-129(11). The
Commission is charged with the duty to A(m)anage, restore, develop, cultivate, conserve,
protect, and regulate the marine and estuarine resources within its jurisdiction.- N.C.G.S.
3143B-289.51(b)(1).
Two powers of the Commission constitute its primary authorities to effectuate that charge, and
thereby to protect and restore North Carolina marine and estuarine resources. First, the
Commission is specifically empowered A[t]o comment on and otherwise participate in the
determination of permit applications received by state agencies that may have an effect on the
marine and estuarine resources of the state.=-. N.C.G.S. 3143b-289.52(2)(9). Second, the
Commission has to power and duty to participate in the development, approval and
implementation of Coastal Habitat Protection Plans (Habitat Plans) for all Acritical fisheries
habitats.- N.C.G.S. 33143B-279.8; 143B-289.52(a)(11). The goal of such Habitat Plans is Athe
net long-term enhancement of coastal fisheries associated with each coastal habitat identified.-
N.C.G.S. 3142B-279.8. The Commission by unanimous vote has delegated its permit
commenting authority to its Habitat and Water Quality Standing Advisory Committee
(Committee) for the sake of efficiency and effectiveness. Likewise, the Commission has
designated the Committee as its participating body in the development of Habitat Plans, which
will then be approved and implemented by the full Commission. However, since the formal
preparation of Habitat Plans will not begin until at least 1 July 1999, it will be some time before
final Habitat Plans can be developed and implemented in order to help protect against the
impacts of coastal development and other human activities that adversely affect North
Carolina=s marine and estuarine resources. Consequently, the Commission=s environmental
permit review authority currently constitutes the primary vehicle by which the Commission can
effectuate its duty to protect and enhance the state=s marine and estuarine resources.
Discussion
There are two equally serious challenges to the Commission=s successfully maintaining and
enhancing North Carolina=s marine and estuarine resources: (1) the lack of necessary
information on the current nature and status of many of those resources; and (2) the lack of
obvious mechanisms to account'for and ameliorate the ever accumulating changes that impair
the functioning of critical fisheries habitats and otherwise adversely affect fisheries stocks. The
Commission cannot hope to comply with its statutory duties to protect and enhance marine and
estuarine resources without the abilities to identify and monitor changes in those resources, to
compensate for losses to critical fisheries habitats, and to enhance the overall functioning of the
altered coastal ecosystem.
Cumulative adverse resource impacts from both large and small scale human activities constitute
the principal impediment to the Commission=s ability to achieve its statutory mandate of
conserving, protecting and restoring North Carolina=s marine and estuarine resources. Many of
the activities that contribute to coastal resource destruction or impairment require no
environmental permits. As a consequence, their impacts are not accounted for, to the long-term
detriment of marine and estuarine resources. Even for permitted activities, the adverse impacts
on marine and estuarine resources may be individually minor, causing them to fall below the
thresholds that require compensatory mitigation under existing state policy.
However, where specific projects requiring environmental permits pose a threat to resources
under the Commission=s jurisdiction, it is reasonable to expect the permittee to contribute to
resolving both the informational and resource protection dilemmas faced by the Commission to
ensure that unacceptable impacts to marine and estuarine resources do not occur. A direct
precedent to such action by a state agency is found in the N.C. Division of Water Quality=s
current requirement that NPDES permittees conduct upstream and downstream monitoring as a
condition of their permits, to ensure that state water quality standards are not violated. In
addition, that agency has worked with dischargers in certain river basins to establish industry -
funded, integrated monitoring networks to track water quality trends in those waters.
2
Specific action by the Commission is required if it is to meet its charge of protecting and
restoring the state=s marine and estuarine resources. To the greatest extent possible, activities
that potentially threaten those resources must be prevented from contributing to overall resource
degradation. Instead, adequate measures must be implemented to ensure a long-term, net
improvement in the quantity and quality of fisheries stocks and critical fisheries habitats under
the Commission=s jurisdiction. To achieve that end, two goals must be attained. First, adequate
compensatory and resource enhancement measures must be incorporated into existing
environmental permitting processes. Second, resource restoration and enhancement programs
must be developed to offset losses from activities not requiring permits. The proposed policies
set out below are primarily intended to achieve the first of these goals.
Proposed Resource Protection and Environmental Permit Review and Commenting Policies
It shall be the policy of the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission that the overall goal of
its marine and estuarine resource protection and restoration programs is the long-term
enhancement of the extent, functioning and understanding of those resources.
Toward that end, in implementing the Commission=s permit commenting authority pursuant to
N.C.G.S. 3143B-289.52(a)(9), the Habitat and Water Quality Standing Advisory Committee
shall, to the fullest extent possible, ensure that state or federal permits for human activities that
potentially threaten North Carolina marine and estuarine resources:
(1) are conditioned on (a) the permittee=s avoidance of adverse impacts to marine and
estuarine resources to the maximum extent practicable; (b) the permittee=s minimization
of adverse impacts to those resources where avoidance is impracticable; and (c) the
permittee=s provision of compensatory mitigation for all reasonably foreseeable impacts
to marine and estuarine resources in the form of both informational mitigation (the
gathering of base-line resource data and/or prospective resource monitoring) and
resource mitigation (in kind, local replacement, restoration or enhancement of impacted
fish stocks or habitats); and
(2) result, at a minimum, in no net loss to coastal fisheries stocks, nor functional loss to
marine and estuarine habitats and ecosystems.
h&wq/policies
ATTACHMENT 5
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MITIGATION POLICY
PRESENTED BY DAVID LEKSON
Regulatory Authorities
• 13Nov86 - Regulatory Programs of the Corps of
Engineers; Final Rule [33 CFR 320.4(r)]
• 06Feb90 - MOA between the EPAIDA Concerning the
Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act
404(b)(1) Guidelines
23Aug93 - Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 93-2,
Establishment and Use of Wetland Mitigation Banks in the
Clean Water Action Section 404 Regulatory Program
3YA•
11 11
u x..,?... Regulatory Authorities (.vd)
• 28Nov95 - Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use
and Operation of Mitigation Banks, 60 FR 228
07Nov00 - Federal Guidance on the Use of In-Lieu-Fee
Arrangements for Compensatory Mitigation under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act
• 24Dec02 - RGL 02-2, Guidance on Compensatory
Mitigation Projects for Aquatic Resource Impacts Under
the Corps Regulatory Program
a,?
Iffil
23Aug93 RGL 93-2
arm
• Provided general guidelines for the
establishment and use of wetland mitigation
banks
• Generally, banks should be in place and
functioning before debiting is allowed
• Pemvttee remains responsible for ensuring that
the mitigation requirements are satisfied
28Nov95 Federal Mitigation
Banking Guidance
• Protocol for establishing mitigation banks
• Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT)
Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI)
• Sponsor's role / MBRT's role
• Threshold issues
- Credits (composition, release schedule)
- Geographic service area
- Financial assurances
- Final property disposition
- Accounting procedures
4M?
' 07Nov00 Federal Guidance On The
Use Of In-Lieu-Fee Arrangements
• Elaborates on the discussion of in-lieu-
fee mitigation in the 28Nov95 Federal
Mitigation Banking Guidance
- Outlines the circumstances where in-lieu-fee
mitigation may be used
1 24Dec02 RGL 02-2 Guidance on
Compensatory Mitigation (,.vd)
• Also addresses
• Buffers
• Uplands
• Riparian Areas
• Streams
• Financial Assurances
• Site Protection (conservation easements
preferred)
M NRC Guidelines
1. Consider hydrogeomorphic and ecological
landscape and climate
2. Adopt a dynamic landscape perspective
3. Restore or develop naturally variable hydrologic
conditions
4. Whenever possible, choose wetland restoration
over creation
5. Avoid over-engineered structures in the wetland's
design
LN
"AT Ce NRC Guidelines
N6tinww
w.i?w0Y?1u
6. Pay particular attention to planting elevation, depth,
soil type and seasonal timing
7. Provide appropriately heterogeneous topography
8. Pay attention to subsurface conditions, including soil and
sediment geochemistry and physics, groundwater quantity and
quality, and infaunal communities
9. Consider complications associated with creation or
restoration in disturbed sites
10. Conduct early monitoring as part of adaptive
management
ni..w
The Factors of Failure(?ed)
M
Mr:?wtcw• Lack of oversight during construction and planting
• Poorly written mitigation plan (not SMARZI
• Lack of commitment on the part of the project
sponsor
• Lack of communication between the project
sponsor and the regulatory agencies
What Are Success Criteria?
Easily measurable, external attributes that
are established prior to the development of a
mitigation site, and subsequently, must be
exhibited by the site indicating that the
specific mitigation goals have been met.
Establishing Success Criteria
• Site-specific water budget modeling
• Site-specific hydrogeomorphic conditions
• Structural requirements of the type of
wetland or stream proposed
• Reference Area / Reference Reach Analysis
• Scientific Literature
• Experience
a..a
Success??
dE?n
• Ultimately, mitigation success is dictated by
what the site can support!
• Therefore, site selection is key
mom The SMART Approach to
Developing a Mitigation Plan
1. Specific / Measurable / Attainable /
Reasonable / Trackable
2. Consider the Factors of Failure
3. Consider the "Foundation"
a. Goals
b. Functions
C. Structure
1ro?
«EMl.ww
Information Regarding
Wilmington's Regulatory Division
Mitigation Program
www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetiands/mitigatiopJindex.btrW
ATTACHMENT 6
MAP OF HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODES FOR EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA
WETLANDS/ 4 GROUP
APR 14 004
WATER
CZR INCORPORATED
HANDOUTS
FOR
PCS PHOSPHATE
EIS TEAM MEETING
20 APRIL 2004
Y, +►rBQNNERTON
w
NCPC
s M t r S
`� " -rte' �•� ,{ '�.i."
r a _
i
1 SOPJTH RT 33
r f

