20030447 Ver 1_Complete File_20030630

ZR 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
INCORPORATED WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1725
?IRONMENTALCONSULTANTS TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
PROJECT NO.:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
TO:
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
CP# 1745.62.09
3 July 2003
IVETOWDS1401 GROUP
Jut 1d 8 2003
NATERQUAIITYSE
?`?ON
REVISED Minutes of the 26 February 2003 meeting for the PCS Phosphate Mine
Continuation permit application review
See Distribution
WE ARE SENDING YOU 4 Attached via US Mail ? under separate cover via
? Shop drawings
? Change order
? Prints ? Tracings ? Contract documents
? Samples JS Copy of correspondence ?
COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION
1 3 July 2003 REVISED Minutes of the 26 February 2003 meeting for the PCS
Phosphate Mine Continuation permit application review
1 26 June 2003 Letter received 30 June 2003 from Dave Lekson
RE: comments on the minutes of February 26, 2003 permit review
team meeting
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
? For review and concurrence ;& For your information ? As requested
? Returned after loan to us ? Returned for corrections ? Other
REMARKS:
SIGNED JAvn1
1061 EAST INDIANTOWN ROAD • SUITE 100 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5143
TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • [e-mail] • www.CZRINC.com

CZR
INCORPORATED
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1725
CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
29
30
31
1
TO: See Distribution
FROM: Kent Karriker, Dawn Carroll
DATE: 3 July 2003
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
RE: REVISED Minutes of the 26 February 2003 meeting for the PCS
Phosphate Mine Continuation permit application review
The eighth 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 26 February 2003. The
following people were in attendance:
David Lekson - USACE
Laura Toler- USACE
Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate
Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate
Jerry Waters - PCS Phosphate
Bill Schimming - Potash Corp.
Terry Baker - PCS Phosphate
Jimmie Overton - NCDWQ
John Dorney - NCDWQ
Tom Steffens - NCDWQ
Terry Moore - NCDCM
David Moye - NCDCM
18 Sean McKenna - NCDMF
19 Maria Tripp - NCDWQ
20 Mike Wicker - USFWS
21 David McHenry - NCWRC
22 Charles Jones - NCDCM
23 Kelly Spivey - NCDLR
24 Mike Thomas - NCDWQ
25 Mary Alsentzer - PTRF
26 Ron Sechler - NMFS
27 Kent Karriker - CZR Incorporated
28 Dawn Carroll - CZR Incorporated
Kathy Matthews of USEPA participated via telephone.
1061 EAST INDIANTOWN ROAD • SUITE 100 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5143
TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • [e-mail] • www.CZRINC.com
32 At approximately 10:05 a.m., Mr. Lekson called the meeting to order. He
33 handed out an agenda that listed the following eight items for consideration:
34 1. Presentation of Minutes from 7 January 03 meeting;
35 2. Progress update on technical/economic feasibility modeling;
36 3. Progress update on survey location of NCPC Tract stream
37 channels/origins;
38 4. Presentation of the results of the reconnaissance of the East Edward
39 and the Grace Tract;
40 5. Discussion of the scope of studies needed to investigate the effects of
41 drainage basin reduction on tributary creeks;
42 6. Discussion of one, two, and three dragline alternatives for the NCPC
43 Tract;
44 7. Discussion of potential alternatives for detailed analysis;
45 8. Re-schedule next meeting.
46 Mr. Karriker began the meeting by verifying that the Team members had
47 received each of the three handouts passed around: the agenda, the minutes from
48 the 7 January 2003 meeting, and the description of the field inspections of the
49 Edward and Grace Tract blocks.
50 Mr. Lekson reviewed the last page of the minutes from the 7 January 2003
51 meeting and encouraged the Team members to submit comments if they felt that
52 any of the issues had been omitted or inaccurately depicted. Mr. Lekson noted
53 that some of the issues discussed in the last meeting will come up again for
54 progress updates. He then asked Mr. Karriker to begin reviewing the tasks on the
55 agenda.
56 Mr. Karriker asked Mr. Smith to review the progress update on the technical/
57 economic feasibility model. Mr. Smith replied that the narrative description of the
58 model is being reviewed by PCS Phosphate staff. He noted that approximately
59 ninety to ninety-five percent of the narrative is complete and will be ready to
60 submit to the USACE for review in two weeks. He noted that it is important for
61 the Team to understand the concepts behind the model before the model is used to
62 evaluate mining alternatives.
63 Mr. Lekson stated that the technical /economic feasibility model was an
64 important topic at the 7 January 2003 Team meeting. Mr. Smith replied that all
65 questions should be answered by the narrative description and that PCS Phosphate
66 is open to any comments. Mr. Lekson acknowledged that the USACE staff
67 member who was to review the model has been assigned to Washington D.C. The
68 USACE currently is considering who will review the model. He asked Mr. Dorney if
2
69 he knows anyone who might serve as an independent third party reviewer. Mr.
70 Dorney replied that he does not.
71 Mr. Lekson then asked Mr. Karriker to review and update the Team on the
72 progress of the task list from the 7 January 2003 meeting. Mr. Karriker stated
73 that the surveying of stream channel flags on the NCPC Tract is complete, and CZR
74 is currently in the process of reviewing the survey maps. He noted that when the
75 review is complete and changes have been verified, CZR will overlay surveyed
76 stream points on the NCPC wetland map with the old Alternative B boundary line,
77 the old NCDWQ line, and the current PCS Phosphate proposal. The map will then
78 be given to NCDWQ to develop an updated NCDWQ avoidance boundary line. Mr.
79 Lekson then.asked if this would generate a new NCDWQ avoidance boundary line.
80 Mr. Dorney replied that it will generate another upper limit and supply the Team
81 with an additional alternative to evaluate.
82 Mr. Karriker added that wetland ratings for the Area South of Highway 33
83 have been completed and field-verified with NCDWQ, and the information has been
84 supplied to NCDWQ. Mr. Karriker asked Mr. Dorney if the wetland ratings
85 information should be distributed to the Team. Mr. Dorney replied that he sees no
86 reason not to provide the information to the Team.
87 Mr. Karriker continued the progress review by noting that the determination
88 of the upper limits of Public Trust in the Area South of Highway 33 is on hold. Mr.
89 Lekson then asked Mr. Schimming if PCS Phosphate has filed suit against the State
90 over the Public Trust definition. Mr. Smith replied that PCS Phosphate has filed a
91 complaint for declaratory relief in which they have asked the court to determine
92 whether the State's definition of navigability is appropriate. Mr. Lekson asked Mr.
93 Smith what would happen if PCS Phosphate wins the suit. Mr. Smith replied that
94 there would be no Public Trust issues in PCS Phosphate's currently proposed mine
95 continuation. Mr. Lekson asked whether PCS Phosphate would re-apply for their
96 first proposal, which involved mining through the creeks on the NCPC Tract. Mr.
97 Smith replied that PCS Phosphate would like to include the original application
98 boundary line as an alternative to be evaluated. Mr. Lekson reminded Mr. Smith
99 that the USACE still has Section 10 and Section 404 jurisdiction over the creeks.
100 Mr. Dorney asked about the timing of the suit. Mr. Smith replied that typically the
101 defendant has thirty days to reply to the complaint, but that time period can be
102 extended.
103 Mr. Lekson then asked Mr. Smith why the Team is meeting if PCS Phosphate
104 is considering going back to the original proposal. Mr. Smith replied that other
105 alternatives are still valid to consider; however, PCS Phosphate would like to
106 consider the original proposal for detailed analysis as well. Mr. Smith noted that
107 evaluating the original proposal does not change any of the other possible
108 alternatives that the Team is evaluating, so there is no reason to be concerned