52GboP po" 1
O
: O
? O
W
O
O
J W
Cn O
OD O
NNlIO6? J(n(n?(,dN?000O"jm(n, L" N)
CCCCCCCCCm???r?r???r7????r?r?m?? C7
ZZZZZZZZZ?o;;;;???,;!>-F>n? - m
OOOOOOOOOZ ZZZZZZZZZZ-?-r)U)
O 0000000O002mc\
ZDVIm3SMOO ;u CUO
Z?Z M Z*M;um-I 1D AOZXDZFAFnOmKZrjm
I cA-n *MMM? Oomoom??o0-Z Z
r_OTO mCDD c_n, oT?D;if
MC?mZ 0 Z000Om pZA-O?WW?2Z (n C.D
iu)
ciDm?mmyw=O m l ?M ---I ;o M
Dr0 I?OAAI?? mW?10??mo>K C/)
mr.
m;m D?ZmDD X<Smzcco;oa: 1
?O-Ln1 O? M C) m LOm Al WC) LI
10 ?A O ImpO
D O c m * O O
K
C
D O AD p C)U)Om
Z ) C? CDmX
V) 0 m O Wm ' M
D W V)W m tDrr?Ull
m U)
m
;D
?C)
Om Wm J00 r)
O O U",
O W-f? 0
O ANC.)
m m
rrr
N NN P(n NN
IQ 0)N 0))O N -,J L4 (n 00-'?-'?0ON9) 0o?0
?Ut-PN00)NNWONO)ONOU-,JM(A O?(J)(4
oo0MM0(A-N0)NO- OO-NONNco (A00) n
00
O zl
Cn
O
0
Nm
N ?
A \
m m, m \ W P
vy:?.\.\. ± W ??\ m N m JIMI m
?' \?? ' U U }m J m J
(gym r U U` W W J N m m? \ m N m
p N V J O mN f ( n ?? l m
N\ ? O N m m m N ?i i? I N -. ? `? N
\ O m m m J?rV m N ,m
N J ?.w
tir N
m O N ? Um m N N m V" 77`1II ? \ y
m A \ m
J N m _ ? _ _
Ur J /
m ..? o.i D A m °° m m m ?I m m
m
\O O N m m
N i / m N
OD
m I m lm N
/ m m J m
J ? J O J NO N
A
m J V \? N\? m\ O f m m m N? t0 m m m m ?/ \ V l-? mm ,/„
J
m J N D O m m m
J O m
V m
? m
? / m? N N m
_ m m m
i A J
\\ m m
m m P `\ W N
J ? ,I N m
m J
?
co
m?
m
W A N m J m J m 1 m
_ m
N J W V m V/ m
N m
J J m m
' A m
r N Wm co
m
O N " ? m
O?L4 ° ° N
pCO -4a)n?WN Z Jm J NJr-? m
N?ptOWVmU?PWN?O _ N / ? m
N V co
m N
c
g?gm? g ccc c c c c c ? ? m
????r77?gffg?gmm? W m m
gmm
D n ri ?r?r-rrC0 rmr ??_0 0 -0?Z?rrir?r?r?r?r?r?-rri _.R z m J J J ?' m
m r D ?DDr D zZzzzZzZzY°?DDDD?D?D??w' T m m m m m m m N
?P•, m Z ZZZO Z 0000000002 ZZZZZZZZZZ -D?, m
N / m
a O 000 O O 0000000000ZmC\ ? N
p i'^ -I n ZDw-0K2
JN ?00 OWCOm;7W?: O m J m m
P UDl D OO? Z-MZ ?ZTIfXT10M-ziLdD Z?ZXAZfn(noxKz5m Z N J 0
TT MO f) O C Z °Ommpm?-i?n Z Z 3 N m?
oN O In z Lf) ?f;D r?O-0 O?mooD Nm°??mr? Z - m
\ O ZoO m?c°imZOZOOm ozA-20 mmm5- nuciv m m J J
O ° Z ? m O ?7Dmwm I-1 0 m 1 mzozoO ?Z ° v - m J
Z ?r 1 o?tn '
E D V) m o-Ih1D mDw 2 DD
CO 0 _0 ::j z > <m> O Ozm DUIZ?DD .X 2mZCmxW gyO
m N
v Doo moo r- ,0 o? m ?m A? °°>° O
v y ?Q X f p -4 ° mho m m J
O 10 Z O M 0 D O ?c m g 00K z _ m m
x m = OZ O z ? 0 A? 1 O n?Orm N N/ m J
rrl -Ti m D cuD, ° CO
> lo mDmm r fi N V m
o ''1
00o s 0 O M z m co U1 C In 0 X O m N 1
?wz W (? Tl m Z ° O D m O CE) u) ;o Z m ° J mr
NN?VIN A '? m m
m N
????yp m0 > V) U U)--A
N
UNOm_<< I' 1 m Y -'I co
mW UNI•f 9: C) j \
OD mm Wm J00 N
v m D O 00? LA -AL 0 M m L7 ? N O
N
a ? m
D m z rrr
z m -ri
N D
NN p) N NN?NNN C0
J p m O CT) O cngoo N0 ONOJpJ p
o { ?N.?p O0 NmNm?NJW(1i00-41 mmomm--•O??O p?
m N z •• Z OOWCn OD O0Ul0)j000W-PmNONOO-ONONNw(-4om jcClj
n
p
m m n
r
v o c- mT O
W o N
o O
? 0 Z
G
P M ?,
N
R
O A
Q
NJ
?
SIMPSON ?_ /WEST ST
CEMETERY BRTIE
T CEMETERY
?•? MATTHEWS
CHURCH MATTHEWS
CHURCH
CEMETERY CEMETERY
/

WEST MOORES
N.BONNERTON /
CEMETERY

\ CEMETET.
`
/
/
MCORES
1 •+
CHURCH
CEMETERY

( ? ".
. +
E
r CR
E
CEM--% /

1 /

LEGEND
/
J ---- -- -- - BONNERTON MINE DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
/
-- - - STREAM
• CEMETERY (5)
? ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE (4)

T CHURCH (0)

/
I cunroTm
CEMETERY /
J 1 i o +,soo s.wo
v /
` SCNF N iFEf
SITES, CEMETERIES, AND CH
I PCS PHOSPHATE MINE CONTINUATION I
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFC
CP#1745.67.17
rro• taus Ur
W01O"0M'' m Diann-are FIGURE 4

A
DRAFT
Review of Biotic Community and Wetland/Upland Mapping Process for the Bonnerton Mine
Development Block for PCS Phosphate Inc.
9 April 2004
1.0 Goal of Project
The objective of this mapping project was to create a detailed and accurate figure that
would combine both the biotic communities found within each mining block and the wetland
and upland boundaries approved by the Corps in 1991. This biotic community wetlands map
would also contain all flagged and surveyed lines including 404 Jurisdictional wetlands,
CAMA AEC areas, perennial and intermittent streams and ponds.
2.0 Protocol for Mapping
Biotic communities were mapped using 1998 georeferenced color-infrared aerial
photographs supplied by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), limited field truthing, and first-
hand knowledge of the Project Area. A stretched version of the 1996 FEIS Section 404
Jurisdictional Areas figure (Fig. 5-8) was then overlaid onto the draft biotic community map.
Upland/wetland boundaries, as approved and depicted in the 1996 FEIS were maintained in
the new mapping. Boundaries within wetland and uplands were revised and adjusted based
on recent timber and management practices, 1998 aerial photograph community signatures,
beaver activity, and active mine areas. Biotic communities were revised to reflect conditions
from 2001, using a January 2002 aerial photograph and timber harvest data from PCS
Phosphate.
3.0 Preliminary Biotic Community Definitions for PCS Phosphate EIS Mapping
Creeks. The creeks community includes all permanent water bodies that are connected to the
Pamlico River/South Creek estuarine system and are subject to wind tides.
Brackish marsh complex. This community includes all areas fringing the creek systems that
are dominated by herbaceous vegetation that is subject to, and tolerant of, flooding by
brackish water. Such plants include needle rush (Juncus roemerianus), cordgrass (Spartina
spp.), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), saw grass (Cladium jamaicense), cat-tail (Typha spp.),
rose mallow (Hibiscus moscheutos), and seashore mallow (Kosteletskya virginica). This
community type also includes shrubby transition zones between the marsh and adjacent
communities, provided they contain at least a regular scattering of the above-listed plants.
Common shrubs include wax myrtle (Cerothamnus ceriferus) and silverling (Baccharis
halimifolia).
Bottomland hardwood forest. Bottomland hardwood forests are swampy areas along creeks
and drainageways. They are subject to at least occasional flooding by water coming from
4/9/2004
CZR Incorporated
creek channels or overland flow. Bottomland hardwood forests may be dominated by any
combination of swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum), pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), red maple (Acer rubrum), American elm (Ulmus americana), laurel oak
(Quercus laurifolia), and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii).
Disturbed herbaceous assemblage. This community includes all areas dominated by
herbaceous vegetation that are not maintained on a regular basis and that typically are not
subject to widespread, long-term flooding or ponding. Coverage of woody plants is less than
50 percent. The plant community is dominated by non-marsh species. Typical marsh species
such as cat-tail, rushes (Juncus spp.), bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), and spike-rushes (Eleocharis
spp.) may be present, but do not dominate extensive areas of the community.
Disturbed shrub-scrub assemblage. This community consists of areas that have greater than
50 percent coverage of shrubs and/or saplings, but a sparse or absent tree canopy. The
dominant woody vegetation is less than 20 feet tall. A wide variety of woody species occurs
in this community. Recently timbered areas and young pine plantations may be included in
this community.
Pine plantation. Stands of planted pines (usually loblolly pine, Pinus taeda) comprise this
community. These stands can be distinguished from natural pine stands because the trees are
planted in rows, often on raised beds. Hardwoods normally are not an important part of the
canopy composition of pine plantations, although older plantations may have a well-
developed subcanopy of hardwood trees and shrubs. Young stands of planted pines that are
less than 20 feet tall are considered either disturbed herbaceous or disturbed shrub-scrub,
depending on the areal coverage of the pines.
Hardwood forest. This community consists of stands of hardwood forest that are not directly
associated with streams or drainageways. Tree species composition can vary greatly with
landscape position and management history, but generally is not dominated by typical swamp
species such as tupelo and cypress. Pines and other conifers comprise less than 30 percent of
the canopy.
Mixed pine-hardwood forest. This forest community may be predominantly hardwood or
predominantly pine, but it always includes at least 30 percent of the minority component in
the canopy. The minority component is scattered throughout the majority component; small
patches of one component that are readily apparent on the photo should be mapped
separately.
Pine forest. Pine forest consists of natural pine stands (usually loblolly pine) with less than
30 percent hardwoods in the canopy. Older pine stands may have a substantial subcanopy of
hardwoods, but are still considered pine forests if the canopy is more than 70 percent pine.
Pine plantations that have not been managed and have lost most of their row structure are
included in this community.
4/9/2004
CZR Incorporated
Pocosin-bay forest. This community is forested with some combination of pond pine (Pinus
serotina), red bay (Persea palustris), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), and/or loblolly bay
(Gordonia lasianthus). Loblolly pine, red maple, and other tree species may be codominant,
but by themselves are not diagnostic of this community. Pocosin-bay forest typically occurs
only on muck or mucky sand soils.
Sand ridge forest. Sand ridge forest occurs on relict sand dunes along the Suffolk Scarp.
Unless altered by timbering operations, this community is usually characterized by a canopy
dominated by longleaf pine. Pond pine and loblolly pine often are present, but generally do
not predominate over longleaf pine. Scrub oaks such as turkey oak (Quercus laevis), blue-
jack oak (Quercus incana), black jack oak (Quercus marilandica), post oak (Quercus
stellata), and southern red oak (Quercus falcata) often are present beneath the pines.
Composition of the herb and shrub/sapling layers varies greatly depending on the degree of
fire suppression and soil moisture, but some wiregrass (Aristida stricta) is usually present.
Ponds. This community consists of permanent bodies of standing fresh water. Most ponds
in the Project Area are man made, but any natural ponds that may exist are included in this
community. Canals with permanent water that are large enough to be mapped out and are
not channelized streams also are included in this community.
Non-vegetated/maintained areas. This community includes all buildings, parking lots,
maintained roads, railroads, maintained lawns, etc. This community does not include mowed
utility corridors (e.g., power lines) or unpaved roads that are used so infrequently that they
are dominated by herbaceous vegetation. Such corridors and roads are included in the
disturbed herbaceous assemblage community.
4.0 Wetland Areas of Special Concern
During the last PCS Phosphate EIS process, the regulatory and review agencies
developed the concept of Wetland Areas of Special Concern (WASC) as a way of evaluating
impacts to those jurisdictional wetlands that were perceived to be of particularly high value.
WASC areas in the Bonnerton Block were field - delineated and mapped as part of the last
EIS process. This existing mapping was incorporated into the current mapping of Bonnerton.
Recent aerial photography (1998), along with first-hand knowledge of the Project Area, was
used to remove any WASC areas that had been logged since the original mapping was
performed and to map areas that were added to the Bonnerton Area since the field
delineation. WASC areas are broken out by habitat type so that acreages can be calculated
and alternatives developed. WASC types include creeks/river, brackish marsh complex,
bottomland hardwood forest, pocosin-bay forest, and certain high-quality areas of wetland
hardwood forest and wetland pine forest.
Most of the WASC in the Bonnerton Block consists of wetland hardwood forest,
bottomland hardwood forest, and pocosin-bay forest that is scattered throughout the block.
The upper part of Porter Creek, which is considered Public Trust by NCDCM, extends into
this block.
3 4/9/2004
CZR Incorporated
Table 1. Biotic Communities and Wetland Types of the PCS Phosphate Project Area
Community Type
Wetland Upland
Creeks X
Brackish Marsh Complex X
Bottomland Hardwood Forest X
Disturbed Herbaceous Assemblage X X
Disturbed Shrub-Scrub Assemblage X X
Pine Plantation X X
Hardwood Forest X X
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest X X
Pine Forest X X
Pocosin-Bay Forest X
Sand Ridge Forest X X
Ponds X
4 4/9/2004
CZR Incorporated
Table 2. Wetland and Upland Biotic Communities Map Legend for PCS Phosphate
Community Type Map Legend
Public Trust Waters IA
Perennial Stream I B
Intermittent Stream 1C
Brackish Marsh Complex 2
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 3
Wetland Disturbed Herbaceous Assemblage 4
Wetland Disturbed Shrub-Scrub Assemblage 5
Wetland Pine Plantation 6
Wetland Hardwood Forest 7
Wetland Mixed-Pine Hardwood Forest 8
Wetland Pine Forest 9
Pocosin-Bay Forest 10
Wetland Sand Ridge Forest 11
Pond 12
Wetland Maintained Area 13
Upland Disturbed Herbaceous Assemblage 14
Upland Disturbed Shrub-Scrub Assemblage 15
Upland Pine Plantation 16
Upland Hardwood Forest 17
Upland Mixed-Pine Hardwood Forest 18
Upland Pine Forest 19
Upland Sand Ridge Forest 20
Upland Agricultural Land 21
Upland Non-Vegetated/Maintained Area 22
5 4/9/2004
CZR Incorporated
SUMMARY OUTLINE OF TASKS FOR
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OF DRAINAGE BASIN REDUCTION
TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE PCS PHOSPHATE EIS
OUTLINE PREPARED BY CZR BASED ON DR. R. W. SKAGGS PROPOSAL
DATED 2 MARCH 2004
1.0 Delineate watershed boundaries
1.1 CZR defines watersheds
1.2 Field visit by Skaggs, PCS, and CZR to determine how best to model the watershed (flow
directions and boundaries) and to collect information on properties of soils, vegetation, and
landscape features
1.2.1 NCPC-will utilize information obtained from existing data on Jacks, Tooley, and Huddles
Cut
1.2.2 South of 33 agricultural fields- will be examined with Dan Windley (retired SCS technician
with 60 years experience in Aurora) to document characteristics of drainage systems, crop
rotations, planting times, tillage practices, etc.
1.2.2.1 Suffolk Scarp- will be carefully examined and modeled as a contributing area
and source of base flow for much of year
1.2.3 Bonnerton-will duplicate NCPC approach, assuming hydrology is similar. If not, monitoring
may be necessary.
2.0 Determine soil properties, site parameters, watershed characteristics and vegetation inputs to DRAINMOD
based models
2.1 NCPC-most inputs can be determined from existing NCPC data collection and modeling efforts and
field examination of watersheds to be impacted. However, if soils are dissimilar in other NCPC
watersheds, it may be necessary to measure dominant soil properties.
2.2 South of 33-some data from Cypress Run collected but not analyzed. Complete suite of data will
be collected from Cypress Run and applied to estimate impacts on Bailey Creek and Broomfield
Swamp.
2.2.1 Suffolk Scarp-two approaches suggested: 1) model without flow measurements or 2) set
gauging stations in 1 or 2 ditches near scarp base (1- 2 years data collection) in
conjunction with careful watershed delineation.
2.3 Bonnerton-watersheds assumed to be similar to NCPC, but more analysis will clarify.
3.0 Conduct long-term (at least 50 years) DRAINMOD simulations for the watersheds pre- and post-mining
condition
3.1 NCPC-results from existing study used to define model inputs for other watersheds
3.2 South of 33- as DRAINMOD developed specifically for this land use and type, inputs will be
straightforward
3.3 Bonnerton-results from application of NCPC approach assumptions (or monitoring data if collected)
3.4 Post-mining condition-hydrology of affected watershed will be modeled to determine effects of
reduced outflow and compared to long-term average outflow modeled for unaffected watershed.
Conclusions will be drawn from the modeling about monthly, seasonal, and annual outflow.
13 April 2004
CESAW-RG-W/Lekson
January 28, 2004
AGENDA PCS PHOSPHATE PERMIT TEAM MEETING
SUBJECT: AID 200110096 / PCS Phosphate mine advance, Beaufort County,
North Carolina.
10:00-10:15 Opening remarks / Schedule next meeting / Old business
10:15 - Noon Mitigation Presentations
EPA DWQ DMF PTRF
USFWS DCM NCWRC USACE
NMFS DLR ED
Noon -1:00 Lunch
1:00 - 3:30 Alternatives Boundaries Review and Discussion
? Original Permit (Alt. 1)
? Current Permit (1A)
? NCPC - DWQ Perennial Stream Avoidance
? NCPC - DCM Avoidance
? South of NC33 - DCM Avoidance
? Minimum Operational Width
3:30 Wrap-up
111?-916 1/- iurl1 X;??o /-/-ol
?t m }}
1%Gu?LL-L?
rg 5
..._...
J t `(... _ T S... _ ...... " z 1...'__? z?..- 7 3 --- - _ __..........
wk. ?e e--..c 0 ?- N _D.W Q .... ........_ _..... .c ...
OZ
5
??'4? ? Nom-- ?vJ?• _???g ?'???-???(v. _ _ .?:.?.?. ?. ±a?
h'+CC-
2-51
_. y
1Lr? ?L-

'Zo
?y?? ? ? Esc
r?

olb7 pllo,.,?_ 31?A-

?GI?^f?^+?
r ? VY
J-4 )--

- C?,/? e"A 1-0-A
3 o?t
o2S
3 ?jov? 3?

EPA REGION 4 MITIGATION SUMMARY
(Prepared for mitigation discussion at PCS Phosphate Jan 28, 2004 interagency meeting)
EPA Region 4 Mitigation Policy (1-16-01)
(http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/wetlands)
Highlights of Region 4 wetlands recommendations:
¦ Preference for in-kind, on-site
Out of kind may be allowed on case by case basis if resource agencies agree it is
environmentally preferable - will generally require higher ratios
If not onsite, policy calls for 11 digit HUC or defers to policies of state
concerning ecoregions, etc.
¦ Functional replacement of losses - if functional analysis not done following ratios
are a guide
Restoration 2:1
Enhancement 4:1
Creation 6:1
Preservation 10:1 to 60:1 generally stand alone not allowed, should be in
conjunction with restoration/enhancement
¦ Wetland mitigation for wetland impact
Stream mitigation for stream impact
¦ Perpetuity protection
Stream Mitigation
Stream Mitigation Guidelines - April 2003
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/Mitigation/stream mitigation.html
Joint interagency guidance for NC (Wilmington District Corps, DWQ, WRC, EPA,
NRCS)
Highlights:
¦ Based on Natural Channel Design techniques using reference reach channels.
¦ Mitigation activities - defined in guidance
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
¦ Relocations -- channel moved according to natural channel design and no net
linear loss of footage will generally not require additional mitigation.
Determination of mitigation requirement -- 2 Step Process
1. Evaluate quality of stream being impacted - method for evaluation still being
developed - Corps website has interim evaluation sheet.
Poor to fair 1:1
Good 2:1
Excellent 3:1
So if impact is to 1000 if of a "good" stream, mitigation requirement would be
20001f. This is then carried to Step 2
2. This step takes the requirement from Step 1 and incorporates the type of
mitigation activity (R, EI, Ell, P) and determines a final mitigation
requirement.
Multipliers Final requirement for 10001f impact to good stream*
R 1.0 20001f
EI 1.0 to 1.5 2000 to 3000 if
Ell 1.5 to 2.5 3000 to 5000 if
P 2.5 to 5.0 5000 to 100001f
*Multiply the mitigation activity multiplier used by the mitigation
requirement from Step 1 to give the following linear foot requirement for
impact to 1000 if of good quality stream.
Mitigation Stream Selection Criteria
1. Be within one stream order of stream being impacted, i.e., if stream
impacted is 2nd order, mitigation can be 1St, 2nd or 3rd order.
2. Same stream habitat class as impacted stream, i.e., cold, cool or warm
3. Same 8 digit HUC and physiographic province and as close to site as
possible.
¦ Minimum buffer in CP is 50 feet both sides of stream.
¦ Stream mitigation should be for maximum level of improvement needed but
Rest/Enh should not be "over designed" to generate more credit
¦ Mitigation plan approved before impacts occur. Mitigation should be
implemented prior to or concurrent to project commencement.
¦ See guidance for monitoring requirements, success criteria and monitoring field
sheets.
NORTH CAROLINA MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION
POLICIES FOR THE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION OF
MARINE AND ESTUARINE RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT REVIEW AND COMMENTING
(ADOPTED APRIL 13,1999)
Issue
This document establishes the policies of the NC Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission)
regarding overall protection and restoration of the state=s marine and estuarine resources, and
for environmental permit review for proposed projects with the potential to adversely impact
those resources.
Background
The Amarine and estuarine resources= of North Carolina are defined-broadly as A[a]11 fish,
except inland game fish, found in the Atlantic Ocean and in coastal fishing waters; all fisheries
based upon such fish; all uncultivated or undomesticated plant and animal life, other than
wildlife resources, inhabiting or dependent upon coastal fishing waters; and the entire ecology
supporting such fish, fisheries, and plant and animal life.- N.C.G.S. 3113-129(11). The
Commission is charged with the duty to A(m)anage, restore, develop, cultivate, conserve,
protect, and regulate the marine and estuarine resources within its jurisdiction.- N.C.G.S.
3143B-289.51(b)(1).
Two powers of the Commission constitute its primary authorities to effectuate that charge, and
thereby to protect and restore North Carolina marine and estuarine resources. First, the
Commission is specifically empowered A[t]o comment on and otherwise participate in the
determination of permit applications received by state agencies that may have an effect on the
marine and estuarine resources of the state.- N.C.G.S. 3143b-289.52(2)(9). Second, the
Commission has to power and duty to participate in the development, approval and
implementation of Coastal Habitat Protection Plans (Habitat Plans) for all Acritical fisheries
habitats.- N.C.G.S. 33143B-279.8; 143B-289.52(a)(11). The goal of such Habitat Plans is Athe
net long-term enhancement of coastal fisheries associated with each coastal habitat identified..
N.C.G.S. 3142B-279.8. The Commission by unanimous vote has delegated its permit
commenting authority to its Habitat and Water Quality Standing Advisory Committee
(Committee) for the sake of efficiency and effectiveness. Likewise, the Commission has
designated the Committee as its participating body in the development of Habitat Plans, which
will then be approved and implemented by the full Commission. However, since the formal
preparation of Habitat Plans will not begin until at least 1 July 1999, it will be some time before
final Habitat Plans can be developed and implemented in order to help protect against the
impacts of coastal development and other human activities that adversely affect North
Carolina=s marine and estuarine resources. Consequently, the Commission=s environmental
permit review authority currently constitutes the primary vehicle by which the Commission can
effectuate its duty to protect and enhance the state=s marine and estuarine resources.
Discussion
There are two equally serious challenges to the Commission=s successfully maintaining and
enhancing North Carolina=s marine and estuarine resources: (1) the lack of necessary
information on the current nature and status of many of those resources; and (2) the lack of
obvious mechanisms to account for and ameliorate the ever accumulating changes that impair
the functioning of critical fisheries habitats and otherwise adversely affect fisheries stocks. The
Commission cannot hope to comply with its statutory duties to protect and enhance marine and
estuarine resources without the abilities to identify and monitor changes in those resources, to
compensate for losses to critical fisheries habitats, and to enhance the overall functioning of the
altered coastal ecosystem.
Cumulative adverse resource impacts from both large and small scale human activities constitute
the principal impediment to the Commission=s ability to achieve its statutory mandate of
conserving, protecting and restoring North Carolina=s marine and estuarine resources. Many of
the activities that contribute to coastal resource destruction or impairment require no
environmental permits. As a consequence, their impacts are not accounted for, to the long-term
detriment of marine and estuarine resources. Even for permitted activities, the adverse impacts
on marine and estuarine resources may be individually minor, causing them to fall below the
thresholds that require compensatory mitigation under existing state policy.
However, where specific projects requiring environmental permits pose a threat to resources
under the Commission=s jurisdiction, it is reasonable to expect the permittee to contribute to
resolving both the informational and resource protection dilemmas faced by the Commission to
ensure that unacceptable impacts to marine and estuarine resources do not occur. A direct
precedent to such action by a state agency is found in the N.C. Division of Water Quality=s
current requirement that NPDES permittees conduct upstream and downstream monitoring as a
condition of their permits, to ensure that state water quality standards are not violated. In
addition, that agency has worked with dischargers in certain river basins to establish industry -
funded, integrated monitoring networks to track water quality trends in those waters.
2
Specific action by the Commission is required if it is to meet its charge of protecting and
restoring the state=s marine and estuarine resources. To the greatest extent possible, activities
that potentially threaten those resources must be prevented from contributing to overall resource
degradation. Instead, adequate measures must be implemented to ensure a long-term, net
improvement in the quantity and quality of fisheries stocks and critical fisheries habitats under
the Commission=s jurisdiction. To achieve that end, two goals must be attained. First, adequate
compensatory and resource enhancement measures must be incorporated into existing
environmental permitting processes. Second, resource restoration and enhancement programs
must be developed to offset losses from activities not requiring permits. The proposed policies
set out below are primarily intended to achieve the first of these goals.
Proposed Resource Protection and Environmental Permit Review and Commenting Policies
It shall be the policy of the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission that the overall goal of
its marine and estuarine resource protection and restoration programs is the long-term
enhancement of the extent, functioning and understanding of those resources.
Toward that end, in implementing the Commission=s permit commenting authority pursuant to
N.C.G.S. 3143B-289.52(a)(9), the Habitat and Water Quality Standing Advisory Committee
shall, to the fullest extent possible, ensure that state or federal permits for human activities that
potentially threaten North Carolina marine and estuarine resources:
(1) are conditioned on (a) the permitttee=s avoidance of adverse impacts to marine and
estuarine resources to the maximum extent practicable; (b) the permiee=s minimization
of adverse impacts to those resources where avoidance is impracticable; and (c) the
permiee=s provision of compensatory mitigation for all reasonably foreseeable impacts
to marine and estuarine resources in the form of both informational mitigation (the
gathering of base-line resource data and/or prospective resource monitoring) and
resource mitigation (in kind, local replacement, restoration or enhancement of impacted
fish stocks or habitats); and
(2) result, at a minimum, in no net loss to coastal fisheries stocks, nor functional loss to