3
109 about wasting effort. Ms. Alsentzer asked if PCS Phosphate is questioning the
110 State's definition of Public Trust. Mr. Smith replied that PCS Phosphate is
111 questioning the State's policy for Public Trust calls based on interpretation of
112 navigability. Mr. Lekson reminded Mr. Smith that any added issues that affect the
113 permit process affect the speed with which a permit decision is reached. Mr.
114 Smith replied that PCS Phosphate would like to continue the evaluation process
115 using current agency policies, as long as the original permit application boundary
116 line is included as an alternative to be evaluated. Mr. Wicker asked Mr. Smith to
117 clarify whether the suit is questioning the definition of the upper limited of
118 navigability. Mr. Smith confirmed that it is.
119 Mr. Karriker then began a discussion of the recent reconnaissance of East
120 Edward and the Grace Tract. He noted that the Team had requested information
121 on the quality of wetlands in the eastern edge of the Edward Tract and portions of
122 the Grace Tract. Mr. Karriker noted that the results of the reconnaissance work are
123 contained in the document entitled "Field Inspections of the Edward and Grace
124 Tract Blocks for the PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation," which was handed out at
125 the beginning of the meeting.
126 Mr. Karriker began summarizing the document by pointing out the eastern
127 edge of the Edward Tract on a map hung at the front of the conference room. The
128 eastern edge of the Edward Tract is a narrow area between Highway 306 and the
129 base of the Suffolk Scarp. A field inspection of this area was conducted on 4
130 February 2003. Mr. Karriker noted that reconnaissance of this area revealed a
131 mixture of high-quality and low-quality wetlands. The high-quality wetlands
132 (mature hardwoods, mature mixed pine-hardwood forest, and seep drains) were
133 defined pursuant to the protocol developed in 1991 for the determination of
134 Wetland Areas of Special Concern. Low-quality wetlands were defined as
135 cutovers, pine plantations, and young regenerating forest. High-quality areas were
136 concentrated at the northern and southern ends of East Edward, with some smaller
137 areas in the middle.
138 Mr. Dorney asked if a rough estimate of community acreages is known for
139 the eastern edge of the Edward Tract. Mr. Karriker replied that acreages were not
140 estimated because the Team requested only a narrative description of the area.
141 Mr. Smith asked who attended the field inspection meeting. Mr. Karriker replied
142 that he, Scott Jones (USACE), Laura Toler (USACE), David Lekson (USACE), Jeff
143 Furness (PCS Phosphate), and Jeff Coward (CZR Incorporated) attended the
144 reconnaissance of East Edward and a "windshield" reconnaissance of the central
145 and southern parts of the Grace Tract. The following day, he, Mr. Jones, Mr.
146 Lekson, Mr. Furness, Mr. Coward, Tom Steffens (NCDWQ), and Mike Thomas
147 (NCDWQ) investigated the hydrology of several ditched sections in the northern
148 part of the Grace Tract.
4
149 Mr. Furness then pointed out Figure 1 to the Team, which depicts the
150 information Mr. Karriker had presented. Mr. Karriker noted that Mr. Lekson
151 prepared Figure 1, which is a spatial presentation of 'the varying wetland types
152 found along the eastern edge of the Edward Tract. Mr. Lekson stated that areas
153 one and three depicted on Figure 1 might be blocked out of an alternative due to
154 high-quality habitats. Mr. Lekson noted that the field inspection team also
155 encountered interesting seep drains, which might be of concern to NCDWQ for
156 water quality reasons. Mr. Dorney asked if defined channels are generally absent
157 from these seep drain areas. Mr. Lekson replied that the drains generally are
158 braided and lack well-defined channels; however, the water draining from the seeps
159 ultimately is intercepted by ditches that drain into tributaries of South Creek.
160 Mr. Karriker directed the Team's attention to Figure 2, which depicts the
161 Grace Tract reconnaissance work done on 5 February 2003. Mr. Karriker asked
162 the Team to recall from the 7 January 2003 Team meeting the discussion revolving
163 around the hydrologic status of areas in the Grace Tract that were shown as
164 drained on recent Project Area mapping. At that meeting the Permit Team had
165 requested additional ground reconnaissance of hydrology and habitat quality for
166 these sections. Therefore, the USACE, PCS Phosphate, CZR, and NCDWQ
167 examined hydrology and soils in the five ditched blocks located in the north- central
168 part of the Grace Tract. Mr. Karriker reminded the Team that these blocks, labeled
169 G1, G2, G3, G4, and G5 on Figure 2, were shown originally on Project Area
170 mapping as drained based on apparent ditch spacings of 660 feet or closer.
171 Mr. Karriker stated that in G1, ditches appeared to be present based on the
172 aerial photograph, but field examination showed that most of the ditches have
173 degraded to the point of being non-functional. Therefore, wetland hydrology has
174 not been removed. G1 vegetation is high pocosin that is regenerating following a
175 disturbance in the mid-1 980s, but could be considered high-quality according to the
176 classification used the last EIS, which considers all pocosin-bay forest to be high-
177 quality.
178 Mr. Karriker explained that G2 is dominated by high-quality high pocosin
179 vegetation; however, the ditches are in good shape and appear to have impacted
180 hydrology. Mr. Karriker noted that portions of G2 may be drained, but the field
181 inspection was not thorough enough to conclude that the entire section is drained.
182 Mr. Karriker described G3 as consisting mostly of high-quality pond pine
183 woodland. He stated that the ditches in G3 are in good shape and appear to have
184 affected hydrology, but field observations suggest that wetland hydrology has not
185 been completely removed from portions of this section.
186 Mr. Karriker stated that G4 consists of two distinct habitat types. G4-North
187 is a young mixed shrub-forest habitat that resulted from compaction of mineral
188 soils during timber harvest and an attempt to establish a pine plantation in the early
5
189 to mid 1980's. The ditches in G4-North are in good shape, but low soil
190 permeability has impeded drainage, thus a majority of this section may be
191 jurisdictional wetland. Mr. Karriker explained that G4-South is a pine plantation
192 with sandy and loamy soils. He stated that G4-South did not suffer from
193 compaction . during timber harvest, which resulted in a well-established pine
194 plantation. The ditches in G4-South are in good shape and appear to have
195 effectively drained much of the area; however, the reconnaissance was not
196 thorough enough to make a definitive call.
197 Mr. Karriker described G5 as low pocosin, which is generally considered to
198 be a rare, high-quality habitat. The ditches in this section are serviceable, but do
199 not penetrate through the 7-foot .thick peat layer into the mineral soils below.
200 Therefore, G5 has not been drained effectively, and the bulk of the section remains
201 jurisdictional.
202 Mr. Wicker asked if Section G4 is bedded. Mr. Karriker replied that both G4-
203 North and G4-South are bedded; the difference between the two sections is the
204 soil type. G4-North soils are loamy and clay loam soils, whereas G4-South soils are
205 sand or sandy loam.
206 Mr. Karriker then summarized the results of the windshield survey of the
207 central and southern portions of the Grace Tract. Mr. Karriker noted that this
208 reconnaissance was conducted to fulfill a request by Ms. Mathews at the 7
209 January 2003 meeting. Mr. Karriker stated that several pocosin and bay forest
210 habitat types were observed. Except for a few cutover areas, most habitats
211 appeared to be high quality. He added that this area is a valuable wetland system
212 because it is very large, contiguous, and provides excellent habitat for wildlife
213 species. Additionally, this wetland serves as a recharge/discharge area for Upper
214 Broad Creek (Neuse River Basin) and Durham Creek (Pamlico River Basin).
215 Mr. Lekson pointed out on the Project Area map the areas that would have
216 to be disturbed if PCS Phosphate were to mine Sections G1 through G5. Mr.
217 Dorney noted that the reconnaissance determined that parts of the blocks were still
218 jurisdictional, so wetland impacts would be greater than they appear on the Project
219 Area map, which shows G1 through G5 as completely drained.
220 Mr. Sechler asked what the elevation change is from the top of the Suffolk
221 Scarp to the bottom. Mr. Karriker responded that the top of the Suffolk Scarp is
222 up to 50 feet above sea level, while land at the eastern base of the scarp is
223 approximately 15 feet above sea level. Elevations drop less dramatically on the
224 west side of the scarp. Mr. Karriker explained that the scarp serves as a dam that
225 impedes drainage on the Grace Tract property to the west of the scarp. Mr.
226 Karriker stated that the center of the low pocosin is the highest elevation west of
227 the scarp on the Grace Tract, and that the land slopes gradually toward the
228 headwaters of Durham Creek and Upper Broad Creek.
6
229 Mr. Karriker asked Mr. Lekson if the field inspection of East Edward and the
230 Grace Tract had accomplished what the Permit Team requested, and Mr. Lekson
231 solicited questions from the Team. Mr. Lekson asked Mr. Karriker if any other
232 ecological assessment work has been done on the Grace Tract. Mr. Karriker replied
233 that he is not aware of any. Mr. Lekson pointed out the size of the Grace Tract by
234 noting that the sample transects, which appear quite small on Figure 2, are actually
235 between 1,000 and 1,200 feet long. Mr. Karriker agreed that the Grace Tract is a
236 very large area.
237 Mr. Dorney stated that he does not think there are any viable mining
238 alternatives in the Grace Tract. Mr. Lekson reiterated that the potential mine
239 continuation blocks are not alternatives and it may be possible to piece together
240 sections of adjacent mine blocks to create an alternative. Mr. Dorney
241 acknowledged that good information was presented in reference to the field
242 inspections of East Edward and the Grace Tract.
243 Mr. Lekson stated that there are some sections examined in the Grace Tract
244 that could be considered non-jurisdictional; however, having seen the high-quality
245 habitat that is present, he agrees with Mr. Dorney that, from an environmental
246 standpoint, the Grace Tract does not contain any viable mining alternative.
247 However, the economic information is still lacking. Mr. McHenry concurred based
248 on the high wildlife value of the Grace Tract. Mr. McHenry also expressed concern
249 about occurrences of rare species in the Grace Tract, specifically venus flytrap.
250 Mr. Karriker stated that there are records for venus flytrap in the Grace Tract along
251 the west side of the Suffolk Scarp, as well as old records for red-cockaded
252 woodpecker and rough-leaved loosestrife. Mr. Karriker noted that CZR has
253 surveyed for rough-leaved loosestrife along the eastern slope of the Suffolk Scarp
254 in the Edward and Bonnerton blocks. During these surveys, CZR conducted a
255 cursory check of the rough-leaved loosestrife site on the Grace Tract, but did not
256 find the plant. He noted that fire suppression has created unsuitable conditions for
257 rough-leaved loosestrife in the areas that were surveyed.
258 Moving on to the next agenda item, Mr. Lekson asked Mr. Karriker to discuss
259 the scope of studies needed to investigate the effects of drainage basin reduction
260 on tributary creeks. Mr. Karriker stated that CZR needs some direction and
261 clarification from NCDWQ on the scope of studies needed to address the drainage
262 basin reduction issue. Mr. Karriker stated that he has had some preliminary
263 discussions with Dr. Wayne Skaggs from North Carolina State University about
264 flow modeling. Mr. Karriker explained that CZR and Dr. Skaggs have been
265 conducting drainage basin reduction studies to satisfy a condition of the Alternative
266 E permit. This condition required monitoring of flow, wetland hydrology, water
267 quality, fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, salinity, and vegetation, prior to drainage
268 basin reduction and for 5 years following reduction. Mr. Karriker noted that Dr.
269 Skaggs has been responsible for the hydrological modeling that will address the
7
270 impacts of mining and drainage basin reduction in the NCPC Tract. Mr. Karriker
271 asked whether CZR can use the results of existing modeling and extrapolate for
272 other mining alternatives, or if additional modeling will be required.
273 Mr. Dorney stated that NCDWQ is satisfied with the hydrological modeling
274 completed so far on the NCPC Tract; however, the results would need to be
275 evaluated to assess their applicability to the current EIS process. Mr. Wicker
276 stated that it would be useful to delineate watersheds and evaluate the percent of
277 watersheds impacted or the percent of water input reduction. Mr. Karriker replied
278 that Dr. Skaggs' modeling can be used to assess the reduction in water input. Mr.
279 McHenry asked whether the modeling allowed for extrapolation of the effects on
280 the salinity regimes in the creeks. Mr. Karriker replied that salinity is not included
281 in Dr. Skaggs' hydrologic model. However, CZR monitors salinity and wetland
282 hydrology and conducts a qualitative assessment of the relationships of these
283 parameters to flow. Mr. Karriker added that there are many factors that affect
284 salinity, and it is often difficult to identify conclusively the effects of any particular
285 factor. Mr. McHenry asked whether the creeks being studied are high-salinity
286 areas. Mr. Karriker replied that salinity in the creeks ranges from oligohaline to
287 mesohaline.
288 Mr. Wicker mentioned a study by N.C. State researchers in Broad Creek that
289 evaluated the effects of freshwater input and salinity fluctuations on fish
290 productivity. He noted that salinity is normally volatile and it is difficult to identify
291 any changes in salinity due to changes in runoff. However, the system is
292 benthically oriented, and reducing drainage into the system will reduce productivity
293 of the system. Mr. Dorney suggested that Dr. Skaggs present the modeling
294 scheme to the Team in detail so the Team can evaluate its applicability to the
295 current EIS process. Mr. Lekson then asked Mr. Wicker to clarify his earlier
296 statement. Mr. Wicker explained that by reducing drainage basin area, productivity
297 is reduced. Therefore, by identifying the watershed acreage and the percentage of
298 the watershed to be reduced, the impact to productivity can be estimated. Mr.
299 Dorney replied that the point of the monitoring program is to recognize impacts that
300 are present and use hydrological modeling to determine whether and how much
301 water to add to mitigate the impacts.
302 Mr. Lekson asked the Team if it would be beneficial to have Dr. Skaggs
303 present information on the hydrological model. Mr. Sechler asked if any of the
304 modeling studies have been published. Mr. Dorney replied that the reports have
305 been submitted to the appropriate agencies for review.
306 Mr. Furness stated that the Team needs to determine whether the
307 hydrological modeling that has been done is sufficient for predicting the effects of
308 mining in other areas such as the Area South of Highway 33. Mr. Dorney replied
309 that the systems in the NCPC Tract are different from the systems in the Area
8
310 South of Highway 33. He noted that the systems in the Area South of Highway
311 33 have larger watersheds, are farther away from the saline part of the estuary,
312 and are channelized. He added that mining in the Area South of Highway 33 could
313 affect the hydrology of South Creek. Mr. Dorney concluded that because of the
314 differences between the two systems, the information collected in the NCPC Tract
315 is not comparable to the Area South of Highway 33.
316 Mr. Furness acknowledged that the NCPC Tract modeling cannot be
317 extrapolated to the Area South of Highway 33, but suggested that similar modeling
318 techniques can be used. Mr. Furness asked NCDWQ to suggest which creeks or
319 tributaries in the Area South of Highway 33 should be modeled.
320 The discussion then moved to Agenda Item 7, the discussion of areas that
321 will contain alternatives for detailed analysis. Mr. Wicker stated that at the 7
322 January 2003 meeting, the Team discussed removing the Pamlico River and Core
323 Point blocks for environmental reasons, and PCS Phosphate countered with a
324 suggestion to remove the Edward and Grace Tract blocks for economic reasons.
325 Now, however, PCS Phosphate is suggesting that the Edward and Grace Tract
326 blocks be removed for environmental reasons. Mr. Smith' replied that the Team
327 should consider multiple characteristics in narrowing the area considered for
328 detailed alternatives analysis. Ms. Matthews added that the economic feasibility
329 model is not available; therefore environmental characteristics are the only
330 characteristics that can be evaluated at this point. Mr. Wicker encouraged the
331 Team to evaluate areas in a logical sequence by dropping potential alternative areas
332 in a ranked fashion. Areas should be dropped only if they have greater impacts
333 that the NCPC Tract. Mr. Lekson stated that the Team needs to determine which
334 alternative is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. The Team
335 decided at the last meeting that neither the Core Point block nor the Pamlico River
336 block can contain the least damaging alternative. Therefore, the Team agreed to
337 drop them from further evaluation. Mr. Lekson noted that as Ms. Matthews stated,
338 the economic feasibility model still needs to be evaluated to determine whether
339 alternatives can be pieced together from the other blocks.
340 Mr. Lekson asked the NCDWQ representatives to discuss over lunch which
341 streams need to be modeled for the drainage basin reduction issue. He noted that
342 reports from the ongoing NCPC Tract monitoring are available to assist in decision-
343 making. Mr. Wicker stated that he would be interested in reading those reports.
344 Mr. Karriker stated that he would send out copies of the original study plan for the
345 NCPC Tract Stream Monitoring Program, as well as the Executive Summary of the
346 2001 annual report. Mr. Karriker noted that a team presentation by Dr. Skaggs and
347 himself would allow the Team to ask questions about the hydrological-modeling.
348 Mr. Smith then moved on to discuss one, two, and three dragline
349 alternatives for the NCPC Tract by handing out the document titled "NCPC Mine
9
350 Continuation Alternatives at Minimum Operating Pit Widths." Mr. Smith stated
351 that under each of these alternatives, mining would proceed parallel to South
352 Creek. He explained that the table defines the minimum pit width for the three
353 different alternatives and the average annual production for the three different
354 scenarios. The subsequent graphics are close-ups of each of the three scenarios.
355 Mr. Dorney stated that he assumes that PCS Phosphate will mine in a
356 straight line. Mr. Smith replied that the numbers shown in the table are not
357 applicable for anything other than a straight line. Mr. Dorney questioned why the
358 width of the mine pit in the northern end of the NCPC Tract adjacent to the
359 Pamlico River is the same for all three alternatives. Mr. Smith replied that the
360 number of draglines does not make much of a difference in the northern end where
361 the turn from a northeastward to a southwestward advance will be made.
362 Mr. Lekson asked if the pit widths shown on the table are the minimum
363 operating pit widths. Mr. Smith replied that they are the minimum pit widths that
364 will allow production requirements to be met. Ms. Alsentzer asked if it is possible
365 to mine a narrower pit if production requirements are not a factor. Mr. Smith
366 replied that it is possible.
367 Mr. Lekson indicated that the purpose for discussing one, two, and three
368 dragline alternatives is to evaluate the physical aspects of minimum return width
369 scenarios. Ms. Alsentzer asked if PCS Phosphate could mine a narrower pit. Mr.
370 Smith replied that if PCS Phosphate mines a narrower pit, there would be a
371 significant impact on production due to equipment limitations and lower recovery of
372 the ore. Mr. Wicker asked if the minimum pit width is dependent on ore
373 concentration. Mr. Smith replied that minimum pit width is independent of ore
374 concentration; instead it is dependent on the geology of the overburden and
375 limitations of the mining equipment. Mr. Waters noted that if the overburden was
376 thinner, PCS Phosphate could operate with a narrower pit width.
377 Mr. Overton, referring to the graphics handout, asked why the three-dragline
378 alternative is not a straight line. Mr. Smith replied that the three-dragline
379 alternative was extended out slightly to follow the railroad alignment. PCS
380 Phosphate could make the three-dragline alternative straight if necessary. Mr.
381 Dorney asked if this would affect yield and production, and Mr. Smith replied that it
382 would.
383 Mr. Lekson remarked that he has spoken with dragline operators about
384 minimum pit width, and what they said does not agree with the minimum pit
385 widths shown on the table.
386 Mr. Wicker stated that the Team needs to know the percent watershed
387 impact for each line. Mr. McHenry said he would like to see stream modeling
388 results for each of the three scenarios. He stated that each of the scenarios could
389 be run through Dr. Skaggs' model to determine the hydrologic impacts.
10
390 Mr. Moye asked how many draglines are being used to mine the currently
391 permitted area. Mr. Smith answered that three draglines are being used, though
392 not all three draglines are in operation 100 percent of the time. Mr. Waters noted
393 that they are averaging two and a half draglines to meet the current production
394 need. Using all three all of the time would oversupply the plant, based on current
395 market conditions. Mr. Moye asked if all draglines move in the same direction the
396 length of the block. Mr. Waters replied that they do.
397 Mr. Schimming stated that PCS Phosphate is currently at a lower production
398 rate than previous years. Mr. Waters noted that PCS Phosphate is currently
399 producing four million tons per year. Mr. Schimming added that PCS Phosphate is
400 producing less phosphate than in the past because of market conditions. Mr.
401 Smith explained that the chemical plant is the customer for the mine, and right now
402 the mine is required to supply less concentrate to the customer because of a
403 depressed market for the customer's products. Mr. Moye asked what the best
404 guess is for future production needs. Mr. Smith replied that over the long term,
405 production needs to fluctuate between four million and six million tons per year.
406 Therefore, PCS Phosphate uses an average of five million tons per year for long-
407 term planning.
408 Mr. Lekson then suggested a lunch break. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Lekson if,
409 upon returning from lunch, he would lay out guidelines for refining the scope and
410 eliminating areas from further consideration. Mr. Lekson replied that there is no
411 cookbook for the process, and PCS Phosphate may not get what they want. He
412 added that as biologists, the Team can choose which block is likely to contain the
413 least environmentally damaging alternative based on existing data; however, PCS
414 Phosphate cannot tell the Team which blocks do not contain economically viable
415 alternatives due to the lack of technical and economic information. Mr. Furness
416 noted that the Team could eliminate areas such as the Grace Tract due to
417 environmental factors. Mr. Wicker stated that if the Grace Tract is the most
418 environmentally damaging block then the Team could eliminate it; however, it has
419 not been shown to be the most damaging.
420 Mr. Karriker suggested that the Team start the narrowing process by
421 comparing the most environmentally damaging areas to PCS Phosphate's proposed
422 alignment on the NCPC Tract. Any areas that are more damaging than PCS
423 Phosphate's proposal can be eliminated. Areas that cannot easily be determined to
424 be more damaging than PCS Phosphate's proposal can then be analyzed in detail.
425 Mr. Wicker indicated that the Edward Tract is not the most environmentally
426 damaging block. Mr. Karriker pointed out a large section of bottomland hardwood
427 forest that runs the length of the block. Mr. Lekson added that Edward is a block,
428 and there could be a range of potential alternatives within the block. Mr. Lekson
429 stated that PCS Phosphate might be able to mine the non-jurisdictional areas.
11
430 After an hour lunch break, a copy of Table 1, from the "PCS Phosphate EIS
431 Preliminary Project Area Mapping and Resource Inventory" was passed out to the
432 Team. This table presents a comparison among the seven potential mine blocks of
433 all environmental parameters assessed. Mr. Lekson stated that it is important for
434 Team members to familiarize themselves with Table 1 to compare the various
435 blocks. Several Team members noted that Table 1 does not display data for PCS
436 Phosphate's original proposal (the entire NCPC Tract). Mr. Karriker said that at the
437 time Table 1 was prepared, CZR assumed that the original boundary had been
438 taken out of consideration for detailed analysis. Mr. Lekson asked Mr. Karriker to
439 assemble data on the environmental resource values for the original boundary.
440 Mr. Smith proposed that when Dr. Skaggs presents the hydrological
441 modeling scheme, Dr. Terry West from Eastern Carolina University could discuss
442 the Project Area II marsh/creek creation area adjacent to South Creek. Mr. Smith
443 suggested that because Project Area II has essentially no drainage basin, Dr.
444 West's data could have bearing on the discussion of the effects of drainage basin
445 reduction on tributary creeks. Mr. Lekson asked the Team how they feel about Mr.
446 Smith's suggestion. Mr. Dorney, Mr. Steffens, and Mr. Wicker stated that the
447 Team could host a presentation by Dr. West, but Mr. Wicker noted that USFWS
448 has already reviewed the information on Project Area ll. Mr. Smith countered that
449 other agencies may not be familiar with Dr. West's data.
450 Mr. Overton stated that the Project Area II tidal creek creation is interesting
451 work; however, the study is very different from Dr. Skaggs' hydrological modeling.
452 Mr. Furness explained that the link is that Project Area II has no drainage basin,
453 therefore the Team can use the data to compare fish productivity in Project Area II
454 with fish productivity in creeks whose drainage area has not been reduced. Mr..
455 Smith noted that it would be premature for the Team to draw conclusions until all
456 information has been heard. Mr. Overton suggested that the Whitehurst Creek
457 study, including how the hydrology was altered and how water was put back in,
458 would be more applicable.
459 Mr. Dorney turned the Team's attention to the map showing streams in the
460 Area South of Highway 33 (from the "PCS Phosphate EIS Preliminary Project Area
461 Mapping and Resource Inventory"). Mr. Dorney noted that there are three streams
462 in the Area South of Highway 33, not counting the canal that is tributary to the
463 upper part of South Creek. In order from north to south, the streams are Bailey
464 Creek, Broomfield Swamp, and Cypress Run. Mr. Dorney suggested sampling
465 Cypress Run near Mount Shiloh Church and one other point higher in the drainage
466 basin. Sampling could include hydraulics, water chemistry, and physical para-
467 meters. He also suggested that monitoring occur at the SR 1938 and SR 1925
468 road crossings on Broomfield Swamp.
12
469 Mr. Overton stated that Cypress Run and Broomfield Swamp likely are
470 similar, and it may be sufficient to model only one of them. He noted that there