marine and estuarine habitats and ecosystems.
h&wq/policies
'°'
Regulatory Authorities
o(Enpim•n
13Nov86 - Regulatory Programs of the Corps of
Engineers; Final Rule [33 CFR 320.4(r)]
06Feb90 - MOA between the EPA/DA Concerning the
Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act
404(b)(1) Guidelines
23Aug93 - Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 93-2,
Establishment and Use of Wetland Mitigation Banks in the
Clean Water Action Section 404 Regulatory Program
iepao
U.-Yte,p. Regulator/ Authorities (cont'd)
of En0ln••n
viui..p•.orki
• 28Nov95 - Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use
and Operation of Mitigation Banks, 60 FR 228
07Nov00 - Federal Guidance on the Use of In-Lieu-Fee
Arrangements for Compensatory Mitigation under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act
24Dec02 - RGL 02-2, Guidance on Compensatory
Mitigation Projects for Aquatic Resource Impacts Under
the Corps Regulatory Program
i ep.e
33 CFR 320.4(r)
of EnpinNn
wmNpm °uM
Provides a general statement of mitigation policy which
applies to all Corps of Engineers regulatory authorities
covered by 33 CFR Parts 320-325. It is not a substitute for
the mitigation requirements necessary to ensure that a
permit action under Section 404 complies with the
404(b)(1) Guidelines.
• Consideration of mitigation will occur throughout the
permit application review process and includes avoiding,
minimizing, rectifying, reducing, or compensating for
resource losses.
zai..w
06Feb90 EPA/USACE
MUS.?.
Mitigation MOA
• Formalized the Sequencing Process
- Avoidance [230.10(a), 230.10(a)(3)]`
- Minimization [230.10(d)]
- Compensatory Mitigation
a 06Feb90 EPA/USACE
f Ergl
U_-"°° Mitigation MOA(.,,
w.:ipm owt+
- National goal of "No Net Loss" of wetlands
- On-site preferred over off-site
- In-kind preferred over out-of-kind
- Based on replacement of lost functions
- Restoration should be first option considered
- Preservation acceptable only in "exceptional
circumstances"
- Mitigation banking may be acceptable
xxxr,oa
23Aug93 RGL 93-2
U.p. MnY Cory.
of Enpln«n
YM+am owM
• Provided general guidelines for the
establishment and use of wetland mitigation
banks
• Generally, banks should be in place and
functioning before debiting is allowed
• Permittee remains responsible for ensuring that
the mitigation requirements are satisfied
28Nov95 Federal Miti ag tion
p.p.,?Y?•?.
Banking Guidance
• Protocol for establishing mitigation banks
Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT)
Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI)
Sponsor's role / MBRT's role
Threshold issues
- Credits (composition, release schedule)
- Geographic service area
- Financial assurances
- Final property disposition
- Accounting procedures
U 07Nov00 Federal Guidance On The
US. My Cory.
., Use Of In-Lieu-Fee Arrangements
'E°°`a?'•°p.,k.
• Elaborates on the discussion of in-lieu-
fee mitigation in the 28Nov95 Federal
Mitigation Banking Guidance
- Outlines the circumstances where in-lieu-fee
mitigation may be used
LO 24Dec02 RGL 02-2 Guidance on
°U.S -y C-
° i__ Compensatory Mitigation
• Supercedes RGL 01-1
• Established Mitigation Action Plan
(MAP)
• Incorporates National Research Council
(NRC) guidelines
'°°" 24Dec02 RGL 02-2 Guidance on
U.S.M Ye°ry•
•m"• Compensatory Mitigation (cnt,d)
• Promotes watershed and ecosystem approach
(must be described in the mitigation plan)
• Promotes use of functional assessments
• Redefines wetland project types
• Establishment (Creation)
• Restoration
• Re-establishment
• Rehabilitation
• Enhancement
• Protection/Maintenance (Preservation)
24Dec02 RGL 02-2 Guidance on
Compensatory Miti atgion (coned)
• Supports detailed mitigation plans
• Public notice may be issued
• Requires more baseline information; including quantitative
data on the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of
the aquatic resources at the impact and mitigation sites
• Site selection factors must be described
"Monitoring will be required for an adequate period of time,
normally 5 to 10 years..."
• Districts may take enforcement action even after the
identified monitoring period, if there has been a violation
24Dec02 RGL 02-2 Guidance on
Compensatory Mitigation (cont'd)
I Erpimm?
xxi:qa°oxy
• Also addresses
• Buffers
• Uplands
• Riparian Areas
• Streams
• Financial Assurances
• Site Protection (conservation easements
preferred)
a
u.=.N,n,c°,°. NRC Guidelines
of Eegim?n
vwepm a.uv+
1. Consider hydrogeomorphic and ecological
landscape and climate
2. Adopt a dynamic landscape perspective
3. Restore or develop naturally variable hydrologic
conditions
4. Whenever possible, choose wetland restoration
over creation
5. Avoid over-engineered structures in the wetland's
design
,
l:?o=?t
U.S-Yc.- NRC Guidelines
el Enpiman
wxvpm Mkt
6. Pay particular attention to planting elevation, depth,
soil type and seasonal timing
7. Provide appropriately heterogeneous topography
8. Pay attention to subsurface conditions, including soil and
sediment geochemistry and physics, groundwater quantity and
quality, and infaunal communities
9. Consider complications associated with creation or
restoration in disturbed sites
10. Conduct early monitoring as part of adaptive
management
INS Developing a SMART
U.p. NmY C•Ta
f Enpim.n
• ^? Mitigation Plan
All components must be:
1. Specific
2. Measurable
3. Attainable
4. Reasonable (practicable)
5. Trackable
m,.a
on ,°o a SMART
u.1-Ycn?• The Foundation
of ENI.-
"` of a Complete Mitigation Plan
1. Goals
2. Functions
3. Structure
.I.-
The Factors of Failure
of Enplm.n
rtunYyim N..k• Incorrect Elevation / Pattern-Profile-Dimension
• Inadequate provisions for drainage
• Erosion
• Human impacts
• Noxious plant species competition
• Herbivory
• Soil compaction
• No water budget modeling undertaken
• Changes in adjacent/upstream land use
The Factors of Failure(cont'd)
U.S. M y wM.
of En01n..n
wa.mpm owt,
• Lack of oversight during construction and planting
• Poorly written mitigation plan (not SMART)
• Lack of commitment on the part of the project
sponsor
• Lack of communication between the project
sponsor and the regulatory agencies
301
u.s. army c•m.
wa?e.•o?...
What Are Success Criteria?
Easily measurable, external attributes that
are established prior to the development of a
mitigation site, and subsequently, must be
exhibited by the site indicating that the
specific mitigation goals have been met.
e.s.-:°.'' Establishing Success Criteria
I E?SIn ww
• Site-specific water budget modeling
• Site-specific hydrogeomorphic conditions
• Structural requirements of the type of
wetland or stream proposed
• Reference Area / Reference Reach Analysis
• Scientific Literature
• Experience
aoo
V.S. AemY COrp Use of Reference Areas in Wetland
of E.g.-
""'° Mitigation - The Benefits
• All mitigation projects should include suitable
reference area(s)
• Useful for evaluation of structural components and
success criteria
• Assists with site selection and the assessment of
target functions
• Assists with interpreting climatic variations
(drought, etc.)
3-
U.S. Army C, Use of Reference Areas in Wetland
el Enpmen
Mitigation - The Challenges
• Human Impacts (ditching, high grading, upstream effects)
• Hydrogeomorphic site differences
• Successional stage differences
• Adjacent land use differences
• Access issues
• Time
a
U.S.-Yc- Monitoring
E glmon
W+mMamas1e1. Goals
2. Functions
3. Structure

p.s.Amy?e?• Success??
of Enpinwn
vnimbm wnnn
• Ultimately, mitigation success is dictated by
what the site can support!
• Therefore, site selection is key
` The SMART Approach to
U.S. Army C•rp•
I E', Developing a Mitigation Plan
1. Specific / Measurable / Attainable /
Reasonable / Trackable
2. Consider the Factors of Failure
3. Consider the "Foundation"
a. Goals
b. Functions
c. Structure
ON
U.S. Army cery?
o?En?lmosvcr
Information Regarding
Wilmington's Regulatory Division
Mitigation Program
www.saw.usace.an-ny.mil/wetlands/mitigation/index.btml
d ',149 I • at??'r'?,o ! ? ? k?\ I y
. #,.' ?'"?? /•' 1`11, cI ?a..,,S' ? <??'? ?r':'??????••? 1 ,
t ,.r,;•,V:. ? ? > \ 1 1 `?:??:?,?';? "'t.:l?:??•.f3? ? ?:?.., 1t li (c'!, ?'t ,'? "
I?,?j..:•r• •'?1'..P:-?l i'1?1 ?.t I Il•'? .z?;.1?::,??.:'a;.;;.:;, ?i.?.R a??) ?:1, ..??-:??. •? ? Ir '"? ^?
'41••.:1:'.;' ?-? r-.?11.,.,•?\ J. ? •:'?` ? 4: 'y?;': ,'; ?ti?7?1 , '??'j , :,? ?? ??'?'"`-.''? ? t•? ?'
i '• . r ?,- : -,tJ A,Y ,r i ?•. 6%' '' ? !S .?? . ? rav.`i U" •;-? ` `+,• ? ,( `
-Vol
N ? oa ::'f'? ? 1-lOj . !-' J t J . -ti•' i'? l ?nri• 1 p? ..,. a `?.?s'' ?' ! ° T ) t
° ? -tom _/ ! '^:'•'? ? So .• ?!;.•... '?•. 'r
?y- -r('\' +t}i-'?? jtY iJ .? /I?? - •?: t4J % ??,-'-z.',' /1•:•' N 1^??, _si•?°j'r? ? tV?r?•i, ?f `I i
.n? I 1? rj' ,y w, era- `??• i *! ,.T`L-%1"•1? ?f. `?• '?•?re1? J?,I
:l'??, i'I.a`rt l;`J' llj?c'?i• .titer ••- _ _ -l?? • •,?r}:- .. ????„?_ ?b? ? r
!I 1 Yt`1\ 5. ^t `4 O'•' f ^11 ro ' ?11)l l? .1?8 '?\
)t ' „?'f 1 ? -) •{' ??' ? >?-7 _?.0?_ f J_?..?? t t( ? ? r©j ! ? •r?q-? °z '.1, ?.,?' ?1 irytrt''?J1??. ??_ ?•y?y. >
ilt
.d j?/ . r'? wo ? l ? ? ? C ? , ? Zo'° ?t "I :fr ? T,? ?._i• •.1'a;:? ? '::: 1
p-ii. ? R,I ` :?o (.Y rl !„%?': s''.r`U ?.t,fjh `If=?'' Z. 13?''? ?, ? #~ ;z;.`'.;t? • '; ! t!
zc
Yi 1?r _<., of ?•?i=K
,:lti b?]• ,1>??,'?;%O ? .? >,. dQil w•t L ..? ` ? ?t Z" ? ?? h a '.?7 "`r)--"y, _? 11-/ (y? i?? lJ_',??.
t'J'.r ?.2,. f j"-le1 \?l, ? ? ? ,} ??Iar ??S''. ' .? -Ua ? ? ?)? ---?- ? n?' '7•-?<> .. ?-_'??=.?+ '` t?
_i :'? r / Y !? ,l }(?'•. I1 ^?r ?!
4 4
ur
;
xxs-
'-etc t _4, ?,'!%?•? ?(t? _z ? ?` yi ??? jj"??z• "i ..t '\ r?,. ? ' ?7?, -.?, •I? ,?,>` si ?? 1 i e ?'
:10
m l -!,. ,'' f ? _ :1 m ,rte r::. ?•.
_ "i' f??"? t p 1z •? ' ,' f,•: oN. r ' ! ,` 0+.+ o:'., j,%,, rf k' `1. , +
_ ?k„ u € ?'! 1 -) ?# (,1? ? ?... f":/1 '??`. 1 ! J`' , ° •? ? ,?,/j 4?r ?o k' ? ?? ??l t ? ?r? .F .• , ? m i
)::j Z?,- . ? •I.,? ?'?; -,?-???,z•:`?• ;`1?: [ ° 1 ?} ' ? is-? ?I,-? i ,
r `
v.. ( 7 ,!' T, F` I i • :.r •lh.,'?/?< .V ),tign ryr.• •'?Y":;,
s -?r' i'1,
. . ,?? ?J ?; ?s ,e?? ,j ?r+ - !" t•_, ?,_ult?r??/:?'',.;Y?.?vy. tj ?S j/ '- O•?a dd :'fj ?q?
i'1' ?'-?J' Y. ?,t '1. ?^._r ? ?,? m r r( t©\ .? r? -/?. ?`??•l.>? •!) _PV' 'i' '?,+n :l ??:d S_P?(°I ??, ?• j`j?O.,t,, fr {?. _
`lk'?r/ eei 1 ` { \ ?''/fFL I?.?jrfr• ?/ • •? t ??_ \?1'•' Jt'Y '••tr A%` `I>•
~ r \ l? ^?? O m<:• ..l' GIl \: i, .\ • / ) r0'% -'
:{ <o a? ?_? eft' \• ^ tt?? f ! i{ -t?
r ? ^.: t -z I FBI t J / i ?? f { Y'
t ???, FN,
?` f Ir111•-'S .1/JI '? t:n? ,r? ``{ `r) ¢il?*? ?S °, J K 1 1?/!i( = Z? >e~
r"
F'-1 _vl6i• c .N?.
'?`T.:r_?r_: A _t---1-. W J?r?r . r . ?? \ .?i rl !`•l o •la U?`6-f ?t ?>•J?•yi1 "`':?? ?.:..y;\? , p
i ,( (j•, :?? , ?-.?:j t?l, .: ? ? ' w ,? .o ,`Y _,,."f ' :? ? .? r r? J q '"??`/
'?1'lY, ` : r )?' fI' t: '`?i Jam, / ,j?? i' i '^>' "mut`.iP yri< f?lr?. ?•,.yY?(/
1-4. J? ??? -tl-i-??. _'•s y. r1 i ..d" ` '?'° ?i?". .:,.:1 \, ,F -.d J /
O? i
I r ["?; or v/
f .?N , p ; )`•k.'_ 4.rt?=, ?ol`?)?:??'' , "11? ??\.???,; r=ri.l ;,a?., ?: ?' t?<;?- ..:a._?"

SUMMARY OF
MITIGATION PROVISIONS FOR
WETLANDS, STREAMS AND BUFFERS REGULATED BY THE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
January 28, 2004
1. IMPACTED WETLANDS
Avoidance and Minimization is satisfied
"No Practical Alternatives" is satisfied
Need 1:1 restoration or creation
In subbasin
Riparian versus non-riparian wetlands
Functional replacement - process underway to define and set up process. No
process in place now.
2. IMPACTED STREAM LENGTHS
Perennial only at 1:1 ratio today.
Intermittent - not required now by DWQ but policy will change.
See Joint Agency Guidelines
3. IMPACTED RIPARIAN BUFFERS
3:1 ratio for Zone 1 (first 30 feet) and 1.5:1 ratio for Zone 2 (outer 20 feet)
RESTORATION : 320 mature stems at 5 years of native hardwood @ 1:1 ratio of
square area
ENHANCEMENT : same @ 3:1 ratio of square area
DONATION OF REAL PROPERTY: see 15A NCAC 02B.0260 (8) a-d (9) a-g
for the multiple conditions of donation.
Can subtract buffers associated with stream mitigation to partially offset buffer
mitigation needs.
with NWPs, GP activities typically cause minimal impact on the aquatic environment.
Where authorized work exceeds the minimal impact threshold, mitigation may be
necessary to lessen effects on aquatic resources.
D. Letters of Permission: Letters of Permission (LOPs) are a type of permit issued
through an abbreviated processing procedure. LOPs include coordination with federal
and state fish and wildlife agencies as required by the FWCA and a public interest
evaluation. They do not require the publishing of an individual public notice. LOPs
apply only to Section 10 authorization in North Carolina.
E. 401 Water Quality Certification: When the District determines that a 404
Permit is required, a 401Water Quality Certification is also required. The District
determines which type of permit is applicable for the project: an Individual Permit,
Nationwide, or Regional General Permit. An Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
is necessary if an Individual 404 Permit is required. For each Nationwide or Regional
General Permit, DWQ must either issue a matching General Certification, or it must issue
or waive an individual 401 Certification in order for the permit-to be utilized. Once the
District has determined which type of GP is needed, the matching General Certification
can be reviewed on the DWQ Wetlands Unit web -page
h=://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/certs.htrnl . If written concurrence is required, then
a formal application and payment of the appropriate fee is needed for the 401 Water
Quality Certification.
4. TERMINOLOGY
? Compensatory Stream Mitigation - The restoration, enhancement, or, for streams of
national or state significance because of the resources they support, preservation of
streams and their associated floodplains for the purpose of compensating for
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable
avoidance and minimization has been achieved. Compensatory stream mitigation
may be required for impacts to perennial and intermittent streams and should be
designed to restore, enhance, and maintain stream uses that are adversely impacted by
authorized activities.
? Perennial Stream - A perennial stream has flowing water year-round during a typical
year. The water table is located above the streambed for most of the year.
Groundwater is the primary source of water for stream flow. Runoff from
precipitation is a supplemental source of water for stream flow. (65 FR 12898).
Perennial streams support a diverse aquatic community of organisms year round and
are typically the streams that support major fisheries.
? Intermittent Stream - An intermittent stream has flowing water during certain times
of the year, when ground water provides water for stream flow. During dry periods,
intermittent streams may not have flowing water. Runoff from precipitation is a
supplemental source of water for stream flow. (65 FR 12898). The biological
community of intermittent streams is composed of species that are aquatic during a
6
part of their life history or move to perennial water sources. For the purpose of
mitigation, intermittent streams will be treated as 1" order streams.
? Ephemeral Stream - An ephemeral stream has flowing water only during and for a
short duration after precipitation events in a typical year. Ephemeral streambeds are
located above the water table year-round. Groundwater is not a source of water for
the stream. Runoff from precipitation is the primary source of water for stream flow.
(65 FR 12897). Ephemeral streams typically support few aquatic organisms. When
aquatic organisms are found they typically have a very short aquatic life stage.
? Stable Stream - A stream which, over time (in the present climate), transports the
sediments and flows produced by its watershed in such a manner that the dimension,
pattern and profile are maintained without either aggrading or degrading (Rosgen,
1996).
? Channelized Stream - Stream that has been degraded (straightened) by human
activities. A channelized stream will generally have increased depth, increased width,
and a steeper profile, be disconnected from its floodplain and have a decreased
pattern or sinuosity.
? Ditches Acting as Streams - Ditches that intercept enough groundwater to have
either intermittent or perennial flow. These channels have enough flow to support
aquatic life and would be considered waters of US.
? Natural Channel Design - A geomorphologic approach to stream restoration based
on an understanding of the valley type, general watershed conditions, dimension,
pattern, profile, hydrology and sediment transport of natural, stable channels
(reference condition) and applying this understanding to the reconstruction of an
unstable channel.
? Stream Classification - Ordering or arranging fluvial systems into groups or sets
based on their similarities or relationships. A morphological classification system
categorizes a stream based on its physical and geomorphic characteristics. Rosgen
(1994) proposed a geomorphic classification system that is widely used in stream
restoration and mitigation. Classification allows for predicting the behavior of these
systems, extrapolating knowledge of one system to another, and provides a consistent
and reproducible frame of reference for communication among those interested in
these systems. Alternatively, for North Carolina streams, DWQ has a classification
system that is based on water quality standards. This system is a regulatory
convention for establishing water quality standards based on a stream's "best use".
(Use-support ratings are a method to analyze water quality information and to
determine whether the quality is sufficient to support the uses for which the
waterbody has been classified by DWQ. The word "use" refers to such activities as
swimming, fishing and water supply. All surface waters in the state have been
assigned this type of classification.)
7
? Stream Order A method for classifying, or ordering, the hierarchy of natural
channels within a catchment. One of the most popular methods for assigning stream
orders was proposed by Strahler (1957). The uppermost channels in a catchment with
no upstream tributaries are first order downstream to their first confluence. A second
order stream is formed below the confluence of two first order streams. A third order
stream is formed by the confluence of 2 second-order streams and so on. The
confluence of a channel with another channel of lower order does not raise the order
of the stream below the confluence.
? Reference Reach/Condition - A stable stream reach or, in some instances,
condition, generally located in the same physiographic region (see Appendix III),
climatic region, and valley type as the project and serves as the blueprint for the
dimension, pattern, and profile of the-channel to be restored.
? Bankfull stage - The point at which water begins to overflow onto its floodplain.
This may or may not be at the top of the stream bank on entrenched streams.
Typically, the bankfull discharge recurrence interval is between one and two years. It
is this discharge that is most effective at moving sediment, forming and removing
bars, shaping meanders and generally doing work that results in the morphological
characteristics of channels. (Dunne and Leopold, 1978)
? Channel Dimension - The two-dimensional, cross sectional profile of a channel
taken at selected points on a reach, usually taken at riffle locations. Variables that are
commonly measured include width, depth, cross-sectional area, floodprone area and
entrenchment ratio. These variables are usually measured relative to the bankfull
stage.
? Channel Pattern - The sinuosity or meander geometry of a stream. Variables
commonly measured include sinuosity, meander wavelength, belt width, meander
width ratio and radius of curvature.
? Channel Profile -The longitudinal slope of a channel. Variables commonly
measured include water surface slope, pool-to-pool spacing, pool slope and riffle
slope.
? Flood-Prone Area - Floodplain width measured at an elevation corresponding to
twice the maximum bankfull depth. This area often correlates to an approximate 50-
year flood or less. (Rosgen, 1994)
? Stream Restoration - The process of converting an unstable, altered, or degraded
stream corridor, including adjacent riparian zone (buffers) and flood-prone areas, to
its natural stable condition considering recent and future watershed conditions. This
process should be based on a reference condition/reach for the valley type and
includes restoring the appropriate geomorphic dimension (cross-section), pattern
(sinuosity), and profile (channel slopes), as well as reestablishing the biological and
8
chemical integrity, including transport of the water and sediment produced by the
stream's watershed in order to achieve dynamic equilibriums.
? Stream Enhancement - Stream rehabilitation activities undertaken to improve water
quality or ecological function of a fluvial system. Enhancement activities generally
will include some activities that would be required for restoration. These activities
may include in-stream or stream-bank activities, but in total fall short of restoring one
or more of the geomorphic variables: dimension, pattern and profile. Any proposed
stream enhancement activity must demonstrate long-term stability.
? Enhancement Level I - Mitigation category that generally includes improvements to
the stream channel and riparian zone that restore dimension and profile. This
category may also include other appropriate practices that provide improved channel
stability, water quality and stream ecology. Work will be based on reference reach
information.
? Enhancement Level H - Mitigation category for activities that augment channel
stability, water quality and stream ecology in accordance with a reference condition
but fall short of restoring both dimension and profile. Examples of enhancement level
II activities may include stabilization of streambanks through sloping to restore the
appropriate dimension and vegetating a riparian zone that is protected from livestock
by fencing, construction of structures for the primary purpose of stream bank
stabilization and, when appropriate, reattaching a channel to an adjacent floodplain.
? Streambank Stabilization - The in-place stabilization of an eroding streambank.
Stabilization techniques, which include primarily natural materials, like root wads and
log crib structures, as well as sloping stream banks and revegetating the riparian zone
may be considered for mitigation. When streambank stabilization is proposed for
mitigation, the completed condition should be based on a reference condition. Stream
stabilization techniques that consist primarily of "hard" engineering, such as concrete
lined channels, rip rap, or gabions, while providing bank stabilization, will not be
considered for mitigation. An exception to this may be considered for short reaches
when mitigating for urban stream impacts.
? Stream Relocation - Movement of a stream to a new location to allow an authorized
project to be constructed in the stream's former location. In general, relocated
streams must reflect the dimension, pattern and profile indicated by a natural
reference reach/condition in order to be adequate compensation for the authorized
stream impact. Relocated streams will generally require wooded protected buffers of
sufficient width (see buffer section). Relocations resulting in a reduced channel
length will generally require mitigation.
'This definition of stream restoration describes a category of mitigation for use with -
this guidance, rather than a generic definition of stream restoration.
slope according to a reference reach and, when appropriate, reattaching to an adjacent
floodplain.
9
? Stream Preservation - Protection of ecologically important streams, generally, in
perpetuity through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical mechanisms.
Preservation may include the protection of upland buffer areas adjacent to streams as
necessary to ensure protection or enhancement of the overall stream. Preservation
must protect both sides of the channel. Generally, stream preservation should be in
combination with restoration or enhancement activities. Under exceptional
circumstances, preservation may stand-alone where high value waters will be
protected or ecologically important waters may be subject to development pressure
(Refer to Section 6 regarding preservation criteria). Stand-alone preservation may
generally be most acceptable in mitigating impacts associated with nationwide and
regional general permits. Preservation may be utilized for relatively undisturbed
areas that require little or no enhancement activities other than protective measures.
Although minimal streambank revegetation may be required in some cases, if
mitigation requires extensive streambank revegetation, the mitigation will be
considered to be Enhancement Level II.
? Vegetated Buffer - An upland or wetland area vegetated with native trees and shrubs
next to rivers, streams, lakes, or other open waters that separate aquatic habitats from
developed areas, including agricultural land.
? Stream Riparian Zone - A riparian zone is the area of vegetated land along each
side of a stream or river that includes, but is not limited to, the floodplain. The