471 are plenty of possible access points for sampling, and he suggested consulting with
472 Dr. Skaggs about selecting monitoring points. Mr. Karriker noted that CZR
473 conducted fish sampling on Cypress Run and Broomfield Swamp during 2002, and
474 that salinity was as high as nine to ten parts per thousand at some of the road
475 crossings that have been suggested as monitoring locations.
476 Mr. Lekson asked Ms. Matthews if she picked up the point that the values
477 for the NCPC Tract in Table 1 of the "PCS Phosphate EIS Preliminary Project Area
478 Mapping and Resource Inventory" may not be indicative of all possible impacts
479 because PCS Phosphate may ask to. include their original proposal as an alternative.
480 Ms. Matthews replied she had not.
481 Mr. Lekson directed the discussion back to potential alternatives for detailed
482 analysis. He noted that at the 7 January 2003 meeting, Dr. McNaught suggested
483 dropping the Pamlico River and Core Point mine blocks, which obviously have
484 greater environmental impacts than PCS Phosphate's current proposal. Ms.
485 Alsentzer, Mr. Dorney, Mr. Steffens, and Mr. Sechler agreed that the Pamlico River
486 and Core Point blocks should be dropped from detailed consideration. Mr.
487 Schimming suggested eliminating the Grace Tract, noting that Mr. Dorney had
488 mentioned there is no possible alternative in the Grace Tract that is less damaging
489 than PCS Phosphate's proposal. Mr. Lekson reiterated to Mr. Schimming that the
490 NEPA process is not a bargaining exercise. The Team's goal is to find the least
491 environmentally damaging alternative, not to trade off areas to be eliminated. Mr.
492 Lekson stated that the USACE is in full support of dropping the Pamlico River and
493 Core Point blocks. Mr. Smith stated that PCS Phosphate concurs with the decision
494 to drop Core Point based on the conclusions that the Team has drawn. However,
495 if the Team decides to drop the Pamlico River block, then PCS Phosphate wishes to
496 go on record opposing that decision.
497 Mr. Lekson asked whether PCS Phosphate wants to study the Pamlico River
498 further. Mr. Smith stated that PCS Phosphate believes there is a practicable
499 alternative in the River. Ms. Matthews countered that practicable does not mean
500 least damaging, and there is no agency present that will agree to permit mining in
501 the Pamlico River. Mr. Smith replied that that decision is based on expert opinion
502 without data to back it up, just as the economic reasons for eliminating the Grace
503 Tract are based on PCS Phosphate's expert opinion. Ms. Matthews stated that the
504 burden is not on her to show that the Pamlico River block is the least damaging
505 practicable alternative. Ms. Matthews stated that PCS Phosphate would need to
506 conduct an incredible amount of study to convince the Team that the Pamlico River
507 is preferable to the other blocks.
13
508 Mr. Sechler stated that the Team's opinion is based on knowledge from
509 published reports on the effects of dredging and filling in aquatic habitats. He
510 stated that NMFS will recommend against considering the Pamlico River block. Mr.
511 Wicker stated that the USFWS concurs with the EPA and NMFS. He added that
512 there is much data and literature on the subject, and the agencies' position is not
513 based on just conjecture. Mr. Lekson noted that PCS Phosphate's insistence on
514 evaluating the Pamlico River would further lengthen the permitting process. Mr.
515 Smith stated that the Team is free to delete the Pamlico River block; PCS
516 Phosphate simply wants to go on record opposing that action.
517 Ms. Alsentzer indicated that the Team is looking at eliminating Pamlico River
518 and Core Point as entire blocks. However, the rest of the Project Area consists of
519 arbitrarily defined tracts. It is possible that alternatives could be considered from
520 pieces of those tracts. Therefore, additional whole blocks should be not eliminated
521 without more detailed information. Mr. Wicker stated that he is ready to evaluate
522 the economic rationale for eliminating the Grace Tract and Edward, but the data is
523 unavailable for review. He added that it is troublesome knowing that when the
524 Team makes a decision, it will be contested by PCS Phosphate.
525 Mr. Schimming expressed confusion about why the Team is still discussing
526 the Grace Tract when NCDWQ has already decided that there is no viable
527 alternative there. Mr. Dorney agreed and added that the same decision was made
528 for the Edward block; however, pieces of it possibly could be mined depending on
529 how the lines are drawn. Mr. Lekson stated that this is the main point; entire
530 blocks defined by arbitrary lines will not be eliminated if there are pieces of the
531 blocks that can be chosen to create a practicable alternative.
532 Mr. Wicker asked if is possible to obtain a 401 certification for mining of the
533 NCPC Tract. Mr. Dorney replied that it is possible, but the Area South of Highway
534 33 is more viable. Mr. Lekson agreed that the Area South of Highway 33 is the
535 least environmentally damaging alternative. Mr. Smith replied that more work has
536 to be done to evaluate the feasibility of the Area South of Highway 33.
537 Mr. Wicker stated that the Team needs to narrow down the blocks by
538 starting with the most damaging and working down to the smaller pieces. Ms.
539 Matthews agreed and asked if parts of the Edward and Grace Tract blocks could be
540 added to the Area South of Highway 33. Mr. Dorney suggested that the east side
541 of the Edward block is the only part that could be added to the Area South of
542 Highway 33.
14
543 Mr. McKenna asked if PCS Phosphate would ever be able to mine blocks
544 that are eliminated during the current permitting process. Mr. Lekson replied that
545 their right to apply for a permit could not be denied. Mr. McKenna asked whether
546 all the blocks are on the table unless taken off by PCS Phosphate. Mr. Lekson
547 replied that they are.
548 Mr. Wicker expressed confusion about a statement made earlier by Mr.
549 Dorney concerning mining being allowed in the NCPC Tract with some maneuvering
550 around high quality environmental resources. Mr. Dorney replied that there are
551 places that can be mined on the NCPC Tract as well as places that cannot be
552 mined; however, there are no places on the Grace Tract that can be mined. Mr.
553 Dorney added that this is because the NCPC Tract contains a lower proportion of
554 high quality wetlands than the Grace Tract. Mr. Karriker explained the color
555 scheme on the Project Area maps and clarified that green colors represent high
556 quality wetlands, while tan, brown, and yellow colors represent lower quality
557 wetlands. Ms. Alsentzer asked if the same color scheme was used on the Area
558 South of Highway 33, and Mr. Karriker replied that is was. Mr. Wicker noted that
559 the maps show that the Grace Tract and NCPC Tract both are predominantly
560 wetland. Mr. Karriker referred to Table 1 from the preliminary inventory document
561 and noted that there is a much greater proportion of high quality wetlands in the
562 Grace Tract than the NCPC Tract. Mr. Furness added that some of the areas
563 previously thought to be drained in the Grace Tract have been considered
564 jurisdictional, therefore, the total wetland area in the Grace Tract is greater than
565 what is shown in the table.
566 Mr. McKenna stated that from the Division of Marine Fisheries' standpoint,
567 pocosin habitat is not as important as marsh and creek habitat. Mr. Lekson
568 acknowledged that Mr. McKenna is looking after his agency's responsibilities,
569 which is expected of all agency personnel. Mr. Wicker stated that he was not
570 disagreeing with the Team, but each of the agencies has different responsibilities.
571 He added that he is opposed to deleting the Grace Tract at this time. Mr. Dorney
572 disagreed with Mr. Wicker, and stated that Mr. Lekson ultimately chooses the
573 mining alternatives. He further stated that it would be more productive for the
574 Team to discuss where PCS Phosphate should mine in the Area South of Highway
575 33 and the NCPC Tract. Mr. Smith asked how the Team could get to that point.
576 Mr. Lekson stated that the point of the process is to determine where in the Project
577 Area PCS Phosphate can mine in an environmentally benign manner. He suggested
578 that PCS Phosphate needs to provide information for evaluating the practicability of
579 alternatives. Mr. Wicker reiterated the need to evaluate economic information
580 before eliminating the Grace Tract.
581 Mr. Smith stated that based on the information Mr. Karriker reviewed, the
582 Team can assume that Sections G2, G3, and G4 in the Grace Tract might be
583 mineable. Based on the scale provided on the maps, these blocks comprise about
15
584 700 to 800 acres. This would provide approximately fifteen million tons of ore, or
585 about three years of mining. Mr. Smith and Mr. Waters made a rough estimate
586 that moving to the area would cost the company fifteen million dollars in up-front
587 capital. Mr. Schimming noted that PCS Phosphate does not own the Grace Tract,
588 and therefore would incur additional cost to acquire the land. He expressed doubt
589 that Reserveco would sell just the part of the property that can be mined. Mr.
590 Baker added that the Grace Tract is the block that is farthest from the processing
591 plant, which would increase the cost of pumping ore to the plant.
592 Mr. Wicker asked if PCS Phosphate owns all the other potential mine
593 continuation blocks. Mr. Waters replied that PCS Phosphate owns portions of each
594 of the other blocks. Mr. Smith elaborated that PCS Phosphate owns essentially all
595 of the NCPC Tract, the vast majority of the Area South of Highway 33, a very
596 small portion of the Grace Tract, and a scattering of the rest of the blocks.
597 Mr. Wicker stated that eliminating the Pamlico River and Core Point blocks is
598 the right decision to make because it is counterproductive to spend effort on
599 nonviable alternatives. He added that he would remain neutral on eliminating the
600 Grace Tract.
601 Ms. Alsentzer indicated that the Team's place is not in economics; it is the
602 Team's responsibility to determine the least damaging alternative. Mr. Smith
603 reminded Ms. Alsentzer that practicability is part of NEPA, and the Team is
604 involved in the NEPA process. Ms. Alsentzer reiterated that the burden of proof
605 lies with the USACE and the economists to demonstrate practicability of
606 alternatives. Mr. Smith stated if that is the case, there is no need for PCS
607 Phosphate to share the cost model with the Team. Mr. Smith noted that he
608 thought the Team would work through all aspects of the process together. Ms.
609 Alsentzer added that she cannot judge the economics due to lack of background in
610 that field.
611 Mr. Wicker asked for Ms. Matthews' opinion on eliminating the Grace Tract.
612 Ms. Matthews replied that she opposes mining high quality wetlands, but is unsure
613 whether there may be areas close to the Area South of Highway 33 that could be
614 added to that block. Mr. Schimming asked if there are other large, contiguous
615 areas of pocosin near the Grace Tract. Mr. Karriker replied that there were similar
616 areas near the town of Arapahoe (near the north shore of the Neuse River estuary),
617 across the Neuse River in the Croatan National Forest, and on the peninsula north
618 of the Pamlico River. Mr. Schimming remarked that if PCS Phosphate proposed to
619 mine the Grace Tract, there might be a concern about impacting a regionally
620 important resource.
16
621 Mr. Wicker stated that the Team needs to be objective. The fact that PCS
622 Phosphate proposes to mine an area should not automatically carry a negative
623 connotation. The fact that PCS Phosphate does not own the Grace Tract should
624 carry a lot of weight in the decision making process. Mr. Lekson stated that lack
625 of ownership does not carry weight from a NEPA standpoint.
626 Mr. Waters stated that the NCPC Tract is PCS Phosphate's preferred
627 alternative. It is the most economically feasible, and it is in close proximity to the
628 chemical plant. However, Mr. Waters continued, the Area South of Highway 33
629 has a small amount of wetland acreage and appears to be preferred from an
630 environmental standpoint. Mr. Waters questioned why the Team is evaluating
631 other blocks with greater environmental concerns. Ms. Matthews replied that all of
632 the blocks contain environmental concerns.
633 Mr. Lekson stated that given what is currently known about the blocks, a
634 permit cannot be issued for the NCPC Tract because the least damaging alternative
635 is the Area South of Highway 33. Mr. Waters questioned why the Team is
636 evaluating areas further away, more costly, and with more environmental impacts,
637 if the Area South of Highway 33 is a viable alternative. Mr. Wicker agreed with
638 Mr. Waters' thought process. Mr. Waters asked whether the NCPC Tract would be
639 evaluated as an alternative if PCS Phosphate had applied for a permit to mine the
640 Grace Tract.
641 Ms. Alsentzer said that the names and boundaries of each block should be
642 eliminated, and evaluations should be based on the pattern of wetland
643 communities. She noted that the Team recognizes that ownership is an issue, but
644 the block boundaries are counterproductive to the alternative formulation process.
645 Mr. Lekson replied that the Team is in the process of trying to identify a range of
646 alternatives. Ms. Matthews asked if the Edward block, except for the area east of
647 Highway 306, was nearly dropped at the 7 January 2003 meeting. She also asked
648 whether the Grace Tract could be dropped as well.
649 Mr. McHenry stated that NCWRC would not look favorably upon mining
650 alternatives that fragment wildlife habitat in Durham Creek and the Grace Tract.
651 The Core Point block, Mr. McHenry continued, has a large amount of coastal marsh
652 that would be impacted as well. Mr. Dorney replied that the Team has already
653 agreed to drop the Core Point block.
654 Mr. Baker stated that when an area is "dropped," it will still be listed in the
655 EIS with an explanation of why it was not evaluated in detail. Mr. Baker noted that
656 there are many reasons for the current block boundary lines, such as shorelines,
657 highways, and land ownership. These boundaries, Mr. Baker continued, help move
658 the process along, and they provide the Team logical alternatives to evaluate within
659 each block. Mr. Wicker replied that one reason not to drop blocks is the possibility
660 of litigation. He noted that considering the largest potential universe will help
17
661 guard against litigation. Mr. Smith replied that when the scoping process first
662 started, the Team discussed all of the phosphate deposits along the entire
663 southeast coast. Therefore, the Team has evaluated the big picture and has
664 narrowed the scope.
665 Mr. Sechler asked if PCS Phosphate has a practicable mine plan for the.
666 Pamlico River. Mr. Smith replied that PCS Phosphate has a mine plan, but has not
667 determined its practicability using the economic feasibility model. Mr. Sechler
668 noted that he considers the river and associated brackish marsh to be the most
669 important habitats in the Project Area; therefore, he is against mining in the
670 Pamlico River. Mr. Smith responded that PCS Phosphate understands; however,
671 based on preliminary studies, PCS Phosphate thinks it would be a practicable mine
672 plan. Mr. Sechler mentioned that it would be very difficult for PCS Phosphate to
673 justify an alternative in the Pamlico River. Mr. Smith noted that it would be even
674 more difficult if not for the valid lease PCS Phosphate retains in the Pamlico River
675 block. Mr. Sechler stated that the outlook is more favorable for mining in the Area
676 South of Highway 33.
677 Mr. Lekson asked the Team what the situation would be if Edward and the
678 Grace Tract were dropped. Mr. Furness replied that detailed analysis would have
679 to be performed in Bonnerton, the Area South of Highway 33, and the NCPC Tract.
680 Mr. Karriker added that various characteristics in each block would have to be
681 mapped in detail. Mr. Moye pointed out a possible alternative in the southern part
682 of Bonnerton. Mr. Furness replied that if PCS Phosphate mines in the Bonnerton
683 block, they would stay in the section of contiguous land within the semicircle
684 formed by Bonnerton Road to avoid private residences. Mr. Moye stated that there
685 are portions of Bonnerton and the eastern section of the Edward Tract that may be
686 worth evaluating. Mr. Furness and Mr. Smith agreed.
687 Mr. Dorney pointed out that there are not many streams in the southern part
688 of Bonnerton, but there are some non-riverine wetlands. Mr. Lekson asked if there
689 is a mining alternative in Bonnerton from NCDWQ's perspective. Mr. Steffens
690 stated that there is, and noted that there are not many streams in Bonnerton.
691 Mr. Lekson asked how the Team feels about the eastern edge of the Edward
692 Tract. He noted that there are high-quality wetlands at the northern and southern
693 ends, while the middle is a mixture of mostly low-quality wetlands. Mr. Moye
694 replied that the eastern edge of the Edward Tract should be explored and noted
695 that the boundary does not have to remain straight.
696 Mr. Lekson summarized that the NCPC Tract, the Area South of Highway
697 33, Bonnerton, and the eastern edge of Edward are on the table for detailed
698 alternatives analysis, while the rest of Edward and the Grace Tract are being
699 considered for elimination from detailed study. Mr. Sechler asked why the Team
700 does not use the same rationale used to eliminate Core Point, the Grace Tract, and
18
701 Edward towards eliminating the Pamlico River block. Mr. Sechler added that he
702 has a problem supporting eliminating the Grace Tract and Edward without
703 eliminating the Pamlico River block. Mr. Moye replied that the Pamlico River has
704 been eliminated.
705 Mr. Wicker asked if PCS Phosphate would be willing to remove their
706 opposition to eliminating the Pamlico River block and agree to evaluate practicable
707 alternatives in the NCPC Tract, the Area South of Highway 33, eastern edge of
708 Edward, and Bonnerton. Ms. Matthews asked what PCS Phosphate's opposition to
709 eliminating the Pamlico River means. Mr. Smith replied that PCS Phosphate is
710 opposing eliminating the Pamlico River because PCS Phosphate sees an
711 economically viable alternative there. Ms. Matthews then asked what happens
712 when an applicant opposes a resource agency's decision to eliminate an area from
713 detailed consideration. Mr. Wicker replied that it sets the stage for a problem
714 down the road. He encouraged PCS Phosphate to remove their opposition to
715 eliminating the Pamlico River, and at the same time the Team can eliminate Core
716 Point, the Grace Tract, and most of Edward.
717 Ms. Alsentzer reminded the team that the blocks should not be used as
718 bargaining tools. Mr. Wicker stated that he has to be reasonable. Mr. Schimming
719 stated that Mr. Wicker's proposal is acceptable. Mr. Moye reminded PCS
720 Phosphate that it is the Corp's responsibility to lead the NEPA process, and in
721 consultation with the agencies, to determine the alternatives to be analyzed. He
722 added that the applicant's objection does not make a difference in the NEPA
723 process. Mr. Lekson agreed, noting that PCS Phosphate's ideas will be considered,
724 but ultimately the selection of alternatives will be the Team's decision.
725 Mr. Lekson asked Ms. Matthews if she agreed to eliminate the Grace Tract
726 and most of Edward. Ms. Matthews agreed. Mr. Baker reminded the Team that
727 Table 1 from the "EIS Preliminary Project Area Mapping and Resource Inventory"
728 presents data that support eliminating the Edward and Grace Tract. Mr. Waters
729 encouraged the Team to focus on what is being carried forward for analysis, rather
730 than what is being eliminated.
731 Mr. Overton stated that dissension over eliminating the Pamlico River does
732 not change the process, and he questioned the value of having it in the record. Mr.
733 Schimming replied that PCS Phosphate is removing their opposition to eliminating
734 the Pamlico River block.
735 After a twenty-minute break due to a fire alarm, Mr. Lekson noted that the
736 Team is nearing the point where it can begin drawing alternative lines on a map.
737 Mr. Lekson added that the economic analysis will start to become important in
738 determining which alternatives will be practicable. Mr. Smith asked if the Team
739 can start identifying alternatives in the NCPC Tract. He noted that CZR is at the
740 point where detailed evaluation can begin when alternative boundary lines are set.
19
741 Mr. Smith suggested starting on the NCPC Tract and continuing with the other
742 areas.
743 Ms. Alsentzer stated that based upon the Project Area maps, the Area South
744 of Highway 33 has comparatively little wetland. She asked why the Team should
745 start with analyzing the NCPC Tract when the Area South of Highway 33 is less
746 environmentally destructive. Mr. Smith replied that the Team has to evaluate the
747 alternative for which PCS Phosphate has applied, and he added that PCS
748 Phosphate has also asked for the original permit application boundary line to be
749 evaluated. He agreed that it would be beneficial for the Team to begin formulating
750 alternatives in the Area South of Highway 33 also.
751 Mr. Dorney stated that one alternative that needs to be evaluated on the
752 NCPC Tract is a modified NCDWQ buffer avoidance line. Mr. Smith stated that as
753 long as CZR and NCDWQ are on the same page and Mr. Lekson is in agreement,
754 then evaluation of an NCDWQ buffer avoidance alternative can proceed. Mr.
755 Lekson noted that the USACE might also want to evaluate a WASC avoidance
756 alternative, possibly in combination with NCDWQ's buffer avoidance alternative.
757 Ms. Alsentzer asked how long it will take for the Area South of Highway 33
758 to be ready for detailed analysis. Mr. Smith stated the western boundary of the
759 Area South of Highway 33 will be moved into the eastern edge of the Edward
760 block. He noted that PCS Phosphate will require guidance on where to reposition
761 the line. He asked whether the line should be drawn to exclude high-quality
762 wetlands. Mr. Lekson stated that the block boundary should be moved over to the
763 private residences, with no attempt to exclude high-quality wetlands. He noted
764 that wetlands of similar quality are included in the boundary of the NCPC Tract.
765 Mr. Smith stated that the mining permit boundary would have to be placed 300
766 feet from the private residences, in accordance with NCDLR regulations. Mr.
767 Furness added that the same types of avoidance alternatives that are being
768 considered for the NCPC Tract could also be evaluated for the Area South of
769 Highway 33. Mr. Dorney agreed.
770 Mr. Lekson suggested an alternative for the NCPC Tract that involves
771 reducing the current Alternative E pit width to the minimum necessary for two
772 draglines. The rest of the Alternative E pit would be mined on the way back, along
773 with enough additional land to allow a two-dragline return sweep. Mr. Smith
774 replied that such an alternative would not meet PCS Phosphate's production needs
775 of five million tons of phosphate ore per year, because two draglines could only
776 produce four million tons per year. Mr. Smith added that PCS Phosphate would
777 need assurance very soon that the USACE would issue a permit for the additional
778 land involved in the return sweep, otherwise PCS Phosphate would be walking
779 away from currently permitted reserves in Alternative E.
20
780 Mr. Dorney stated that the Team could consider an alternative that involves
781 avoiding WASC areas in the Area South of Highway 33, though he noted that the
782 large area of hardwood forest WASC at the southern end is in the process of being
783 cut. Mr. Furness suggested that such an alternative could be modified such that it
784 is a maximum wetland avoidance alternative. Mr. Dorney noted that there are only
785 four acres of bottomland hardwood forest in the Area South of Highway 33, and
786 these areas are not considered high quality because the streams are channelized
787 and the wetlands are no longer connected to the streams. Mr. Lekson noted that
788 this assessment of low quality is from a water quality perspective.
789 A preliminary list of possible alternatives was discussed for each of the
790 mining blocks to be evaluated in detail: the NCPC Tract, Bonnerton, and the Area
791 South of Highway 33 (including the eastern edge of Edward). Mr. Lekson pointed
792 out to PCS that he was aware of PCS's urgency to move the process along, but,
793 the issue of alternatives is not settled and there may be more/other alternatives
794 identified that must be addressed. The economic analysis will also play a role in
795 the alternative selection process.
796 NCPC Tract
797 1. Mine existing permitted area and return in existing permitted area, with some
798 additional areas. Two to three draglines must be used to be able to supply
799 five million tons per year.
800 2. Buffer avoidance (beyond current NCDWQ line)
801 3: Old NCDWQ avoidance line
802 4. CAMA avoidance
803 5. PCS Phosphate's current permit application
804 6. PCS Phosphate's original permit application
805 The Team noted the need to consider how the information PCS Phosphate provided
806 on minimum pit widths for one, two, and three-dragline continuations might fit in
807 with these possible alternatives.
808 Area South of Highway 33 (including eastern edge of Edward)
809 1. Buffer avoidance
810 2. NCDWQ wetland avoidance
811 3. Wetland minimization in east Edward and southern end of tract
812 4. CAMA avoidance
813 5. Entire block (including eastern part of Edward Tract)
814 Bonnerton (inside the arc formed by Bonnerton Road)
21
815 1. Buffer avoidance
816 2. WASC avoidance
817 3. CAMA avoidance
818 4. Whole block (excluding houses, cemeteries, and archaeological sites)
819 Mr. Dorney advised Mr. Karriker that new alternative boundary lines would
820 need to be drawn. Mr. Karriker stated that much survey work still needs to be
821 completed to identify CAMA jurisdictional areas. He asked if CZR should proceed
822 with drawing the new boundary lines using the data available, bearing in mind that
823 the boundary lines might have to be adjusted after the survey work is complete.
824 Mr. Smith asked if CZR could proceed with the six alternatives on the NCPC Tract.
825 Mr. Karriker replied that the flagged CAMA jurisdictional line still need to be verified
826 with the Division of Coastal Management and the flags then need to be surveyed.
827 Mr. Furness stated that he does not want to have the alternative boundary lines
828 adjusted later.
829 Mr. Baker stated that the cost model cannot be run without the boundary
830 lines and acreage of each alternative. Mr. Furness added that the narrative of the
831 model can be sent out for review. Mr. Dorney added that sooner or later, the Team
832 will need to begin discussing mitigation.
833 Mr. Smith asked about the plan for the next meeting. Mr. Lekson replied
834 that Dr. Skaggs will present information on the NCPC hydrologic modeling.
835 Ms. Alsentzer asked how the review of the economic model will proceed.
836 Mr. Smith noted that PCS Phosphate will send the narrative of the economic model
837 to the USACE for review. The USACE will then decide when to distribute it to the
838 Team.
839 The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:10 p.m. If you feel that we have
840 omitted or inaccurately depicted any of the issues that were discussed, please
841 submit your comments to us in writing. Please list the appropriate page and line
842 number(s) in your comments.
843 The next Team meeting is scheduled for 6 May 2003 at 10:00 a.m. The
844 meeting will be held in the conference room in the Washington office of NCDENR.
845
846
847 Distribution
Mr. Jeffrey C.. Furness Mr. Terry Baker
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48 Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806 Aurora, North Carolina 27806
22