quality of this terrestrial or wetland habitat varies depending on width and vegetation
growing there. As with vegetated buffers, functions of the riparian zone include
reducing floodwater velocity, filtering pollutants such as sediment, providing wildlife
cover and food, and shading the stream. The ability of the riparian zones to filter
pollutants that move to the stream from higher elevations results in this area being
referred to as a buffer zone. The riparian zone should be measured landward from the
bankfull elevation on each side of a stream or river.
? Biological Integrity - A measure of the state of health in aquatic communities. A
healthy aquatic community is a balanced community of organisms having a species
composition, diversity and functional organization comparable to that found in
natural (unimpaired) habitats in the region (Karr, et al. 1986).
? Best Management Practices (BMPs) - Policies, practices, procedures, or structures
implemented to mitigate the adverse environmental effects on surface water quality
resulting from development and other land disturbing activities. BMPs are
categorized as structural or non-structural. (See Section 10 for-further BMP
discussion.)
? Conservation Easement - A legally binding, recorded instrument approved by the
District and DWQ offices of counsel to protect and preserve mitigation sites.
10
v 303 (d) Listed Waters - Section 303(d)(1) of the Clean Water Act, requires
states/tribes to provide a list of impaired waters to EPA every two years.
Waterbodies are designated as impaired by a state or tribe when existing pollution
controls are not stringent enough to attain and maintain the water quality standards
the state/tribe has set for them.
v Mountain Counties - Counties in which the WRC has Designated Public Mountain
Trout Waters and consists of the following: Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe,
Burke, Caldwell, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon,
Madison, McDowell, Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford, Stokes, Surry, Swain, Transylvania,
Watauga, Wilkes and Yancey.
5. MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
Final compensatory mitigation requirements of Department of the Army permits will be
commensurate with the type and amount of impact associated with the permitted activity.
Proposed compensatory mitigation will be coordinated with the appropriate review
agencies and final mitigation requirements will be determined on a project-by-project
basis. DWQ may also require stream mitigation for its 401 Certification. For the
purposes of defining compensatory stream mitigation options, this guidance establishes
four levels or types of mitigation (Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement Level
II and Preservation) that may be used to compensate for unavoidable impacts to
intermittent and perennial streams. These mitigation categories are defined in the
Terminology Section (Section 4) and do not directly relate to the Rosgen Priority Levels
of Stream Restoration.
11
Apo
?a
ZR 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
INCORPORATED WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1725
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
MEMORANDUM
TO: See Distribution
FROM: Samuel Cooper, Mark Grippo
z? #)-I,,
DATE: 20 January 2004
RE: Minutes of the 24 September 2003 meeting for the PCS Phosphate Mine
Continuation permit application review.
1 The tenth meeting for the review of PCS Phosphate's Mine Continuation permit
2 application was held at the Washington Regional Office of the North Carolina Department
3 of Environment and Natural Resources on 24 September 2003. The following people were
4 in attendance:
5
6 David Lekson - USACE
7 Mary Alsentzer - PTRF
8 Tom Walker - USACE
9 Pat McClain - NCDLR
10 Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate
11 Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate
12 Bill Schimming - Potash Corp.
20
13 Tom Steffens - NCDWQ
14 Bob Zarzecki - NCDWQ
15 David Moye - NCDCM
16 Mike Wicker - USFWS
17 Samuel Cooper - CZR Incorporated
18 Mark Grippo - CZR Incorporated
19 Becky Fox - USEPA (via tele-conference)
21 Meeting began at 10:05 a.m. Mr. Lekson began by introducing Becky Fox of the
22 Environmental Protection Agency who was sitting in for Kathy Matthews. Ms. Fox stated
23 she was interim. Everyone present introduced themselves.
24
25 Mr. Lekson brought up the minutes from the 26 August meeting and stated that he
26 had not reviewed the minutes from that meeting. Mr. Lekson asked Mr. Cooper if he had
27 distributed the meeting minutes, to which Mr. Cooper replied, "yes".
1
1061 EAST INDIANTOWN ROAD • SUITE 100 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5143
TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • [e-mail] • www.CZRINC.com
28
29 Mr. Lekson scheduled the next meeting. He asked Mr. Furness how much
30 information would be available for the next meeting. Mr. Cooper said two months was
31 enough time to finish NCPC and Bonnerton, but South of NC 33 would take longer because
32 of the expanded area. The meeting was scheduled for Wednesday 3 December at 10:00.
33 Ms. Fox said that they would have Kathy Mathews' permanent replacement by then.
34
35 Mr. Lekson stated that the presentations by Marston and Dr. Skaggs from the 26
36 August meeting would be attached at the end of the 26 August meeting minutes. Mr.
37 Smith said that Dr. Skaggs presentation had been given to the Division of Water Quality in
38 Raleigh. Mr. Cooper said that copies of the presentations were available.
39
40 Mr. Wicker made some comments on the minutes from the 26 August meeting.
41 Referring to his comments in the minutes, he stated that in lines 313-315 where he is
42 summarizing Dr. Skaggs' presentation up to that point, the term "catchment basin" should
43 be used instead of "rainfall". He also stated that he would be willing to provide PCS, for
44 no charge, technical assistance on the use of discharge water for wetland creation.
45
46 Mr. Lekson said that the line numbering in the minutes appeared to be different in
47 copies sent to the team members. Mr. Cooper proposed to send hard copies to everyone
48 so that there would be no confusion with the line numbers.
49
50 Mr. Lekson presented the CZR document entitled PCS Phosphate EIS Reference
51 Information for Discussion of Alternatives. The document presented the most current
52 jurisdictional areas and alternatives available for each mining block. He asked Mr. Cooper
53 to send a copy to Ms. Fox and to go over the document with the group. Mr. Cooper
54 proceeded to discuss Alternatives presented on page 1 of the document. Mr. Cooper said
55 that the figures displayed alternatives on USGS topographic maps and aerial photos for
56 reference, but future figures may exclude reference maps when presenting/comparing
57 alternatives. Mr. Moye asked if unnamed tributaries could be given labeled names on the
58 USGS topographic map. Mr. Cooper replied, "yes". Mr. Cooper said that Alternatives with
2
59 an asterisk had corresponding figures in the document. Mr. Cooper said that the DWQ
60 stream limits/buffers in the Bonnerton mining block were based on the upper stream limits
61 located by CZR with GPS. With regard to the block South of NC 33, Mr. Cooper stated
62 that 3 points (upper limits of CAMA jurisdiction) needed to be reviewed and surveyed.
63
64 Mr. Steffens asked about the upper limit of a stream in the South of NC 33 block
65 near Idalia. Mr. Cooper said that he thought the stream went to the road (SR 1425). Mr.
66 Furness said that they would double check the exact location of the block boundary in this
67 area. Mr. Moye said that the headwaters of South Creek should be identified as out of the
68 block boundary. Ms. Fox asked if the figure included intermittent streams and Mr. Cooper
69 replied, "yes". Upper limits of a stream shown on the topographic map in the vicinity of
70 Prescott also needed to be confirmed. The Prescott boundary also needed to be checked.
71
72 Mr. Cooper gave an update on the work needed to complete each alternative
73 boundary. Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Smith to comment on Alternative 1 (additional land to
74 Alternative E boundary) for the NCPC block. Mr. Smith briefly described the alternative
75 and said he would need assurance that the return pass outside of Alternative E would be
76 permitted or they would miss resources. Mr. Smith also indicated that they were soon to
77 be in an area where timing was critical for proceeding with planning with this alternative.
78
79 Mr. Cooper explained stream determinations on NCPC and said that not all survey
80 data were available for CAMA areas. He stated that the topographic map would be helpful
81 in evaluating the alternative. Mr. Cooper stated that the DWQ stream surveys were
82 complete and CAMA data would be added when available. He asked if DWQ was
83 confident making an alternative boundary based only on stream delineation. Mr. Cooper
84 was asked to overlay the upper stream limits on the existing avoidance boundary. Mr.
85 Cooper said this could be done in a few days. Mr. Cooper stated that he believed the
86 original avoidance boundary was based more on wetlands than streams. Mr. Furness said
87 that that was not necessarily true.
88
3
89 Mr. Smith asked if DWQ could draw an avoidance boundary based on stream origin
90 and buffer areas so that PCS could develop a mine plan. Mr. Steffens and Mr. Lekson
91 indicated they could. Mr. Smith asked if PCS could meet with DWQ individually to develop
92 an alternative boundary, or did the whole group need to be present. Mr. Lekson said he
93 wanted everyone to be involved, but asked the group what they thought. Mr. Smith said
94 DWQ could draw a boundary and then PCS could send it to the group for review. Mr.
95 Moye said that they wouldn't be changing a DWQ boundary anyway so he didn't see the
96 problem if PCS met with DWQ individually to draw the boundary. Mr. Cooper asked if the
97 same was true of the other alternative boundaries such as CAMA. Mr. Moye said that the
98 CAMA boundary would be similar to that of the last EIS and they would identify resources,
99 and PCS would draw a line of avoidance. Mr. Lekson said that it was up to PCS to make
100 the avoidance line. Mr. Smith replied that PCS would develop a mine plan based on the
101 avoidance line drawn by the agencies.
102
103 Mr. Lekson said that CAMA areas were not surveyed under the original permit
104 except for the upper most point of CAMA jurisdiction. Widths and sinuosity were not
105 surveyed. He stated these areas were also COE jurisdiction and Wetland Areas of Special
106 Concern (WASC) and therefore a different looking map will be produced. He said that the
107 WASC would require another plat and that WASC must be mapped for the other blocks as
108 well.
109
110 Mr. Moye asked about CAMA areas in the Bonnerton and South of NC 33 mining
111 blocks. Mr. Cooper replied that only Porter Creek needed to be surveyed and only a few
112 points in the block South of NC 33. Mr. Furness stated that the survey of NCPC was
113 almost finished, and only Huddy Gut remained.
114
115 Mr. Furness asked if the stream and buffer avoidance boundary and the old NCDWQ
116 avoidance boundary from the last permit process could be combined into one alternative.
117 Mr. Lekson asked if the original permit application was based on DWQ avoidance. Mr.
118 Furness replied, "no". DWQ members stated that their avoidance line may not avoid all
119 stream origins.
4
120
121 In reference to the block South of NC 33, Mr. Cooper said that the survey is
122 underway and that there are only two CAMA public trust points within the mining blocks.
123 He then stated that he needed DWQ to confirm their jurisdictional steam limits. DWQ
124 indicated they would need to discuss the option of combining the stream origin and buffer
125 avoidance alternative and the DWQ high quality avoidance boundary.
126
127 Mr. Furness said that it will take time to delineate the expanded block South of NC
128 33 and asked Mr. Cooper if CZR could provide a biotic community map for all but the
129 expanded area, to which Mr. Cooper said, "yes". Mr. Furness asked if it was worth it to
130 provide such a map. Mr. Lekson said that seeps from the expanded area may be
131 connected to the eastern portion of the tract. Mr. Furness said it probably was not
132 worthwhile to provide an incomplete biotic community map of the block South of NC 33.
133 Mr. Lekson asked how much of the expanded area had been delineated. Mr. Cooper said
134 10 percent, and then said that the delineation would not delay alternative development for
135 the NCPC or Bonnerton blocks. Mr. Smith said that PCS had to develop a mine plan for
136 each alternative so it was fine if the alternatives were developed sequentially.
137
138 Mr. Cooper said that the mine plan PCS developed for the block South of NC 33
139 added "spurs: to the expanded area and asked Mr. Smith to comment. Mr. Smith said that
140 the mine plan stops at the toe of the scarp because their mining planners do not
141 recommend mining into the scarp and that the spurs represent areas needed for utilities
142 and mining related facilities. Mr. Smith said that access to the current permit area required
143 the expansion of the block boundary to the north. Mr. Furness said there were five spurs
144 that needed to be added to the boundary. Mr. Moye asked if the spurs could be adjusted
145 so that they would not affect residences. Mr. Smith said that residences were not a
146 problem because the potentially affected residences were owned or likely acquirable by
147 PCS. Mr. Lekson said that that the boundary line was drawn in deference to houses and
148 that if the houses were not really a problem then the team may need to re-think the
149 boundary. Mr. Smith said the boundary was based on avoiding existing residences and
5
150 structures along the scarp. Mr. Lekson said he would have to think about adjusting the
151 boundary.
152
153 Mr. Steffens said that the boundary looks like it is located in a swamp. Mr. Smith said
154 PCS would take that into account based on the DWQ avoidance areas and that PCS may
155 move the boundary based on DWQ calls. Mr. Lekson commented that PCS should provide
156 specific information on which residences are to be avoided. Mr. Smith indicated that PCS
157 and CZR would evaluate residence information along the scarp.
158
159 Mr. Steffens said that perhaps the boundary could be changed if PCS doesn't intend
160 to mine past the mine plan boundary. Mr. Lekson said, "no", PCS needed to delineate the
161 expanded area and said that PCS needed to examine the five spurs. Mr. Lekson said that
162 he would reopen the Edward tract if the houses on the scarp were acquirable or owned by
163 PCS. Mr. Moye responded that from what he knew about the west side of 306, the
164 residences would probably have to be avoided, whereas the east side of 306 is mainly
165 uninhabited structures.
166
167 Mr. Wicker said that in the decision matrix the economic analysis will reduce
168 alternatives. Redefining block boundaries changes the economic analysis and therefore the
169 new spurs on the western boundary are good because the boundary is more realistic. The
170 spurs will allow a more legitimate economic model. Mr. Lekson said that CZR should
171 increase the delineation area to include the bump outs and that Mr. Smith needed to get
172 information on the houses. Mr. Lekson added that we should have gotten the information
173 on the availability of the houses before the team agreed on the new boundary. Mr.
174 Schimming said that the mine engineers can try to change the boundary to avoid the spurs.
175 Mr. Lekson asked Mr. Smith to include his entire team when developing future mine plans.
176
177 Ms. Alsentzer said that the group needed to avoid this problem by getting maps
178 before the meeting and if the maps are incomplete we need to move the meeting to a later
179 date. Mr. Lekson agreed that three or four weeks between agency meetings may not have
6
180 been enough time to prepare and distribute information for the group to evaluate prior to
181 the meeting.
182
183 Mr. Cooper continued to describe the figures in the document. Referring to the
184 Bonnerton mine block Mr. Steffens noted that there was a stream above SR 1942 that did
185 not appear to be surveyed on the stream survey figures. Mr. Cooper replied that CZR
186 would look into it and said that there are streams on the topographic map that were not
187 claimed as jurisdictional in the field.
188
189 Referring to the maximum planned recovery alternative for Bonnerton, Mr. Lekson
190 asked if the utility corridor fit in the Bonnerton block boundary. Mr. Smith replied that it
191 does.
192
193 Mr. Cooper summed up by saying the provided reference information/document
194 served to update team members and new survey information would be incorporated as it
195 becomes available.
196
197 Mr. Lekson called for lunch at 12:00.
198
199 The meeting resumed at 1:00 p.m. During a discussion of the DWQ avoidance line
200 the DWQ team members stated that the DWQ jurisdiction line is subject to buffer
201 protection rules and that a DWQ avoidance line may be lower than a DWQ/404 line. Mr.
202 Moye replied that he was confused on why the DWQ avoidance line would move into the
203 buffer area. Mr. Moye stated that, for DCM, and avoidance line refers to avoidance of
204 jurisdictional areas and it sounded like the DWQ avoidance line was not based on the same
205 principle. Mr. Steffens replied that the DWQ avoidance line means the line that DWQ can
206 live with. Mr. Moye responded that once DWQ line moves out of its jurisdiction, the line
207 needs to be submitted to the group for discussion and that this could not be done in a one
208 on one meeting as was discussed before lunch. Mr. Zarzecki said that he assumed that the
209 original DWQ avoidance line was going to be generated by DWQ alone and not a product
210 of a group decision. Mr. Moye responded that the current EIS process was different.
7
211
212 Ms. Fox asked if the avoidance line would include intermittent streams, to which
213 Mr. Zarzecki replied that it was difficult to say.
214
215 Mr. Lekson said that he understood Mr. Moye's concern and that if the DWQ's
216 avoidance line ended up in CAMA or 404 jurisdictions then it needed to be considered by
217 the group. Mr. Furness asked if PCS can get agency boundaries and then generate a
218 alternative line for group discussion. Mr. Lekson asked PCS if they could draw a line
219 around the upper limits of streams and produce a mine plan based on that information. Mr.
220 Furness said they could try, but with all the headwaters he was not sure if they could
221 produce a mine plan. Mr. Furness said that the term DWQ minimization line was a better
222 term than avoidance line.
223
224 At this point the agencies representatives began to talk among themselves.
225
226 Mr. Lekson said that the DWQ line is a stream line not a wetland line. Mr. Zarzecki
227 said that there could be a 401, CAMA, and stream avoidance line. Mr. Lekson said that
228 the team needed to be clear in describing the thought process used in alternative
229 development. Mr. Furness said that the terminology was the problem. For example, one
230 alternative has been called the wetland areas of special concern (WASC) avoidance
231 alternative, yet WASCs were impossible to avoid. He stated that the alternative name
232 should be changed to WASC minimization line. Mr. Furness asked DWQ if they could
233 create a line that they could live with and they replied, "yes".
234
235 Mr. Overton said that the term "avoidance" was used because in the last EIS those
236 areas had to be avoided for the permit. Now it seems that we want to base the
237 alternatives on jurisdictional avoidance.
238
239 Mr. Lekson turned the discussion to mitigation and said that PCS would have to
240 look at mitigation cost in their economic analysis. Mr. Lekson stated that in North Carolina
241 there were three mitigation options: project specific, mitigation banks, and in-lieu fee. Mr.
8
242 Lekson stated he wanted to brainstorm on mitigation options under these categories (see
243 Attachment 1).
244
245 When stream mitigation was discussed Ms. Fox said that you must consider quality
246 of streams and what you do for mitigation. She also stated that you must get linear feet
247 of streams once surveyed. Mr. Lekson asked Ms. Fox if linear feet needed to be broken
248 down into swamp or tidal estuary. Mr. Lekson said that this was a permit question
249 because the permit will require exact footage. Mr. Wicker said that we may have to
250 measure linear feet from the mouth upstream to its limit. Mr. Lekson agreed. Mr. Wicker
251 said that the Corps of Engineers mitigation guidelines needed to be followed. Ms. Fox said
252 stream quality should also be considered because this influences the amount of mitigation.
253
254 Mr. Lekson said that he received a call regarding the potential use and availability of
255 mitigation banking options in vicinity of the Great Dismal Swamp. Mr. Wicker said that Mr.
256 McHenry had mentioned Weyerhaeuser property for sale off the Pungo River and that this
257 area had many tidal creeks.
258
259 Mr. Lekson noted that the majority of the mitigation options were preservation and
260 that preservation would be an important component of the mitigation plan. Mr. Wicker
261 stated that the USFWS was skeptical of WRP mitigation options. Mr. Lekson said that,
262 although he agreed, we should stick to the brainstorming and discuss WRP later. Mr.
263 Lekson asked about available mitigation acreage at the Parker Farm. Mr. Cooper said that
264 there was about 200 acres of preservation, 150 acres of enhancement, less than 20 acres
265 of creation and the rest was restoration. Mr. Zarzecki asked if PCS wanted to impact
266 stream buffers and Mr. Furness replied, "yes". Mr. Zarzecki stated that preservation is not
267 an option under buffer rules, only restoration and enhancement are allowed.
268
269 Mr. Smith asked agencies if they had any suggestions regarding mitigation. Mr.
270 Wicker responded that the use of mine depressurization water could be put to beneficial
271 use. Mr. Moye stated that once you get to CAMA jurisdictional areas, DCM's definition of
272 acceptable mitigation is very strict and that the rules for mitigation vary with area. Mr.
9
273 Smith said he would like to discuss use of mining water. Mr. Wicker said that mining
274 water would be a good source of potential mitigation that could be used to enhance
275 aquatic productivity in the area. Mr. Smith said that Mr. Sechler had brought up the
276 possibility of stream creation to extend the headwater areas of some creeks. Mr. Steffens
277 said that 78 million gallons a day is a lot of water and alternatives that make use of this
278 water should be developed. Mr. Zarzecki said that DWQ could donate property to WRP for
279 buffer mitigation.
280
281 Mr. Lekson asked the group if agencies should give presentations on mitigation.
282 Mr. Smith said that would be helpful.
283
284 Ms. Alsentzer asked if "Eagle" is using our bought rights to use the water. Mr.
285 Smith said that they have the option, but we do not know how much they will use at this
286 time. Ms. Alsentzer replied that Eagle may use it all. Mr. Lekson indicated that could be a
287 problem. Mr. Lekson also said that the water supply will only last the life of the project.
288 Ms. Alsentzer asked how much water is required for potential mitigation use. Mr. Wicker
289 said, "the more water the better", as there is a direct correlation between the amount of
290 water and production. Mr. Smith said there may be enough water for Eagle and a stream
291 mitigation project. Mr. Lekson said that this could be discussed at the next meeting.
292
293 Mr. Lekson asked about the possibility of another Parker Farm. Mr. Smith said that
294 there needs to be discussion of acceptable mitigation locations and if the agencies can
295 identify acceptable areas that do not affect potential mining alternatives. Mr. Lekson said
296 that they would certainly consider that, and that he was looking for full replacement of
297 lost/impacted (jurisdictional) functions.
298
299 The large poccosin Weyerhaeuser owns was mentioned, as well as the fact that
300 Weyerhaeuser is looking to sell land. Mr. Moye mentioned that the upper Pungo River
301 could also be a potential restoration site for streams.
302
10
303 Mr. Lekson said that the team also needed to discuss on-site, in-kind mitigation.
304 Lekson indicated we would review areas close to PCS, and then review other regional area.
305 Mr. Lekson indicated that many of the areas referenced on the potential mitigation areas
306 map provided by Mr. Wicker were already in state or federal ownership. Mr. Lekson asked
307 Mr. Wicker if there was much opportunity for mitigation in the PCS area. Mr. Wicker
308 replied that there was a lot of opportunity. Mr. Lekson mentioned the Bay City low
309 poccosin. Mr. Steffens mentioned the Engelhart area and said that if the riser was
310 removed it would flood the area. Mr. Moye said that the city would fight it because the
311 city planners do not want additional wetlands.
312
313 Mr. Moye asked about areas near Short Creek, and Long Creek, and the clay ponds.
314 Mr. Furness said that elevation of most of the clay ponds are 40 feet, but don't take it off
315 the table. Mr. Lekson said this was just a brainstorming session and there would be
316 additional suggestions in the future. Mr. Lekson also suggested a field trip to the Parker
317 Farm and Bailey Creek. Mr. Lekson also said that reviewing the recent stream mitigation
318 information on the Corps website would be a helpful resource.
319
320 Ms. Alsentzer asked if wetlands could be created in association with stormwater
321 uses. Ms. Fox said that water required for permits can't be used for mitigation. Mr.
322 Furness brought an old NC-CREWS map. Mr. Lekson said that much better maps exist
323 today. Mr. Cooper said that PCS has looked but has not fully evaluated all mitigation
324 options.
325
326 Mr. Lekson asked for final questions. There were none and the meeting was
327 adjourned at 2:30.
328
11
329 Distribution
Ms. Mary Alsentzer
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Becky Fox
Environmental Protection Agency
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, NC 28789
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. James M. Hudgens
CZR Incorporated
1061 East Indiantown Road
Suite 100
Jupiter, Florida 33477-5143
Mr. Charles Jones
NC Division of Coastal Management
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Scott Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David M. Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David McHenry
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Sean McKenna
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dr. David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Ms. Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Regulatory Section USEPA/EAB
Wetlands Management Division
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David Moye
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Jimmie Overton
NC Division of Water Quality
ESB Lab
1621 Mall Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
12
Mr. Richard Peed
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mail
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. William A. Schimming
Potash Corp.
Post Office Box 3320
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Ross Smith
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Walker
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Bob Zarzecki
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
13
t
Attachment 1
Table of mitigation options discussed ruing 24 September 2003 meeting. Abbreviations as
follows: Preservation (P), Restoration (R), Creation (C), and Enhancement (E).
Project Specific Mitigation Banks WRP (in-lieu fee)
Parker Farm (P/R/C) Great Dismal Swamp (R)
South Creek Corridor (P/E) North River/Ottoway (R)
Grace Tract (P)
Pamlico River/Durham Creek mining
lease (P)
Weyerhauser lands for sale (P)
Other Natural Heritage Properties (P)
Bay City Poccosin (P)
Using mine water for streams (R/E/C)
Extension of headwaters (C)
DWQ donation of property
Another Parker Farm (R/E/P)
Open grounds (R/E/P)
Extension of Goose Creek Park (P)
West of Arch Bell Point (P)
Bay City low poccosin (P)
Upper Pungo River Heritage Lands
(P)
Engelhard (R/P)
Short and Long Creek (R/C)
VOA sites (P/R)
R1,2,3
Core Point
Municipal stormwater
14
G i7
1 2004