Ms. Kathy Matthews Ms. Laura Toler
Wetlands Regulatory Section USEPA/EAB U.S. Army'Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Management Division Washington Regulatory Field Office
980 College Station Road Post Office Box 1000
Athens, Georgia 30605 Washington, North Carolina 27889
Ms. Mary Alsentzer
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
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. Sean McKenna
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David McHenry
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
943 Washington Square Mall
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. William A. Schimming
Potash Corp.
Post Office Box 3320
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
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
Mr. David M. Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Ms. Maria Tripp
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Mike Thomas
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
23
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. Jerry Waters
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Kelly Spivey
Division of Land Resources
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. Bob Zarzecki
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Dr. David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Floyd Williams
Division of Land Resources
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
Mr. Charles Jones
NC Division of Coastal Management
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
24
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
June 26, 2003
Subject: Action ID. 200110096
Mr. Sam Cooper
CZR Incorporated
4709 College Acres Drive, Suite 2
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Dear Mr. Cooper:
C C?CROW G
JUN 3 0 2003
CZR Incorporated
Please reference our meeting of June 11, 2003, regarding PCS Phosphate Company's
application for a Department of the Army (DA) individual permit to continue its surface mining
operations near Aurora, in Beaufort County, North Carolina. The purpose of this correspondence
is to provide you with my comments regarding the minutes of the February 26, 2003, permit
review team meeting.
As discussed, please make the following changes to the subject minutes:
1. Lines 131-133. Reword: "The high-quality wetlands (mature hardwoods, mature
mixed pine-harwood forest and seep drains) were defined pursuant to the protocol developed in
1991 for the determination of Wetland Areas of Special Concern."
2. Line 178. Remove the word "significantly".
3. Lines 189-190. Reword end of sentence: "...thus a majority of this section may be
jurisdictional wetland."
4. Line 212-213. Reword: "Additionally, this wetland serves as a recharge/discharge
area for Upper Broad Creek (Neuse River Basin) and Durham Creek (Pamlico River Basin)."
5. Lines 242-245. Reword end of first sentence: "...however, having seen the high-
quality habitat that is present, he agrees with Mr. Dorney that, from an environmental standpoint,
the Grace Tract does not contain any viable mining alternative. However, the economic
information is still lacking."
-2-
6. Lines 787-789. Reword as follows, "A preliminary list of possible alternatives was
discussed for each of the mining blocks to be evaluated in detail: the NCPC Tract, Bonnerton,
and the Area South of Highway 33 (including the eastern edge of Edward). Mr. Lekson pointed
out to PCS that he was aware of PCS's urgency to move the process along, but, the issue of
alternatives is not settled and there may be more/other alternatives identified that must be
addressed. The economic analysis will also play a role in the alternative selection process."
Please note that lines 433-437 and 749-750 indicate tasks for CZR.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please call me at the
Washington Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone], extension 22.
Sincerely,