N,Q-CR10? ?

0
U_
J
Q
? t,fY

X

?Q
S

ryt+.
4' F
t
yt
i
f ..

Z
N
p., Q <
HA a
z?
Wo
U z
U? V
?a
U
z
N
W
a:1ZN-Q
C G ?
VW Ow
J?
Uo$
a
g Z
?wm
LU
oUZ
Ir
r? ell -
gl N
?1$
N NI ^?
^? o
<Z?
V?
M
5 ?

ewe n
W
M&-CR1D Y a
W o????
Z
rl)
z "
r W?
Lf ? ?? ?zJS?Q
S ? ? r `?' `? y ?
w
.. U 0 cc w m
A?w ?W
co z
W r oz
I I i
` `y ? ? Qa a a
?/ w I
FIF
1 ?`` U F '? nl ~'
4 1?? w a`
r°. r
r
a?
i'
r
W,.
r.
J
t Y(r? ??t? 8 ? M1t( ? k ? 7
NP
7 ,?x
V?t
V F
s ?
i
r ar
Y ,
f
,
MG-CLAD
/O
S
N',

• i. ` t ,y.pn? I
z A

s
•
t.
•
3 f
a
,. 7f1
pp ?p
ilF V N
wi+ rm.na
Imo,

W
J
z
E-
?z
a?D
'
I
dQQ p
o
zW < _
V
z
wQ

azo a
4 wm
I Z
w
a r4 m
v im
AQ ?
x
U (Wjw a
al { .
o ? g' N
i
1
1
? Z
Ud ?
z s a a
oy
` r
ry.

rlrlll
ry
Q
U
Q
r

3

r? c
"T j
m
. Ir

r

i i
+11

I?
IY

LLI
z CL
? C4 z C6
od 24W
Cl
?o
U rr
<?Z$
Wm
Z
W z
y-
zw N. g 0
S oQ aa?;?
i
W ?i $i n+
0
Z ?
r,
y a
i ?S
I
`? rt
sa\
.v r "„? "4Aa ? k!
Y
Z ?r
r" x
t ?
w?avn?ua?o?n?xanatessxmossao?oorwn
N.C-CRIp _?
>.
?a
z
fZ
Q
z
a
w
h
J
4
ff
Z
Y
Q
z
a
w
r
J
6
w,7„ .,,, sa ,asp
Y

QA`n09
kJ0
'
££-?0
o/t rr )8
.,„„ NCR ROO

?+
w? w

c
.kNVONf108
>0018
f£ !0 H f105
944 AamN91N
W
z o
N
A >
o? o
4
d q a°
AO <
O>?
?? - N.
c? W
F
o? a
E -
ID
0
dyu
N li (L
11 ?
IIE SOP"
pllzlsi? -I,'
NATIVE 80UNDWY + " ..
soot/
?W
J
0-
U Q
?W
U?X
Q
yz
z 2f
CC Wm
o 111 ? z
0L
cc
a ?
C?
i
o zd1 ,H,
o ? ?
+
zd
U
ao ?N
wVF Y I! { : F �x � .�,>• � � S 7� 't r i !}y r S r
J T •
fp Y T t } •f _ V ,
� `F :?• a� gal. � �'4
'%%'fi�rr''
r 1...{. r ryZ• ° , / G •i
�y
.�? k` X v '74'�yKa •• •
il'y - ' y - ♦ , !. y" (S t .. �Yi s � 14�i<'cn j'� i s ` �..•1 w` -`i. � �v+w..y",'' .
i• ,,, Il � -AJ' L, �Lt FF
P' � gFAT."q'A'�^F('°"-O��i'•� 6r`. �� 1'. wT. yrf� t � �-
• tz:,� nr r as, •r ,�ys� ,,p � ,t� � 4S'r'c� .r•� �, f� ,�±, .ir
r�,a ��F '��talx jajl' :,4 '��';i ' f jL��• r "}'..
F u .,� y, ^6 •k � � 1.5 ,V, � h�... !�'S, a � nR y.e..,�ryp�,,,,�, i j � jL���.Ci4,liC �� J � .� .� ��`�� 4
x..
• 6y�J1
•:... L
964
til
••
t
-
�y�Cie
l {

z
r tM
1�N � :rn yfx .2 ' t ' + v{o� J,tv. 'suA! �f. +-ar,..q'l' M1+ C� C ;! ti i 4 tv= R ..i i, •
� �'� � sx+
�
3t+F ;<• r1 1 1, a 9 ti j s30k.. r4 a �• •
if s �) t d 's � n: ; 4 • i
?3• �jy,�!{4p• _
4.1
i i4 r i, t 1. � J .� � ! � r yS Q yn'F rj) { , • •• ' �
IL
Li
•
L �• .. r Ai�r• 7V �•
71
p � 3
• �.i ; � �`i� �. {� Te,ix k 76h�rPy�iy,��y 2 +' ��. �„ ' e cs•, �-' ` c r,� .r +'' c .
`� � - '..1 �' 3 �../ Vis+ , t ''• • �•" i ,
"'1 1. 7 •• . ff � \ � ti� s rba �j�ypt `�iy 4 � ' y
ki - ,� +.'}yah • ° i �'+� ° � a }' ' ! 37` �k{,� � c � vJy
wr) ` •G "' 3 ,, �` ,: .� t. jj 14 � .+`3TC'," ,fir 'i !,

75,' ,i• ,' ,
IP
r 1Us
01-4
VL
`3
a' d .1�2 rR�#}� p C �',1 } yl�•lL, fn ..
k, }� {. rp l vw� •• .� •
d ie`,3 _ , �'e ky,'l�� .7 4�y'i , f R f��� i ✓1' •tx � � M�,Y; ' _�'t�r'.' ..
t q"Li
• •
9,
•f XX ..'�
"' r � � i�+'-�. � SI rxt. yr g 'S�,,,. •, � �
���� : I sok � 1 •� � � #^� '�# •
G �
�,., •-��r rti;. �� � fig ;'�'i �` f^�
!Sif aftiSt'a� N f.
��� : > �c. _' 'S � z2`s`! } ' � `i V• >msa9`""I. w ; J41 - d ►"` � _ �, 1. • P` � �' ' �ti' ..,�,,.r-- 1
?r rr� '.Z-�6 '.r'r_x�"#'- � i"' f Kdy. p y;/�• +,t, ;'A A i�r t I .� +{.. r' . ,// � .
c
It,
Y ..�. _....-,..--

II k i- • •
Ya ,J
h i }a i y. .N \ K •
it
:H s,,,n 1 yrc 1�� ;'Y� 1 �}''�cK•.�'^�k.�_ 'd i V�+(/� • ^ i
kM
XY` ri .4 �. �, • •�
i" Ati fa Jt < ti "Yy O
� {# w � j Ty..a ',�h. �!q 1.r • •= 1
...aT
�• x i ,ate a ,{ a p: + � n
Y i .
NP
to
. y
w - 4.4, � r •� .�� 1• .rs��1yY}4 �a ti �; aj1.
j ��x � �` S��~' � ii; �'y..,. � ,.{..' ., •h 1.., .. _ay,. A �{ �, ?',.N,�� �`.` ��w Vii. ° e.
.. '`� ``.`fit♦
�qy� J r �1; .•r

9 ci Qxr2 r
„,,,�y�1^}r, � f%t3�+�' nt,; �' �' ¢ .%'�1 i •
' .9
iiy,,�ap" i s � ��` �f� id+ 1 r't ? .i �i'y;.jy �� ''. � .. � • •
�i v '• � - � �+ti• y "' d •1; A�� S .F'iY Y. ,: � ,b' .1M � •.•+.�• •
'sir ��� i�`" yr � �!�c 8 <�"�� • ! ��� �t � d A b' �i,=" t '� .. M +cf � r ••
1v,iyyx
. P�3 a � rni e yr � •"! :...,-� �•S �, � � .iJs; �.' y,. �v% �. `'l !'4
4 try-a?,/�.t,,,i 4 ^fif5.:4 'VS�. .�M&��E.r3�k�r1t1 1 Cj �� •4 :t_ 3v1� i�. '
i 9 -
r(y
iyY r r V F 6
Ise
F �• i 11 .: �N� � � fir.
r
ick
ol
! � P
.. 4
•k • + FF
r

yJW
by,
—
1
z
l st
, A�iYE BOUNDARY / ^ ` �� � � .,�+:>n' •. ,yF,.
1 y s 7
,ice-
`
a 'i -• .-,
y
+ice
Ek.
'
a f �an,� ;���� � ��• Zt¢ta,'t � � .... ^• fi, e• h. % �'z"er� fir.
el;: y .� � �1 ,��yxr+Pta �",�}F ._Lrtfi.td k'y: 8s�': it- a-',.'-.+'�h^tti•
•. 51
_ d - r
-q • -�- T x ,� '' �. �� r i y s C, . : a t .., "4r•"•°x•2 _
•'@r`t�f 'k '� SPARRCI �:.. -�'" ti6�•,>., /1�� I T E 'ii 1+.4_' , )�yR( .y �.i ss�''
• h� t y� ��'Si� f � �t i � y � 3' •1 �a 1� ��_ �e� _�� i �� � ...M 'L' v
s',t :g ,'� d`�•+� „ � � t.. 4:�:'4'r* �+'= Yx it �' � -.
.s` � !.-+i' 1, Sy, � •.-. ai . �,k .N3S � `.. _.,.�.� { Y 'tEril' �s,,. ti r�� _ _.
k { t
i`s � Divi 1 �.. _�•� �^ ._
r
-t'•°'`!!i, �ytt r" _ f _.. - �;F�-i-�'-At� rt byes �f�..
t '
. 4.. S
{ t DCM AVOIDANCE
ALTERNATIVE
OR
BOUNDARY