David M. Lekson, P.W.S.
Chief, Washington Regulatory Field Office
Copies Furnished:
Mrs. Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Regulatory Section
USEPA/EAB
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Mike Wicker
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
-3-
Mr. John Dorney
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. David Moye
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Floyd Williams
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
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
-4-
Mr. David McHenry
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David McNaught, Senior Policy Analyst
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mrs. Mary Alsentzer
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
Washington, North Carolina 27889

ZR 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
INCORPORATED WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1725
11RONMENTAL CONSULTANTS TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
MEMORANDUM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
29
30
31
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
See Distribution
Kent Karriker, Dawn Carroll
14 April 2003
APR 1 7
ry1 240
O/!
Minutes of the 26 February 2003 meeting for the PCS Phosphate Mine
Continuation permit application review
The eighth 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 26 February 2003. The
following people were in attendance:
David Lekson - USACE
Laura Toler- USACE
Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate
Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate
Jerry Waters - PCS Phosphate
Bill Schimming - Potash Corp.
Terry Baker - PCS Phosphate
Jimmie Overton - NCDWQ
John Dorney - NCDWQ
Tom Steffens - NCDWQ
Terry Moore - NCDCM
David Moye - NCDCM
18 Sean McKenna - NCDMF
19 Maria Tripp - NCDWQ
20 Mike Wicker - USFWS
21 David McHenry - NCWRC
22 Charles Jones - NCDCM
23 Kelly Spivey - NCDLR
24 Mike Thomas - NCDWQ
25 Mary Alsentzer - PTRF
26 Ron Sechler - NMFS
27 Kent Karriker - CZR Incorporated
28 Dawn Carroll - CZR Incorporated
Kathy Matthews of USEPA participated via telephone.
1
1061 EAST INDIANTOWN ROAD - SUITE 100 - JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5143
TEL [phone] - FAX [phone] - czrjup@aol,com - www.CZRINC.com
32 At approximately 10:05 a.m., Mr. Lekson called the meeting to order. He
33 handed out an agenda that listed the following eight items for consideration:
34 1. Presentation of Minutes from 7 January 03 meeting;
35 2. Progress update on technical/economic feasibility modeling;
36 3. Progress update on survey location of NCPC Tract stream
37 channels/origins;
38 4. Presentation of the results of the reconnaissance of the East Edward
39 and the Grace Tract;
40 5. Discussion of the scope of studies needed to investigate the effects of
41 drainage basin reduction on tributary creeks;
42 6. Discussion of one, two, and three dragline alternatives for the NCPC
43 Tract;
44 7. Discussion of potential alternatives for detailed analysis;
45 8. Re-schedule next meeting.
46 Mr. Karriker began the meeting by verifying that the Team members had
47 received each of the three handouts passed around: the agenda, the minutes from
48 the 7 January 2003 meeting, and the description of the field inspections of the
49 Edward and Grace Tract blocks.
50 Mr. Lekson reviewed the last page of the minutes from the 7 January 2003
51 meeting and encouraged the Team members to submit comments if they felt that
52 any of the issues had been omitted or inaccurately depicted. Mr. Lekson noted
53 that some of the issues discussed in the last meeting will come up again for
54 progress updates. He then asked Mr. Karriker to begin reviewing the tasks on the
55 agenda.
56 Mr. Karriker asked Mr. Smith to review the progress update on the technical/
57 economic feasibility model. Mr. Smith replied that the narrative description of the
58 model is being reviewed by PCS Phosphate staff. He noted that approximately
59 ninety to ninety-five percent of the narrative is complete and will be ready to
60 submit to the USACE for review in two weeks. He noted that it is important for
61 the Team to understand the concepts behind the model before the model is used to
62 evaluate mining alternatives.
63 Mr. Lekson stated that the technical/economic feasibility model was an
64 important topic at the 7 January 2003 Team meeting. Mr. Smith replied that all
65 questions should be answered by the narrative description and that PCS Phosphate
66 is open to any comments. Mr. Lekson acknowledged that the USACE staff
67 member who was to review the model has been assigned to Washington D.C. The
68 USACE currently is considering who will review the model. He asked Mr. Dorney if
2
69 he knows anyone who might serve as an independent third party reviewer. Mr.
70 Dorney replied that he does not.
71 Mr. Lekson then asked Mr. Karriker to review and update the Team on the
72 progress of the task list from the 7 January 2003 meeting. Mr. Karriker stated
73 that the surveying of stream channel flags on the NCPC Tract is complete, and CZR
74 is currently in the process of reviewing the survey maps. He noted that when the
75 review is complete and changes have been verified, CZR will overlay surveyed
76 stream points on the NCPC wetland map with the old Alternative B boundary line,
77 the old NCDWQ line, and the current PCS Phosphate proposal. The map will then
78 be given to NCDWQ to develop an updated NCDWQ avoidance boundary line. Mr.
79 Lekson then asked if this would generate a new NCDWQ avoidance boundary line.
80 Mr. Dorney replied that it will generate another upper limit and supply the Team
81 with an additional alternative to evaluate.
82 Mr. Karriker added that wetland ratings for the Area South of Highway 33
83 have been completed and field-verified with NCDWQ, and the information has been
84 supplied to NCDWQ. Mr. Karriker asked Mr. Dorney if the wetland ratings
85 information should be distributed to the Team. Mr. Dorney replied that he sees no
86 reason not to provide the information to the Team.
87 Mr. Karriker continued the progress review by noting that the determination
88 of the upper limits of Public Trust in the Area South of Highway 33 is on hold. Mr.
89 Lekson then asked Mr. Schimming if PCS Phosphate has filed suit against the State
90 over the Public Trust definition. Mr. Smith replied that PCS Phosphate has filed a
91 complaint for declaratory relief in which they have asked the court to determine
92 whether the State's definition of navigability is appropriate. Mr. Lekson asked Mr.
93 Smith what would happen if PCS Phosphate wins the suit. Mr. Smith replied that
94 there would be no Public Trust issues in PCS Phosphate's currently proposed mine
95 continuation. Mr. Lekson asked whether PCS Phosphate would re-apply for their
96 first proposal, which involved mining through the creeks on the NCPC Tract. Mr.
97 Smith replied that PCS Phosphate would like to include the original application
98 boundary line as an alternative to be evaluated. Mr. Lekson reminded Mr. Smith
99 that the USACE still has Section 10 and Section 404 jurisdiction over the creeks.
100 Mr. Dorney asked about the timing of the suit. Mr. Smith replied that typically the
101 defendant has thirty days to reply to the complaint, but that time period can be
102 extended.
103 Mr. Lekson then asked Mr. Smith why the Team is meeting if PCS Phosphate
104 is considering going back to the original proposal. Mr. Smith replied that other
105 alternatives are still valid to consider; however, PCS Phosphate would like to
106 consider the original proposal for detailed analysis as well. Mr. Smith noted that
107 evaluating the original proposal does not change any of the other possible
108 alternatives that the Team is evaluating, so there is no reason to be concerned
3
109 about wasting effort. Ms. Alsentzer asked if PCS Phosphate is questioning the
110 State's definition of Public Trust. Mr. Smith replied that PCS Phosphate is
111 questioning the State's policy for Public Trust calls based on interpretation of
112 navigability. Mr. Lekson reminded Mr. Smith that any added issues that affect the
113 permit process affect the speed with which a permit decision is reached. Mr.
114 Smith replied that PCS Phosphate would like to continue the evaluation process
115 using current agency policies, as long as the original permit application boundary
116 line is included as an alternative to be evaluated. Mr. Wicker asked Mr. Smith to
117 clarify whether the suit is questioning the definition of the upper limited of
118 navigability. Mr. Smith confirmed that it is.
119 Mr. Karriker then began a discussion of the recent reconnaissance of East
120 Edward and the Grace Tract. He noted that the Team had requested information
121 on the quality of wetlands in the eastern edge of the Edward Tract and portions of
122 the Grace Tract. Mr. Karriker noted that the results of the reconnaissance work are
123 contained in the document entitled "Field Inspections of the Edward and Grace
124 Tract Blocks for the PCS Phosphate Mine Continuation," which was handed out at
125 the beginning of the meeting.
126 Mr. Karriker began summarizing the document by pointing out the eastern
127 edge of the Edward Tract on a map hung at the front of the conference room. The
128 eastern edge of the Edward Tract. is a narrow area between Highway 306 and the
129 base of the Suffolk Scarp. A field inspection of this area was conducted on 4
130 February 2003. Mr. Karriker noted that reconnaissance of this area revealed a
131 mixture of high-quality and low-quality wetlands. He defined high-quality wetlands
132 as mature hardwoods, mature mixed pine-hardwood forest, and seep drains with
133 mature trees. Low-quality wetlands were defined as cutovers, pine plantations,
134 and young regenerating forest. High-quality areas were concentrated at the
135 northern and southern ends of East Edward, with some smaller areas in the middle.
136 Mr. Dorney asked if a rough estimate of community acreages is known for
137 the eastern edge of the Edward Tract. Mr. Karriker replied that acreages were not
138 estimated because the Team requested only a narrative description of the area.
139 Mr. Smith asked who attended the field inspection meeting. Mr. Karriker replied
140 that he, Scott Jones (USACE), Laura Toler (USACE), David Lekson (USACE), Jeff
141 Furness (PCS Phosphate), and Jeff Coward (CZR Incorporated) attended the
142 reconnaissance of East Edward and a "windshield" reconnaissance of the central
143 and southern parts of the Grace Tract. The following day, he, Mr. Jones, Mr.
144 Lekson, Mr. Furness, Mr. Coward, Tom Steffens (NCDWQ), and Mike Thomas
145 (NCDWQ) investigated the hydrology of several ditched sections in the northern
146 part of the Grace Tract.
147 Mr. Furness then pointed out Figure 1 to the Team, which depicts the
148 information Mr. Karriker had presented. Mr. Karriker noted that Mr. Lekson
4
149 prepared Figure 1, which is a spatial presentation of the varying wetland types
150 found along the eastern edge of the Edward Tract. Mr. Lekson stated that areas
151 one and three depicted on Figure 1 might be blocked out of an alternative due to
152 high-quality habitats. Mr. Lekson noted that the field inspection team also
153 encountered interesting seep drains, which might be of concern to NCDWQ for
154 water quality reasons. Mr. Dorney asked if defined channels are generally absent
155 from these seep drain areas. Mr. Lekson replied that the drains generally are
156 braided and lack well-defined channels; however, the water draining from the seeps
157 ultimately is intercepted by ditches that drain into tributaries of South Creek.
158 Mr. Karriker directed the Team's attention to Figure 2, which depicts the
159 Grace Tract reconnaissance work done on 5 February 2003. Mr. Karriker asked
160 the Team to recall from the 7 January 2003 Team meeting the discussion revolving
161 around the hydrologic status of areas in the Grace Tract that were shown as
162 drained on recent Project Area mapping. At that meeting the Permit Team had
163 requested additional ground reconnaissance of hydrology and habitat quality for
164 these sections. Therefore, the USACE, PCS Phosphate, CZR, and NCDWQ
165 examined hydrology and soils in the five ditched blocks located in the north- central
166 part of the Grace Tract. Mr. Karriker reminded the Team that these blocks, labeled
167 G1, G2, G3, G4, and G5 on Figure 2, were shown originally on Project Area
168 mapping as drained based on apparent ditch spacings of 660 feet or closer.
169 Mr. Karriker stated that in G1, ditches appeared to be present based on the
170 aerial photograph, but field examination showed that most of the ditches have
171 degraded to the point of being non-functional. Therefore, wetland hydrology has
172 not been removed. G1 vegetation is high pocosin that is regenerating following a
173 disturbance in the mid-1 980s, but could be considered high-quality according to the
174 classification used the last EIS, which considers all pocosin-bay forest to be high-
175 quality.
176 Mr. Karriker explained that G2 is dominated by high-quality high pocosin
177 vegetation; however, the ditches are in good shape and appear to have impacted
178 hydrology significantly. Mr. Karriker noted that portions of G2 may be drained, but
179 the field inspection was not thorough enough to conclude that the entire section is
180 drained.
181 Mr. Karriker described G3 as consisting mostly of high-quality pond pine
182 woodland. He stated that the ditches in G3 are in good shape and appear to have
183 affected hydrology, but field observations suggest that wetland hydrology has not
184 been completely removed from portions of this section.
185 Mr. Karriker stated that G4 consists of two distinct habitat types. G4-North
186 is a young mixed shrub-forest habitat that resulted from compaction of mineral
187 soils during timber harvest and an attempt to establish a pine plantation in the early
188 to mid 1980's. The ditches in G4-North are in good shape, but low soil
5
189 permeability has impeded drainage, thus significant parts of the section may be
190 jurisdictional wetland. Mr. Karriker explained that G4-South is a pine plantation
191 with sandy and loamy soils. He stated that G4-South did not suffer from
192 compaction during timber harvest, which resulted in a well-established pine
193 plantation. The ditches in G4-South are in good shape and appear to have
194 effectively drained much of the area; however, the reconnaissance was not
195 thorough enough to make a definitive call.
196 Mr. Karriker described G5 as low pocosin, which is generally considered to
197 be a rare, high-quality habitat. The ditches in this section are serviceable, but do
198 not penetrate through the 7-foot thick peat layer into the mineral soils below.
199 Therefore, G5 has not been drained effectively, and the bulk of the section remains
200 jurisdictional.
201 Mr. Wicker asked if Section G4 is bedded. Mr. Karriker replied that both G4-
202 North and G4-South are bedded; the difference between the two sections is the
203 soil type. G4-North soils are loamy and clay loam soils, whereas G4-South soils are
204 sand or sandy loam.
205 Mr. Karriker then summarized the results of the windshield survey of the
206 central and southern portions of the Grace Tract. Mr. Karriker noted that this
207 reconnaissance was conducted to fulfill a request by Ms. Mathews at the 7
208 January 2003 meeting. Mr. Karriker stated that several pocosin and bay forest
209 habitat types were observed. Except for a few cutover areas, most habitats
210 appeared to be high quality. He added that this area is a valuable wetland system
211 because it is very large, contiguous, and provides excellent habitat for wildlife
212 species. Additionally, this wetland serves as a recharge/discharge area for Upper
213 Broad Creek and Durham Creek.
214 Mr. Lekson pointed out on the Project Area map the areas that would have
215 to be disturbed if PCS Phosphate were to mine Sections G1 through G5. Mr.
216 Dorney noted that the reconnaissance determined that parts of the blocks were still
217 jurisdictional, so wetland impacts would be greater than they appear on the Project
218 Area map, which shows G1 through G5 as completely drained.
219 Mr. Sechler asked what the elevation change is from the top of the Suffolk
220 Scarp to the bottom. Mr. Karriker responded that the top of the Suffolk Scarp is
221 up to 50 feet above sea level, while land at the eastern base of the scarp is
222 approximately 15 feet above sea level. Elevations drop less dramatically on the
223 west side of the scarp. Mr. Karriker explained that the scarp serves as a dam that
224 impedes drainage on the Grace Tract property to the west of the scarp. Mr.
225 Karriker stated that the center of the low pocosin is the highest elevation west of
226 the scarp on the Grace Tract, and that the land slopes gradually toward the
227 headwaters of Durham Creek and Upper Broad Creek.
6
228 Mr. Karriker asked Mr. Lekson if the field inspection of East Edward and the
229 Grace Tract had accomplished what the Permit Team requested, and Mr. Lekson
230 solicited questions from the Team. Mr. Lekson asked Mr. Karriker if any other
231 ecological assessment work has been done on the Grace Tract. Mr. Karriker replied
232 that he is not aware of any. Mr. Lekson pointed out the size of the Grace Tract by
233 noting that the sample transects, which appear quite small on Figure 2, are actually
234 between 1,000 and 1,200 feet long. Mr. Karriker agreed that the Grace Tract is a
235 very large area.
236 Mr. Dorney stated that he does not think there are any viable mining
237 alternatives in the Grace Tract. Mr. Lekson reiterated that the potential mine
238 continuation blocks are not alternatives and it may be possible to piece together
239 sections of adjacent mine blocks to , create an alternative. Mr. Dorney
240 acknowledged that good information was presented in reference to the field
241 inspections of East Edward and the Grace Tract.
242 Mr. Lekson stated that there are some sections examined in the Grace Tract
243 that could be considered non-jurisdictional; however, having seen the high-quality
244 habitat that is present, he agrees with Mr. Dorney that the Grace Tract does not
245 contain any viable mining alternatives. Mr. McHenry concurred based on the high
246 wildlife value of the Grace Tract. Mr. McHenry also expressed concern about
247 occurrences of rare species in the Grace Tract, specifically venus flytrap. Mr.
248 Karriker stated that there are records for venus flytrap in the Grace Tract along the
249 west side of the Suffolk Scarp, as well as old records for red-cockaded woodpecker
250 and rough-leaved loosestrife. Mr. Karriker noted that CZR has surveyed for rough-
251 leaved loosestrife along the eastern slope of the Suffolk Scarp in the Edward and
252 Bonnerton blocks. During these surveys, CZR conducted a cursory check of the
253 rough-leaved loosestrife site on the Grace Tract, but did not find the plant. He
254 noted that fire suppression has created unsuitable conditions for rough-leaved
255 loosestrife in the areas that were surveyed.
256 Moving on to the next agenda item, Mr. Lekson asked Mr. Karriker to discuss
257 the scope of studies needed to investigate the effects of drainage basin reduction
258 on tributary creeks. Mr. Karriker stated that CZR needs some direction and
259 clarification from NCDWQ on the scope of studies needed to address the drainage
260 basin reduction issue. Mr. Karriker stated that he has had some preliminary
261 discussions with Dr. Wayne Skaggs from North Carolina State University about
262 flow modeling. Mr. Karriker explained that CZR and Dr. Skaggs have been
263 conducting drainage basin reduction studies to satisfy a condition of the Alternative
264 E permit. This condition required monitoring of flow, wetland hydrology, water
265 quality, fish, benthic macro invertebrates, salinity, and vegetation, prior to drainage
266 basin reduction and for 5 years following reduction. Mr. Karriker noted that Dr.
267 Skaggs has been responsible for the hydrological modeling that will address the
268 impacts of mining and drainage basin reduction in the NCPC Tract. Mr. Karriker
7
269 asked whether CZR can use the results of existing modeling and extrapolate for
270 other mining alternatives, or if additional modeling will be required.
271 Mr. Dorney stated that NCDWQ is satisfied with the hydrological modeling
272 completed so far on the NCPC Tract; however, the results would need to be
273 evaluated to assess their applicability to the current EIS process. Mr. Wicker
274 stated that it would be useful to delineate watersheds and evaluate the percent of
275 watersheds impacted or the percent of water input reduction. Mr. Karriker replied
276 that Dr. Skaggs' modeling can be used to assess the reduction in water input. Mr.
277 McHenry asked whether the modeling allowed for extrapolation of the effects on
278 the salinity regimes in the creeks. Mr. Karriker replied that salinity is not included
279 in Dr. Skaggs' hydrologic model. However, CZR monitors salinity and wetland
280 hydrology and conducts a qualitative assessment of the relationships of these
281 parameters to flow. Mr. Karriker added that there are many factors that affect
282 salinity, and it is often difficult to identify conclusively the effects of any particular
283 factor. Mr. McHenry asked whether the creeks being studied are high-salinity
284 areas. Mr. Karriker replied that salinity in the creeks ranges from oligohaline to
285 mesohaline.
286 Mr. Wicker mentioned a study by N.C. State researchers in Broad Creek that
287 evaluated the effects of freshwater input and salinity fluctuations on fish
288 productivity. He noted that salinity is normally volatile and it is difficult to identify
289 any changes in salinity due to changes in runoff. However, the system is
290 benthically oriented, and reducing drainage into the system will reduce productivity
291 of the system. Mr. Dorney suggested that Dr. Skaggs present the modeling
292 scheme to the Team in detail so the Team can evaluate its applicability to the
293 current EIS process. Mr. Lekson then asked Mr. Wicker to clarify his earlier
294 statement. Mr. Wicker explained that by reducing drainage basin area, productivity
295 is reduced. Therefore, by identifying the watershed acreage and the percentage of
296 the watershed to be reduced, the impact to productivity can be estimated. Mr.
297 Dorney replied that the point of the monitoring program is to recognize impacts that
298 are present and use hydrological modeling to determine whether and how much
299 water to add to mitigate the impacts.
300 Mr. Lekson asked the Team if it would be beneficial to have Dr. Skaggs
301 present information on the hydrological model. Mr. Sechler asked if any of the
302 modeling studies have been published. Mr. Dorney replied that the reports have
303 been submitted to the appropriate agencies for review.
304 Mr. Furness stated that the Team needs to determine whether the
305 hydrological modeling that has been done is sufficient for predicting the effects of
306 mining in other areas such as the Area South of Highway 33. Mr. Dorney replied
307 that the systems in the NCPC Tract are different from the systems in the Area
308 South of Highway 33. He noted that the systems in the Area South of Highway
8
309 33 have larger watersheds, are farther away from the saline part of the estuary,
310 and are channelized. He added that mining in the Area South of Highway 33 could
311 affect the hydrology of South Creek. Mr. Dorney concluded that because of the
312 differences between the two systems, the information collected in the NCPC Tract
313 is not comparable to the Area South of Highway 33.
314 Mr. Furness acknowledged that the NCPC Tract modeling cannot be
315 extrapolated to the Area South of Highway 33, but suggested that similar modeling
316 techniques can be used. Mr. Furness asked NCDWQ to suggest which creeks or
317 tributaries in the Area South of Highway 33 should be modeled.
318 The discussion then moved to Agenda Item 7, the discussion of areas that
319 will contain alternatives for detailed analysis. Mr. Wicker stated that at the 7
320 January 2003 meeting, the Team discussed removing the Pamlico River and Core
321 Point blocks for environmental reasons, and PCS Phosphate countered with a
322 suggestion to remove the Edward and Grace Tract blocks for economic reasons.
323 Now, however, PCS Phosphate is suggesting that the Edward and Grace Tract
324 blocks be removed for environmental reasons. Mr. Smith replied that the Team
325 should consider multiple characteristics in narrowing the area considered for
326 detailed alternatives analysis. Ms. Matthews added that the economic feasibility
327 model is not available; therefore environmental characteristics are the only
328 characteristics that can be evaluated at this point. Mr. Wicker encouraged the
329 Team to evaluate areas in a logical sequence by dropping potential alternative areas
330 in a ranked fashion. Areas should be dropped only if they have greater impacts
331 that the NCPC Tract. Mr. Lekson stated that the Team needs to determine which
332 alternative is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. The Team
333 decided at the last meeting that neither the Core Point block nor the Pamlico River
334 block can contain the least damaging alternative. Therefore, the Team agreed to
335 drop them from further evaluation. Mr. Lekson noted that as Ms. Matthews stated,
336 the economic feasibility model still needs to be evaluated to determine whether
337 alternatives can be pieced together from the other blocks.
338 Mr. Lekson asked the NCDWQ representatives to discuss over lunch which
339 streams need to be modeled for the drainage basin reduction issue. He noted that
340 reports from the ongoing NCPC Tract monitoring are available to assist in decision-
341 making. Mr. Wicker stated that he would be interested in reading those reports.
342 Mr. Karriker stated that he would send out copies of the original study plan for the
343 NCPC Tract Stream Monitoring Program, as well as the Executive Summary of the
344 2001 annual report. Mr. Karriker noted that a team presentation by Dr. Skaggs and
345 himself would allow the Team to ask questions about the hydrological modeling.
346 Mr. Smith then moved on to discuss one, two, and three dragline
347 alternatives for the NCPC Tract by handing out the document titled "NCPC Mine
348 Continuation Alternatives at Minimum Operating Pit Widths." Mr. Smith stated
9
349 that under each of these alternatives, mining would proceed parallel to South
350 Creek. He explained that the table defines the minimum pit width for the three
351 different alternatives and the average annual production for the three different
352 scenarios. The subsequent graphics are close-ups of each of the three scenarios.
353 Mr. Dorney stated that he assumes that PCS Phosphate will mine in a
354 straight line. Mr. Smith replied that the numbers shown in the table are not
355 applicable for anything other than a straight line. Mr. Dorney questioned why the
356 width of the mine pit in the northern end of the NCPC Tract adjacent to the
357 Pamlico River is the same for all three alternatives. Mr. Smith replied that the
358 number of draglines does not make much of a difference in the northern end where
359 the turn from a northeastward to a southwestward advance will be made.
360 Mr. Lekson asked if the pit widths shown on the table are the minimum
361 operating pit widths. Mr. Smith replied that they are the minimum pit widths that
362 will allow production requirements to be met. Ms. Alsentzer asked if it is possible
363 to mine a narrower pit if production requirements are not a factor. Mr. Smith
364 replied that it is possible.
365 Mr. Lekson indicated that the purpose for discussing one, two, and three
366 dragline alternatives is to evaluate the physical aspects of minimum return width
367 scenarios. Ms. Alsentzer asked if PCS Phosphate could mine a narrower pit. Mr.
368 Smith replied that if PCS Phosphate mines a narrower pit, there would be a
369 significant impact on production due to equipment limitations and lower recovery of
370 the ore. Mr. Wicker asked if the minimum pit width is dependent on ore
371 concentration. Mr. Smith replied that minimum pit width is independent of ore
372 concentration; instead it is dependent on the geology of the overburden and
373 limitations of the mining equipment. Mr. Waters noted that if the overburden was
374 thinner, PCS Phosphate could operate with a narrower pit width.
375 Mr. Overton, referring to the graphics handout, asked why the three-dragline
376 alternative is not a straight line. Mr. Smith replied that the three-dragline
377 alternative was extended out slightly to follow the railroad alignment. PCS
378 Phosphate could make the three-dragline alternative straight if necessary. Mr.
379 Dorney asked if this would affect yield and production, and Mr. Smith replied that it
380 would.
381 Mr. Lekson remarked that he has spoken with dragline operators about
382 minimum pit width, and what they said does not agree with the minimum pit
383 widths shown on the table.
384 Mr. Wicker stated that the Team needs to know the percent watershed
385 impact for each line. Mr. McHenry said he would like to see stream modeling
386 results for each of the three scenarios. He stated that each of the scenarios could
387 be run through Dr. Skaggs' model to determine the hydrologic impacts.
10
388 Mr. Moye asked how many draglines are being used to mine the currently
389 permitted area. Mr. Smith answered that three draglines are being used, though
390 not all three draglines are in operation 100 percent of the time. Mr. Waters noted
391 that they are averaging two and a half draglines to meet the current production
392 need. Using all three all of the time would oversupply the plant, based on current
393 market conditions. Mr. Moye asked if all draglines move in the same direction the
394 length of the block. Mr. Waters replied that they do.
395 Mr. Schimming stated that PCS Phosphate is currently at a lower production
396 rate than previous years. Mr. Waters noted that PCS Phosphate is currently
397 producing four million tons per year. Mr. Schimming added that PCS Phosphate is
398 producing less phosphate than in the past because of market conditions. Mr.
399 Smith explained that the chemical plant is the customer for the mine, and right now
400 the mine is required to supply less concentrate to the customer because of a
401 depressed market for the customer's products. Mr. Moye asked what the best
402 guess is for future production needs. Mr. Smith replied that over the long term,
403 production needs to fluctuate between four million and six million tons per year.
404 Therefore, PCS Phosphate uses an average of five million tons per year for long-
405 term planning.
406 Mr. Lekson then suggested a lunch break. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Lekson if,
407 upon returning from lunch, he would lay out guidelines for refining the scope and
408 eliminating areas from further consideration. Mr. Lekson replied that there is no
409 cookbook for the process, and PCS Phosphate may not get what they want. He
410 added that as biologists, the Team can choose which block is likely to contain the
411 least environmentally damaging alternative based on existing data; however, PCS
412 Phosphate cannot tell the Team which blocks do not contain economically viable
413 alternatives due to the lack of technical and economic information. Mr. Furness
414 noted that the Team could eliminate areas such as the Grace Tract due to
415 environmental factors. Mr. Wicker stated that if the Grace Tract is the most
416 environmentally damaging block then the Team could eliminate it; however, it has
417 not been shown to be the most damaging.
418 Mr. Karriker suggested that the Team start the narrowing process by
419 comparing the most environmentally damaging areas to PCS Phosphate's proposed
420 alignment on the NCPC Tract. Any areas that are more damaging than PCS
421 Phosphate's proposal can be eliminated. Areas that cannot easily be determined to
422 be more damaging than PCS Phosphate's proposal can then be analyzed in detail.
423 Mr. Wicker indicated that the Edward Tract is not the most environmentally
424 damaging block. Mr. Karriker pointed out a large section of bottomland hardwood
425 forest that runs the length of the block. Mr. Lekson added that Edward is a block,
426 and there could be a range of potential alternatives within the block. Mr. Lekson
427 stated that PCS Phosphate might be able to mine the non-jurisdictional areas.
11
428 After an hour lunch break, a copy of Table 1, from the "PCS Phosphate EIS
429 Preliminary Project Area Mapping and Resource Inventory" was passed out to the
430 Team. This table presents a comparison among the seven potential mine blocks of
431 all environmental parameters assessed. Mr. Lekson stated that it is important for
432 Team members to familiarize themselves with Table 1 to compare the various
433 blocks. Several Team members noted that Table 1 does not display data for PCS
434 Phosphate's original proposal (the entire NCPC Tract). Mr. Karriker said that at the
435 time Table 1 was prepared, CZR assumed that the original boundary had been
436 taken out of consideration for detailed analysis. Mr. Lekson asked Mr. Karriker to
437 assemble data on the environmental resource values for the original boundary.
438 Mr. Smith proposed that when Dr. Skaggs presents the hydrological
439 modeling scheme, Dr. Terry West from Eastern Carolina University could discuss
440 the Project Area II marsh/creek creation area adjacent to South Creek. Mr. Smith
441 suggested that because Project Area II has essentially no drainage basin, Dr.
442 West's data could have bearing on the discussion of the effects of drainage basin
443 reduction on tributary creeks. Mr. Lekson asked the Team how they feel about Mr.
444 Smith's suggestion. Mr. Dorney, Mr. Steffens, and Mr. Wicker stated that the
445 Team could host a presentation by Dr. West, but Mr. Wicker noted that USFWS
446 has already reviewed the information on Project Area II. Mr. Smith countered that
447 other agencies may not be familiar with Dr. West's data.
448 Mr. Overton stated that the Project Area II tidal creek creation is interesting
449 work; however, the study is very different from Dr. Skaggs' hydrological modeling.
450 Mr. Furness explained that the link is that Project Area II has no drainage basin,
451 therefore the Team can use the data to compare fish productivity in Project Area II
452 with fish productivity in creeks whose drainage area has not been reduced. Mr.
453 Smith noted that it would be premature for the Team to draw conclusions until all
454 information has been heard. Mr. Overton suggested that the Whitehurst Creek
455 study, including how the hydrology was altered and how water was put back in,
456 would be more applicable.
457 Mr. Dorney turned the Team's attention to the map showing streams in the
458 Area South of Highway 33 (from the "PCS Phosphate EIS Preliminary Project Area
459 Mapping and Resource Inventory"). Mr. Dorney noted that there are three streams
460 in the Area South of Highway 33, not counting the canal that is tributary to the
461 upper part of South Creek. In order from north to south, the streams are Bailey
462 Creek, Broomfield Swamp, and Cypress Run. Mr. Dorney suggested sampling
463 Cypress Run near Mount Shiloh Church and one other point higher in the drainage
464 basin. Sampling could include hydraulics, water chemistry, and physical para-
465 meters. He also suggested that monitoring occur at the SR 1938 and SR 1925
466 road crossings on Broomfield Swamp.
12
467 Mr. Overton stated that Cypress Run and Broomfield Swamp likely are
468 similar, and it may be sufficient to model only one of them. He noted that there
469 are plenty of possible access points for sampling, and he suggested consulting with
470 Dr. Skaggs about selecting monitoring points. Mr. Karriker noted that CZR
471 conducted fish sampling on Cypress Run and Broomfield Swamp during 2002, and
472 that salinity was as high as nine to ten parts per thousand at some of the road
473 crossings that have been suggested as monitoring locations.
474 Mr. Lekson asked Ms. Matthews if she picked up the point that the values
475 for the NCPC Tract in Table 1 of the "PCS Phosphate EIS Preliminary Project Area
476 Mapping and Resource Inventory" may not be indicative of all possible impacts
477 because PCS Phosphate may ask to include their original proposal as an alternative.
478 Ms. Matthews replied she had not.
479 Mr. Lekson directed the discussion back to potential alternatives for detailed
480 analysis. He noted that at the 7 January 2003 meeting, Dr. McNaught suggested
481 dropping the Pamlico River and Core Point mine blocks, which obviously have
482 greater environmental impacts than PCS Phosphate's current proposal. Ms.
483 Alsentzer, Mr. Dorney, Mr. Steffens, and Mr. Sechler agreed that the Pamlico River
484 and Core Point blocks should be dropped from detailed consideration. Mr.
485 Schimming suggested eliminating the Grace Tract, noting that Mr. Dorney had
486 mentioned there is no possible alternative in the Grace Tract that is less damaging
487 than PCS Phosphate's proposal. Mr. Lekson reiterated to Mr. Schimming that the
488 NEPA process is not a bargaining exercise. The Team's goal is to find the least
489 environmentally damaging alternative, not to trade off areas to be eliminated. Mr.
490 Lekson stated that the USACE is in full support of dropping the Pamlico River and
491 Core Point blocks. Mr. Smith stated that PCS Phosphate concurs with the decision
492 to drop Core Point based on the conclusions that the Team has drawn. However,
493 if the Team decides to drop the Pamlico River block, then PCS Phosphate wishes to
494 go on record opposing that decision.
495 Mr. Lekson asked whether PCS Phosphate wants to study the Pamlico River
496 further. Mr. Smith stated that PCS Phosphate believes there is a practicable
497 alternative in the River. Ms. Matthews countered that practicable does not mean
498 least damaging, and there is no agency present that will agree to permit mining in
499 the Pamlico River. Mr. Smith replied that that decision is based on expert opinion
500 without data to back it up, just as the economic reasons for eliminating the Grace
501 Tract are based on PCS Phosphate's expert opinion. Ms. Matthews stated that the
502 burden is not on her to show that the Pamlico River block is the least damaging
503 practicable alternative. Ms. Matthews stated that PCS Phosphate would need to
504 conduct an incredible amount of study to convince the Team that the Pamlico River
505 is preferable to the other blocks.
13
506 Mr. Sechler stated that the Team's opinion is based on knowledge from
507 published reports on the effects of dredging and filling in aquatic habitats. He
508 stated that NMFS will recommend against considering the Pamlico River block. Mr.
509 Wicker stated that the USFWS concurs with the EPA and NMFS. He added that
510 there is much data and literature on the subject, and the agencies' position is not
511 based on just conjecture. Mr. Lekson noted that PCS Phosphate's insistence on
512 evaluating the Pamlico River would further lengthen the permitting process. Mr.
513 Smith stated that the Team is free to delete the Pamlico River block; PCS
514 Phosphate simply wants to go on record opposing that action.
515 Ms. Alsentzer indicated that the Team is looking at eliminating Pamlico River
516 and Core Point as entire blocks. However, the rest of the Project Area consists of
517 arbitrarily defined tracts. It is possible that alternatives could be considered from
518 pieces of those tracts. Therefore, additional whole blocks should be not eliminated
519 without more detailed information. Mr. Wicker stated that he is ready to evaluate
520 the economic rationale for eliminating the Grace Tract and Edward, but the data is
521 unavailable for review. He added that it is troublesome knowing that when the
522 Team makes a decision, it will be contested by PCS Phosphate.
523 Mr. Schimming expressed confusion about why the Team is still discussing
524 the Grace Tract when NCDWQ has already decided that there is no viable
525 alternative there. Mr. Dorney agreed and added that the same decision was made
526 for the Edward block; however, pieces of it possibly could be mined depending on
527 how the lines are drawn. Mr. Lekson stated that this is the main point; entire
528 blocks defined by arbitrary lines will not be eliminated if there are pieces of the
529 blocks that can be chosen to create a practicable alternative.
530 Mr. Wicker asked if is possible to obtain a 401 certification for mining of the
531 NCPC Tract. Mr. Dorney replied that it is possible, but the Area South of Highway
532 33 is more viable. Mr. Lekson agreed that the Area South of Highway 33 is the
533 least environmentally damaging alternative. Mr. Smith replied that more work has
534 to be done to evaluate the feasibility of the Area South of Highway 33.
535 Mr. Wicker stated that the Team needs to narrow down the blocks by
536 starting with the most damaging and working down to the smaller pieces. Ms.
537 Matthews agreed and asked if parts of the Edward and Grace Tract blocks could be
538 added to the Area South of Highway 33. Mr. Dorney suggested that the east side
539 of the Edward block is the only part that could be added to the Area South of
540 Highway 33.
14
541 Mr. McKenna asked if PCS Phosphate would ever be able to mine blocks
542 that are eliminated during the current permitting process. Mr. Lekson replied that
543 their right to apply for a permit could not be denied. Mr. McKenna asked whether
544 all the blocks are on the table unless taken off by PCS Phosphate. Mr. Lekson
545 replied that they are.
546 Mr. Wicker expressed confusion about a statement made earlier by Mr.
547 Dorney concerning mining being allowed in the NCPC Tract with some maneuvering
548 around high quality environmental resources. Mr. Dorney replied that there are
549 places that can be mined on the NCPC Tract as well as places that cannot be
550 mined; however, there are no places on the Grace Tract that can be mined. Mr.
551 Dorney added that this is because the NCPC Tract contains a lower proportion of
552 high quality wetlands than the Grace Tract. Mr. Karriker explained the color
553 scheme on the Project Area maps and clarified that green colors represent high
554 quality wetlands, while tan, brown, and yellow colors represent lower quality
555 wetlands. Ms. Alsentzer asked if the same color scheme was used on the Area
556 South of Highway 33, and Mr. Karriker replied that is was. Mr. Wicker noted that
557 the maps show that the Grace Tract and NCPC Tract both are predominantly
558 wetland. Mr. Karriker referred to Table 1 from the preliminary inventory document
559 and noted that there is a much greater proportion of high quality wetlands in the
560 Grace Tract than the NCPC Tract. Mr. Furness added that some of the areas
561 previously thought to be drained in the Grace Tract have been considered
562 jurisdictional, therefore, the total wetland area in the Grace Tract is greater than
563 what is shown in the table.
564 Mr. McKenna stated that from the Division of Marine Fisheries' standpoint,
565 pocosin habitat is not as important as marsh and creek habitat. Mr. Lekson
566 acknowledged that Mr. McKenna is looking after his agency's responsibilities,
567 which is expected of all agency personnel. Mr. Wicker stated that he was not
568 disagreeing with the Team, but each of the agencies has different responsibilities.
569 He added that he is opposed to deleting the Grace Tract at this time. Mr. Dorney
570 disagreed with Mr. Wicker, and stated that Mr. Lekson ultimately chooses the
571 mining alternatives. He further stated that it would be more productive for the
572 Team to discuss where PCS Phosphate should mine in the Area South of Highway
573 33 and the NCPC Tract. Mr. Smith asked how the Team could get to that point.
574 Mr. Lekson stated that the point of the process is to determine where in the Project
575 Area PCS Phosphate can mine in an environmentally benign manner. He suggested
576 that PCS Phosphate needs to provide information for evaluating the practicability of
577 alternatives. Mr. Wicker reiterated the need to evaluate economic information
578 before eliminating the Grace Tract.
579 Mr. Smith stated that based on the information Mr. Karriker reviewed, the
580 Team can assume that Sections G2, G3, and G4 in the Grace Tract might be
581 mineable. Based on the scale provided on the maps, these blocks comprise about
15
582 700 to 800 acres. This would provide approximately fifteen million tons of ore, or
583 about three years of mining. Mr. Smith and Mr. Waters made a rough estimate
584 that moving to the area would cost the company fifteen million dollars in up-front
585 capital. Mr. Schimming noted that PCS Phosphate does not own the Grace Tract,
586 and therefore would incur additional cost to acquire the land. He expressed doubt
587 that Reserveco would sell just the part of the property that can be mined. Mr.
588 Baker added that the Grace Tract is the block that is farthest from the processing
589 plant, which would increase the cost of pumping ore to the plant.
590 Mr. Wicker asked if PCS Phosphate owns all the other potential mine
591 continuation blocks. Mr. Waters replied that PCS Phosphate owns portions of each
592 of the other blocks. Mr. Smith elaborated that PCS Phosphate owns essentially all
593 of the NCPC Tract, the vast majority of the Area South of Highway 33, a very
594 small portion of the Grace Tract, and a scattering of the rest of the blocks.
595 Mr. Wicker stated that eliminating the Pamlico River and Core Point blocks is
596 the right decision to make because it is counterproductive to spend effort on
597 nonviable alternatives. He added that he would remain neutral on eliminating the
598 Grace Tract.
599 Ms. Alsentzer indicated that the Team's place is not in economics; it is the
600 Team's responsibility to determine the least damaging alternative. Mr. Smith
601 reminded Ms. Alsentzer that practicability is part of NEPA, and the Team is
602 involved in the NEPA process. Ms. Alsentzer reiterated that the burden of proof
603 lies with the USACE and the economists to demonstrate practicability of
604 alternatives. Mr. Smith stated if that is the case, there is no need for PCS
605 Phosphate to share the cost model with the Team. Mr. Smith noted that he
606 thought the Team would work through all aspects of the process together. Ms.
607 Alsentzer added that she cannot judge the economics due to lack of background in
608 that field.
609 Mr. Wicker asked for Ms. Matthews' opinion on eliminating the Grace Tract.
610 Ms. Matthews replied that she opposes mining high quality wetlands, but is unsure
611 whether there may be areas close to the Area South of Highway 33 that could be
612 added to that block. Mr. Schimming asked if there are other large, contiguous
613 areas of pocosin near the Grace Tract. Mr. Karriker replied that there were similar
614 areas near the town of Arapahoe (near the north shore of the Neuse River estuary),
615 across the Neuse River in the Croatan National Forest, and on the peninsula north
616 of the Pamlico River. Mr. Schimming remarked that if PCS Phosphate proposed to
617 mine the Grace Tract, there might be a concern about impacting a regionally
618 important resource.
16
619 Mr. Wicker stated that the Team needs to be objective. The fact that PCS
620 Phosphate proposes to mine an area should not automatically carry a negative
621 connotation. The fact that PCS Phosphate does not own the Grace Tract should
622 carry a lot of weight in the decision making process. Mr. Lekson stated that lack
623 of ownership does not carry weight from a NEPA standpoint.
624 Mr. Waters stated that the NCPC Tract is PCS Phosphate's preferred
625 alternative. It is the most economically feasible, and it is in close proximity to the
626 chemical plant. However, Mr. Waters continued, the Area South of Highway 33
627 has a small amount of wetland acreage and appears to be preferred from an
628 environmental standpoint. Mr. Waters questioned why the Team is evaluating
629 other blocks with greater environmental concerns. Ms. Matthews replied that all of
630 the blocks contain environmental concerns.
631 Mr. Lekson stated that given what is currently known about the blocks, a
632 permit cannot be issued for the NCPC Tract because the least damaging alternative
633 is the Area South of Highway 33. Mr. Waters questioned why the Team is
634 evaluating areas further away, more costly, and with more environmental impacts,
635 if the Area South of Highway 33 is a viable alternative. Mr. Wicker agreed with
636 Mr. Waters' thought process. Mr. Waters asked whether the NCPC Tract would be
637 evaluated as an alternative if PCS Phosphate had applied for a permit to mine the
638 Grace Tract.
639 Ms. Alsentzer said that the names and boundaries of each block should be
640 eliminated, and evaluations should be based on the pattern of wetland
641 communities. She noted that the Team recognizes that ownership is an issue, but
642 the block boundaries are counterproductive to the alternative formulation process.
643 Mr. Lekson replied that the Team is in the process of trying to identify a range of
644 alternatives. Ms. Matthews asked if the Edward block, except for the area east of
645 Highway 306, was nearly dropped at the 7 January 2003 meeting. She also asked
646 whether the Grace Tract could be dropped as well.
647 Mr. McHenry stated that NCWRC would not look favorably upon mining
648 alternatives that fragment wildlife habitat in Durham Creek and the Grace Tract.
649 The Core Point block, Mr. McHenry continued, has a large amount of coastal marsh
650 that would be impacted as well. Mr. Dorney replied that the Team has already
651 agreed to drop the Core Point block.
652 Mr. Baker stated that when an area is "dropped," it will still be listed in the
653 EIS with an explanation of why it was not evaluated in detail. Mr. Baker noted that
654 there are many reasons for the current block boundary lines, such as shorelines,
655 highways, and land ownership. These boundaries, Mr. Baker continued, help move
656 the process along, and they provide the Team logical alternatives to evaluate within
657 each block. Mr. Wicker replied that one reason not to drop blocks is the possibility
658 of litigation. He noted that considering the largest potential universe will help
17
659 guard against litigation. Mr. Smith replied that when the scoping process first
660 started, the Team discussed all of the phosphate deposits along the entire
661 southeast coast. Therefore, the Team has evaluated the big picture and has
662 narrowed the scope.
663 Mr. Sechler asked if PCS Phosphate has a practicable mine plan for the
664 Pamlico River. Mr. Smith replied that PCS Phosphate has a mine plan, but has not
665 determined its practicability using the economic feasibility model. Mr. Sechler
666 noted that he considers the river and associated brackish marsh to be the most
667 important habitats in the Project Area; therefore, he is against mining in the
668 Pamlico River. Mr. Smith responded that PCS Phosphate understands; however,
669 based on preliminary studies, PCS Phosphate thinks it would be a practicable mine
670 plan. Mr. Sechler mentioned that it would be very difficult for PCS Phosphate to
671 justify an alternative in the Pamlico River. Mr. Smith noted that it would be even
672 more difficult if not for the valid lease PCS Phosphate retains in the Pamlico River
673 block. Mr. Sechler stated that the outlook is more favorable for mining in the Area
674 South of Highway 33.
675 Mr. Lekson asked the Team what the situation would be if Edward and the
676 Grace Tract were dropped. Mr. Furness replied that detailed analysis would have
677 to be performed in Bonnerton, the Area South of Highway 33, and the NCPC Tract.
678 Mr. Karriker added that various characteristics in each block would have to be
679 mapped in detail. Mr. Moye pointed out a possible alternative in the southern part
680 of Bonnerton. Mr. Furness replied that if PCS Phosphate mines in the Bonnerton
681 block, they would stay in the section of contiguous land within the semicircle
682 formed by Bonnerton Road to avoid private residences. Mr. Moye stated that there
683 are portions of Bonnerton and the eastern section of the Edward Tract that may be
684 worth evaluating. Mr. Furness and Mr. Smith agreed.
685 Mr. Dorney pointed out that there are not many streams in the southern part
686 of Bonnerton, but there are some non-riverine wetlands. Mr. Lekson asked if there
687 is a mining alternative in Bonnerton from NCDWQ's perspective. Mr. Steffens
688 stated that there is, and noted that there are not many streams in Bonnerton.
689 Mr. Lekson asked how the Team feels about the eastern edge of the Edward
690 Tract. He noted that there are high-quality wetlands at the northern and southern
691 ends, while the middle is a mixture of mostly low-quality wetlands. Mr. Moye
692 replied that the eastern edge of the Edward Tract should be explored and noted
693 that the boundary does not have to remain straight.
694 Mr. Lekson summarized that the NCPC Tract, the Area South of Highway
695 33, Bonnerton, and the eastern edge of Edward are on the table for detailed
696 alternatives analysis, while the rest of Edward and the Grace Tract are being
697 considered for elimination from detailed study. Mr. Sechler asked why the Team
698 does not use the same rationale used to eliminate Core Point, the Grace Tract, and
18
699 Edward towards eliminating the Pamlico River block. Mr. Sechler added that he
700 has a problem supporting eliminating the Grace Tract and Edward without
701 eliminating the Pamlico River block. Mr. Moye replied that the Pamlico River has
702 been eliminated.
703 Mr. Wicker asked if PCS Phosphate would be willing to remove their
704 opposition to eliminating the Pamlico River block and agree to evaluate practicable
705 alternatives in the NCPC Tract, the Area South of Highway 33, eastern edge of
706 Edward, and Bonnerton. Ms. Matthews asked what PCS Phosphate's opposition to
707 eliminating the Pamlico River means. Mr. Smith replied that PCS Phosphate is
708 opposing eliminating the Pamlico River because PCS Phosphate sees an
709 economically viable alternative there. Ms. Matthews then asked what happens
710 when an applicant opposes a resource agency's decision to eliminate an area from
711 detailed consideration. Mr. Wicker replied that it sets the stage for a problem
712 down the road. He encouraged PCS Phosphate to remove their opposition to
713 eliminating the Pamlico River, and at the same time the Team can eliminate Core
714 Point, the Grace Tract, and most of Edward.
715 Ms. Alsentzer reminded the Team that the blocks should not be used as
716 bargaining tools. Mr. Wicker stated that he has to be reasonable. Mr. Schimming
717 stated that Mr. Wicker's proposal is acceptable. Mr. Moye reminded PCS
718 Phosphate that it is the Corp's responsibility to lead the NEPA process, and in
719 consultation with the agencies, to determine the alternatives to be analyzed. He
720 added that the applicant's objection does not make a difference in the NEPA
721 process. Mr. Lekson agreed, noting that PCS Phosphate's ideas will be considered,
722 but ultimately the selection of alternatives will be the Team's decision.
723 Mr. Lekson asked Ms. Matthews if she agreed to eliminate the Grace Tract
724 and most of Edward. Ms. Matthews agreed. Mr. Baker reminded the Team that
725 Table 1 from the "EIS Preliminary Project Area Mapping and Resource Inventory"
726 presents data that support eliminating the Edward and Grace Tract. Mr. Waters
727 encouraged the Team to focus on what is being carried forward for analysis, rather
728 than what is being eliminated.
729 Mr. Overton stated that dissension over eliminating the Pamlico River does
730 not change the process, and he questioned the value of having it in the record. Mr.
731 Schimming replied that PCS Phosphate is removing their opposition to eliminating
732 the Pamlico River block.
733 After a twenty-minute break due to a fire alarm, Mr. Lekson noted that the
734 Team is nearing the point where it can begin drawing alternative lines on a map.
735 Mr. Lekson added that the economic analysis will start to become important in
736 determining which alternatives will be practicable. Mr. Smith asked if the Team
737 can start identifying alternatives in the NCPC Tract. He noted that CZR is at the
738 point where detailed evaluation can begin when alternative boundary lines are set.
19
739 Mr. Smith suggested starting on the NCPC Tract and continuing with the other
740 areas.
741 Ms. Alsentzer stated that based upon the Project Area maps, the Area South
742 of Highway 33 has comparatively little wetland. She asked why the Team should
743 start with analyzing the NCPC Tract when the Area South of Highway 33 is less
744 environmentally destructive. Mr. Smith replied that the Team has to evaluate the
745 alternative for which PCS Phosphate has applied, and he added that PCS
746 Phosphate has also asked for the original permit application boundary line to be
747 evaluated. He agreed that it would be beneficial for the Team to begin formulating
748 alternatives in the Area South of Highway 33 also.
749 Mr. Dorney stated that one alternative that needs to be evaluated on the
750 NCPC Tract is a modified NCDWQ buffer avoidance line. Mr. Smith stated that as
751 long as CZR and NCDWQ are on the same page and Mr. Lekson is in agreement,
752 then evaluation of an NCDWQ buffer avoidance alternative can proceed. Mr.
753 Lekson noted that the USACE might also want to evaluate a WASC avoidance
754 alternative, possibly in combination with NCDWQ's buffer avoidance alternative.
755 Ms. Alsentzer asked how long it will take for the Area South of Highway 33
756 to be ready for detailed analysis. Mr. Smith stated the western boundary of the
757 Area South of Highway 33 will be moved into the eastern edge of the Edward
758 block. He noted that PCS Phosphate will require guidance on where to reposition
759 the line. He asked whether, the line should be drawn to exclude high-quality
760 wetlands. Mr. Lekson stated that the block boundary should be moved over to the
761 private residences, with no attempt to exclude high-quality wetlands. He noted
762 that wetlands of similar quality are included in the boundary of the NCPC Tract.
763 Mr. Smith stated that the mining permit boundary would have to be placed 300
764 feet from the private residences, in accordance with NCDLR regulations. Mr.
765 Furness added that the same types of avoidance alternatives that are being
766 considered for the NCPC Tract could also be evaluated for the Area South of
767 Highway 33. Mr. Dorney agreed.
768 Mr. Lekson suggested an alternative for the NCPC Tract that involves
769 reducing the current Alternative E pit width to the minimum necessary for two
770 draglines. The rest of the Alternative E pit would be mined on the way back, along
771 with enough additional land to allow a two-dragline return sweep. Mr. Smith
772 replied that such an alternative would not meet PCS Phosphate's production needs
773 of five million tons of phosphate ore per year, because two draglines could only
774 produce four million tons per year. Mr. Smith added that PCS Phosphate would
775 need assurance very soon that the USACE would issue a permit for the additional
776 land involved in the return sweep, otherwise PCS Phosphate would be walking
777 away from currently permitted reserves in Alternative E.
20
778 Mr. Dorney stated that the Team could consider an alternative that involves
779 avoiding WASC areas in the Area South of Highway 33, though he noted that the
780 large area of hardwood forest WASC at the southern end is in the process of being
781 cut. Mr. Furness suggested that such an alternative could be modified such that it
782 is a maximum wetland avoidance alternative. Mr. Dorney noted that there are only
783 four acres of bottomland hardwood forest in the Area South of Highway 33, and
784 these areas are not considered high quality because the streams are channelized
785 and the wetlands are no longer connected to the streams. Mr. Lekson noted that
786 this assessment of low quality is from a water quality perspective.
787 Lists of possible alternatives were developed for each of the mining blocks to
788 be evaluated in detail: the NCPC Tract, Bonnerton, and the Area South of Highway
789 33 (including the eastern edge of Edward).
790 NCPC Tract
791 1. Mine existing permitted area and return in existing permitted area, with some
792 additional areas. Two to three draglines must be used to be able to supply
793 five million tons per year.
794 2. Buffer avoidance (beyond current NCDWQ line)
795 3. Old NCDWQ avoidance line
796 4. CAMA avoidance
797 5. PCS Phosphate's current permit application
798 6. PCS Phosphate's original permit application
799 The Team noted the need to consider how the information PCS Phosphate provided
800 on minimum pit widths for one, two, and three-dragline continuations might fit in
801 with these possible alternatives.
802 Area South of Highway 33 (including eastern edge of Edward)
803 1. Buffer avoidance
804 2. NCDWQ wetland avoidance
805 3. Wetland minimization in east Edward and southern end of tract
806 4. CAMA avoidance
807 5. Entire block (including eastern part of Edward Tract)
808 Bonnerton (inside the arc formed by Bonnerton Road)
809 1. Buffer avoidance
810 2. WASC avoidance
811 3. CAMA avoidance
21
812 4. Whole block (excluding houses, cemeteries, and archaeological sites)
813 Mr. Dorney advised Mr. Karriker that new alternative boundary lines would
814 need to be drawn. Mr. Karriker stated that much survey work still needs to be
815 completed to identify CAMA jurisdictional areas. He asked if CZR should proceed
816 with drawing the new boundary lines using the data available, bearing in mind that
817 the boundary lines might have to be adjusted after the survey work is complete.
818 Mr. Smith asked if CZR could proceed with the six alternatives on the NCPC Tract.
819 Mr. Karriker replied that the flagged CAMA jurisdictional line still need to be verified
820 with the Division of Coastal Management and the flags then need to be surveyed.
821 Mr. Furness stated that he does not want to have the alternative boundary lines
822 adjusted later.
823 Mr. Baker stated that the cost model cannot be run without the boundary
824 lines and acreage of each alternative. Mr. Furness added that the narrative of the
825 model can be sent out for review. Mr. Dorney added that sooner or later, the Team
826 will need to begin discussing mitigation.
827 Mr. Smith asked about the plan for the next meeting. Mr. Lekson replied
828 that Dr. Skaggs will present information on the NCPC hydrologic modeling.
829 Ms. Alsentzer asked how the review of the economic model will proceed.
830 Mr. Smith noted that PCS Phosphate will send the narrative of the economic model
831 to the USACE for review. The USACE will then decide when to distribute it to the
832 Team.
833 The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:10 p.m. If you feel that we have
834 omitted or inaccurately depicted any of the issues that were discussed, please
835 submit your comments to us in writing. Please list the appropriate page and line
836 number(s) in your comments.
837 The next Team meeting is scheduled for 6 May 2003 at 10:00 a.m. The
838 meeting will be held in the conference room in the Washington office of NCDENR.
839
840 Distribution
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Ms. Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Regulatory Section USEPA/EAB
Wetlands Management Division
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605
Mr. Terry Baker
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Ms. Mary Alsentzer
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
Washington, North Carolina 27889
22
Mr. David Moye
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mail
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. William A. Schimming
Potash Corp.
Post Office Box 3320
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
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
Mr. David M. Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Ms. Laura Toler
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
Mr. David McHenry
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Ms. Maria Tripp
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Mike Thomas
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
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. Jerry Waters
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
23

Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Kelly Spivey
Division of Land Resources
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. Bob Zarzecki
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Dr. David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Floyd Williams
Division of Land Resources
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
Mr. Charles Jones
NC Division of Coastal Management
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
24
FW: PCS Phosphate EIS task update
imap://bob.zarzecki%40dwq.denr.ncmail.net@nplex l.ncmail.net:143/..,
Subject: FW: PCS Phosphate EIS task update
From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 07:42:50 -0500
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
mike [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]
All,
FYI - following is an update on the status of CZR's EIS work. Additionally, PCS recently delivered their Cost
Model Narrative. I am delivering the information today to Frank Reynolds, Wilmington District's Planning
Division. He will be assisting us with review of the economic analysis. I will provide you with a copy of the
document asap.
In light of the fact that there is still much work to be done toward compiling data for the EIS and that the
economic analysis is just beginning, the meeting tentatively scheduled for 06May03 is cancelled. I will keep you
posted regarding a future meeting date. If you have any questions, please call.
Thanks,
David
P.S. (Attached, please find the updated Team list...)
-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 10:37 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
JFurness @ Pcsphosphate. com
Subject: EIS task update
Gentlemen:
Here is a brief update on where we stand with several EIS-related tasks:
1) Continents on survey and mapping of DWQ streams on the NCPC Tract have been submitted to R.M. Chiles. I
have a call in to Mike Stahl to check on the progress of the revisions. When this is complete, we can submit the
stream channel mapping to DWQ so they can draw their new stream/buffer avoidance alternative.
2) I plan to call David Moye on Monday (14 April) to check on DCM's availability for a field visit during the week
of 21- 25 April (no change since last update).
3) Chiles' staff has made substantial progress on surveying the CAMA flags that have been approved by DCM to
date. We will provide them with further survey instructions as DCM approves more lines.
1 of 2 4/14/03 8:52 AM
FW: PCS Phosphate EIS task update
imap://bob.zarzecki%40dwq.denr.ncmail.net @nplex l .ncmail.net:143/
4) We plan to send a person out with Chiles' staff during the week of 21 April to work on the CAMA open water
GPS mapping.
5) Chiles' surveying/mapping of delineated wetlands in the Area South of Highway 33 is almost complete.
Currently we are coordinating with them to tie down the western boundary. This is the straight-line boundary that
has been used in the EIS Team meetings to date. Recall that we are planning to treat the East Edward add-on as a
separate phase of the delineation so we can proceed with getting a plat sign-off on the areas that have been
delineated. It is likely that some additional field delineation in the East Edward add-on will be needed.
6) Additional progress on biotic communities mapping and alternative formulation for the NCPC Tract, Bonnerton,
and Area South of Highway 33 is awaiting completion of several tasks. For the NCPC Tract, we need to finish the
stream channel mapping (Chiles) and the CAMA line approvals/mapping (DCM/CZR/Chiles) so that information
can be incorporated into the biotic communities map. For Bonnerton and the Area South of Highway 33, the new
block boundaries need to be set (PCS) and the stream channel mapping needs to be completed (Chiles).
Completion of the above items will allow formulation of the alternative lines that were discussed in the last Team
meeting. Let me know if you have any questions or comments on the progress of these tasks.
Thanks,
Kent
CZR Incorporated
4709 College. Acres Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
2 of 2 4/14/03 8:52 AM
PCS Permit Evaluation Team (07jan03)
Floyd Williams
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
Sean McKenna
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
David McHenry
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Phone: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
Mary Alsentzer
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
PCS Permit Evaluation Team (07Jan03)
John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Phone: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
Bob Zarzecki (Alternate for Dorney)
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Phone: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
David Moye / Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
PCS Permit Evaluation Team (07Jano3)
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: AID 200110096 PCS Phosphate mine advance, South Creek and tributaries,
Beaufort County, North Carolina.
The PCS Permit Evaluation Team:
David Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Phone: [phone], ext. 22
FAX: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Regulatory Section
USEPA/EAB
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Phone: [phone], ext. 22
FAX: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
Y
1
k 0ss
-?PC5 tN-eA?
8???03
MO,-e. Jvt-spate
m c" i

?5° A A 1I-re sSr"Ypv-a-
E3
G ?2 Cam' ?C.w` b?v?e?i` <?or1c}+7,,,,v.. C,.?MJ
A a G ?.G?4v. x
Go ?• 3
go &-ezvla 11
(a., - ova- b ?,d a TKN .
? a
S "P Z
-tv
yk o obi
ZOO
4yocp
1 9P2 ,?rw?yyt
3?p
t-k
lo?
toe ?^...... a tr,-,e?
-- I? G?-?o b Sep i•z n,? a o P e,-,._ s (rr?.y c..? r-, C-4X -
fie- ctx+ 1 5 etiv? 6-, G ??,
3 Z ?
1
30
t,&7 t?A? Ce,,
tc?

qq 1
- cam-

lz--,;7A 17 =
(-/? DorDIV
1721 I?VV -0-7?_Sl - /Zq 0/-?, ZFW
d7py lv _ PF/ PI-7 - ^""
-90?:-v 917?6O?2 - oly
-1?' q T cav A
Oxw -Olt/

Ci'?z?r,?? ,

/> " = 9
ap?? p(-vw - -*O-? o

5?s
CXW-.o -
c,nz4 c--e, f
46?41e?" -
AVcloC CGS
5?33 Cs?
(/?Zr?'i'r ?1
Cr
6zhz?/W?. eze &"? /14jo
FW: Minimum Pit Width Report
imap://bob.zarzecki %40dwq.denr.ncmail.net @cros.nemail. net:143/fe...
Subject: FW: Minimum Pit Width Report
From: "Lekson, David M SAW" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 07:34:49 -0500
To: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>, David McHenry <david.mchenry @ncwildlife.org>,
David McNaught <[e-mail]>, David Moye <[e-mail]>,
Floyd Williams <[e-mail]>, Heather Jacobs <[e-mail]>, John Dorney
<[e-mail]>, "Jones, Scott SAW" <[e-mail]>, Kathy
Matthews <[e-mail]>, Mary Alsentzer <[e-mail]>, Mike Wicker
<[e-mail]>, Ron Sechler <[e-mail]>, Sam Cooper
<[e-mail]>, Sean McKenna <[e-mail]>, Terry Moore
<terry. moore @ ncmail.net>, Tom Steffens <[e-mail]>, Tom Walker
<william.t.walker@ usace.army.mil>
CC: "'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]>, "'[e-mail]"'
<jfumess @pcsphosphate.com>
All,
Heads-up...regarding the message below, I requested that PCS provide the report to each of us on a CD. We
should receive it sometime next week.
Thanks,
David
-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 4:59 PM
To: Lekson, David M SAW
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Presentation equipment for 08/26 meeting
David,
We will be forwarding the "Minimum Permit Width" report to you on Friday
afternoon or Monday. The file size should be about 5.4 meg in a pdf file
format. I'm not sure what the max file size is for transfer to the state
agency system. If you need to have the information provided in a different
medium, please let me know.
Thanks.
Ross
1 of 1 8/20/2003 4:29 PM
Minimum Permit Width
Analysis for Mining
Alternatives
PCs
Phosphate
August 2003

4. V I
MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2-1
3.0 PERMIT WIDTH DESIGN 3-1
3.1 Typical Pit Design Layout and Terminology 3-1
3.2 Mining Cut Width Design 3-1
3.3 Safety Dictated Minimum Possible Permit Width 3-3
3.4 Minimum Operational Permit Width 3-4
3.5 Efficient Operation Minimum Permit Width 3-7
3.6 Relative Productivity Analysis 3-10
3.7 Comparison of Minimum Permit Width Analysis and Historical Pit 3-14
Dimensions
APPENDIX
C Marston
TOC - 1
* Y F
MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
DRAWINGS
E610-002-0103
E610-002-0203
E610-002-0303
E610-002-0403
E610-002-0503
E610-002-0603
E610-002-0703
E610-002-0803
E610-002-0903
LIST OF APPENDIX
Minimum Safety Dictated Width -1 Dragline
Minimum Safety Dictated Width - 2 Draglines
Minimum Safety Dictated Width - 3 Draglines
Minimum Operational Width - 1 Dragline
Minimum Operational Width - 2 Draglines
Minimum Operational Width - 3 Draglines
Minimum Efficient Width - 1 Dragline
Minimum Efficient Width - 2 Draglines
Minimum Efficient Width - 3 Draglines
TOC-2
C Marston
*#
MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE
AUGUST 2003
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Section 1
Figure 1.1 Project Location Map
Section 3
Figure 3.1 Typical Pit Design Layout
Figure 3.2 Typical Mining Cut Design
Figure 3.3 Mining Cut Initial Key Cut
Figure 3.4 Potential Interference Areas for Multiple Dragline Operations
Table 3.1 Mining Cut Development Delays
Table 3.2 Relative Mining Productivities
Table 3.3 Estimated Dragline Productivities at Minimum Safety Width
Table 3.4 Probability of Potential Dragline Interference
Table 3.5 Estimated Dragline Productivities at Minimum Operational Width
TOC - 3 ?& Marston

MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
1.0 INTRODUCTION
PCS Phosphate Aurora Division (PCS) operates a phosphate mine and beneficiation plant near
Aurora, North Carolina. See Figure 1.1, Project Location Map. Currently PCS is extracting
phosphate ore matrix from a permitted area within the "NCPC Property" (NCPC), a reserve area
located southeast of the plant. Mining will progress from the southwest to the northeast.
In anticipation of permitting the next mining area to replace current permit reserves when
depleted, PCS is analyzing several alternative mine plans. Each of the mine plan alternatives
assumes a production rat of ;.b milli r5 tons per year (Mtpy) of beneficiated ore (concentrate).
The mining alternatives will require minimum permit width dimensions in order to meet the
planned production rates. PCS retained Marston & Marston Inc. (Marston) of St. Louis, Missouri
to review and independently determine minimum permit width requirements.
Marston developed a systematic stripping and mining plan based on typical mining
methodologies employed by PCS, current dragline configurations, and typical overburden depth
and ore matrix thickness. Using this systematic approach, Marston determined minimum permit
widths from a safety, minimum operational, and efficient operational point of view.
Minimum permit widths are dependent upon the number of draglines planned to operate within
the mining alternatives. Current PCS mining plan alternatives indicate that three draglines will
be used in order to achieve the required 5.0 Mtpy concentrate. Marston has analyzed minimum
permit width requirements for a range of one to three draglines in this study.
1-1
C Marston
s
rF Z
w? - JW a
>
Q ?-
_J: 3: Z Z
Q W F r- $
cr-
20 - a
:
l
1
i
:
i
S ? is \"
?.. ' w a y o
?-
-1
4 \ ?... a w
{.'f w
O
r
MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
2.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Marston has independently estimated the minimum permit widths required for the mining
alternatives currently being studied by PCS. Required permit widths are dependent upon the
number of draglines PCS plans to operate within the mine area. Marston's analysis results are
based on a range of required minimum permit dimensions for one, two and three draglines
currently in operation at PCS. Each mine plan alternative will require mine planning analysis to
determine the number of required draglines.
Marston estimated minimum required permit widths for the mining alternatives on three separate
criteria: safety dictated only, minimum operational requirements, and efficient operational
requirements. The safety dictated only analysis yielded the smallest permit width requirements.
However, this design, based solely on safety considerations, is unrealistic operationally and
economically, and would result in a pit design that would prevent PCS from meeting production
and cost requirements.
Marston estimated minimum permit width dimensions based on minimum operational
requirements. These requirements included consideration of safety and sufficient operating
room between draglines to allow a minimum amount of flexibility to overcome short-term
production fluctuations between machines, unscheduled maintenance events, other equipment
delays, drainage problems, spoil stability problems and other typical mining challenges. This
analysis included a one-week operational buffer for each dragline to overcome normal short-
term operational delays.
Based on safety and minimal operational requirements, Marston has estimated the minimum
permit widths to be 1,498 feet for a single dragline operation; 2,492 feet for a two-dragline
operation; and 3,440 feet for a three-dragline operation.
The above dimensions are required to meet minimum operational standards only and will not
allow for the most efficient operation with potential upside to improve productivity. Delays will
occur at the ends of each mining cut, and some operational interference will still occur between
adjacent draglines. Therefore, designed permit widths should be wider to allow for the most
efficient operation possible. Also substantially fixed operating costs such as dewatering and
2-1 C Marston
CUn ?P? ? om ? '?
S

MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
mine development costs can be better absorbed with a wider pit design and higher ore matrix
recovery. While overall pit widths are limited by physical limitations and shapes of the ore
matrix deposit, pit car flexibility and mobility considerations, and dewatering limits, Marston
recommends a two-week operational buffer per dragline for an efficient operation.
t? Based on an efficient operation design, minimum permit width requirements are 1,851 feet for a
i single dragline operation; 3,184 feet for a two-dragline operation; and 4,415 feet for a three-
dragline operation.
I ll(jg?'
Permit width designs are based on a designed cut width of 264 feet. The 264-foot cut width
design maximizes the cut width for the dragline operation while potentially creating some
inefficiency in ore mining and pumping operations. The 264-foot maximum cut width is based
on ideal mining conditions (spoil stability, overburden depth, water, geology, etc.). Less than
ideal mining conditions will dictate actual cut widths narrower than the maximum cut widths
assumed here.
Ultimately the dimensions of the permit width design will determine the number of draglines that
can practically operate within the area. For any resultant permit width of substantially less than
3,440 feet, PCS will be pressured to reduce its dragline fleet operating in any mining alternative
to two operating draglines. This would equate to a mining productivity reduction of
approximately 33% with the two remaining draglines in production. For any resultant permit
width of substantially less than 2,492 feet, PCS will be pressured to reduce its dragline fleet to
one unit, for a resultant mining productivity reduction of approximately 67%. Reductions in
mining productivity of these proportions may have severe consequences on PCS' planned
production target of 5.0 Mtpy concentrate.
2-2 C Marston
M L
MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
3.0 PERMIT WIDTH DESIGN
3.1 Typical Pit Design Layout and Terminology
Marston developed a typical mine plan layout for the study area, which could be repeated on a
consistent basis over the reserve. The layout is detailed on Figure 3.1, Typical Pit Design
Layout, and consists of several components to the pit design: dragline setups, mining blocks
and mining cuts. Each of these components is shown on Figure 3.1 where their relationship to
each other can be seen.
A dragline setup is the area that the dragline mines from a single location. Its dimensions are
defined by an assigned width of 75 feet and a length determined by the number of dragline
steps (typically eight to 10) that the dragline will walk between setups. For the purposes of this
study, the typical longest step of the three PCS draglines currently operating, which is 8.25 feet,
was used in combination with eight steps to determine a typical setup length of 66 feet. At this
length the dragline is able to minimize setups and dig to the bottom of the ore matrix without
incurring excess wear on the drag ropes against the advancing pit crest. While a typical setup
width has been defined in the study as 75 feet, other dimensions could be used in the design
without changing the study results.
The number of optimum dragline setups, which are discussed in the next section, determines
the geometry of a mining block. The number of mining blocks defines the length of a mining cut,
which corresponds to the design pit width. The number of dragline setups defines the width of a
mining cut, which is a critical dimension for determining the overall permit width requirements.
The advancing cuts define the overall direction of mining advance. Figure 3.1 indicates the
overall direction of mining.
3.2 Mining Cut Width Design
The typical design dimensions of a mining block and mining cut width are defined by
determining the optimum number of dragline setups required to minimize dragline moves and
avoid planned rehandle of ore matrix on the mining bench. This design is based on several
3-1
C Marston
r

U
Direction of Mining - Block r i CO
v)
_ J
w

s Q i-
F- w0

??? Q ¢ w C"
'D
N M V U? ?Z a

a a a a
^
'
a _
Cn
Q
_ 41 4' 4' 4' F?
'1 M W
au aj ?,
U
' O z L-
Q Block Length 264
Cut Width 264'

I ?jDojg 6uiuiW
2 >{ooI a 6uiuiW
C >{UOI g 6uiuiW
b >{7oI g 6uiuiW

U
U
m
s
o
? o
i
_
d U

i
?
U
A
!
S-1_

1
a

Q 1.. __. _...........
0i l J
? v
+>
+>
- ..
iL) _ U U U

v V! VJ Q}

U a

S
Ol __ ,.....,..,......
_,.._

? I

D
irection of Mining - Permit Area

MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
input variables provided by PCS, including typical overburden and ore matrix thickness and
stacking characteristics as well as dragline specifications of each of the three draglines
operating at PCS.
Figure 3.2, Typical Mining Cut Design, demonstrates a typical layout design using four dragline
setups per mining block for a 264-foot mining cut width. Figure 3.2 shows typical dragline
operational positions for the first and fourth setup per mining block, and the approximate
distance between dump points for the ore matrix on the mining bench, assuming a nominal 290-
foot dragline swing radius.
From Figure 3.2, it is clear that a four-setup design provides the maximum cut width, providing
the maximum number of dragline setups without incurring planned ore matrix rehandle, and
minimizing inefficient dragline moves. Using only three setups would result in a narrower cut
width and more cuts in a deposit, and using five setups would markedly increase ore matrix
rehandle, as the ore matrix mined from the first setup would require rehandling to be properly
placed on the ore matrix pile location and to make room to position the dragline for the fifth
setup. Prudent mining practices dictate that planned ore matrix rehandle must be minimized.
However, it should be noted that a 264-foot cut width may create some inefficiency in ore mining
and pumping operations. Also, the 264-foot cut width design is based on ideal mining
conditions, such as spoil stability, overburden depth, water, geology, etc. Less than ideal
mining conditions will dictate actual cut widths narrower than the maximum cut widths assumed
here.
The development of a mining cut will commence with the development of a key cut along the
highwall side. See Figure 3.3, Mining Cut Initial Key Cut. The key cut is necessary to control
the angle on the highwall, enhance stability and maximize recovery of the ore matrix. Spoil from
the first setup on the key cut will likely be problematic, as there is no adjacent open area in
which to cast the spoil. As a result the first setup of the first block is made wider to make room
for the spoil from the last setup of the first block where the dragline is unable to reach in front of
the crest. After the first block is completed, the second block will square up the advance and
mining will continue in a series of 75 by 264 foot blocks along the cut.
3-2
C Marston
----264 feet----
A
CO
W
Q
2 Z Z
w z
Z N M
M N
LLJ D ?
(9
U ?a
I I cd ?W Z <
I I ^ . Z_ V
1 ------- 1----- F+?) a a
cu 2
1 n ?a \ I t--
3 3 3 3
4' LL
41 41
a, 41
/ /?I G
/ I /1' I I
/ I / I I I
/ I / I I I I \\\ ? /' \
/ I / I I I I \ '? ? \
? I/ I I I I \ \
? I? I I I I '\
1 11 I I I I 1 1
I II 1 I I 1
I II I--- I 1 T
I II I I I I I
I FI---+--- +----I 1 1 I
1 II I I I 1 / 1
1 11 I I I / / 1
?"---L 1 _ -- _ acs /
\ ?? I \ I 1 i I \\ I / \ 3 /
a /
\ // I \ I ?? I I I\ /
\? / I V/ I I I / x L (4-
0
----FV? --+---+---? ?C L ++ o,
/ ?? I / 1 I I I \ E o \ in
z ?' 'L \\ r-_
ile I ?? \
? 1/ I I I ?J o o _?. \ I
? I I I I I a ?a I I
777 ,`
? ? II I I I ? I'
1 ? 11 I I I I 1
1 I I I I I I I /
\\ I? I 1 I I ? ?
\ ? I \ I 1 I I / /
\ I \ I I I I / /
\ I \ I I I 1 ? ? U
\ I ? I I I i , / ?? ?
\ I \l I I I . , H o
r??
Step 1 - Key Cut Both Sides for Setup 1 to-Top of Ore Matrix
Setup 1, 2, 3
S
il A
po
rea

a
d
1 ,

1
Ore
1 ,
Matrix

U E
Setup 1
15
0 / Setup 2
y
m
r
Setup 3
- ------- -------
Setup 4
Step 3 - Key Cut Ore Matrix Both Sides to Full Depth for Setup 1
Setup 1, 213

m Spoil Area
c i I
? I
m ; Ore
Matrix

T 1 i ,

O
CM
Setup 1

% Setup 2

Setup 3
'x '
Setup 4
____________J
Final Configuration for Initial Cut
Setup 1, 2,3
Spoil Area
k

?
c
I
?
161
11
L
m 7
; Ore
Matrix
;
----
1
i
O (, 1
C t r''' %r
t
O I
?aG i
`r
_
O E
r
o ?
1 ?
C i ?E r?r ,
U;

c
O Is,
Yi'
r
U E ? + r
1

3
=
t
t
F ? r
_
`
?

s
CMarston
www.marston.com
Step 2 - Remove Remaining Waste from Setup 1
Setup 1, 2,3
oll Area
S
p
c i '
I I
1 1
1 '
Ore
Matrix
_________
O

Setup 1

m r
Setup 2
U ?
Setup 3
3 '
Setup 4
-------------
Step 4 - Mine Ore Matrix to Full Depth for Setup 1
Setup 1, 2, 3
Spoil Area
C

m
o. ? I
I j
; Ore
'
Matrix
ro ;

m

8 '
Setup 1

C % Setup 2
'
Setup 3
?
- --------------
L
r
Setup 4
-------------
NOTES:
Repeat steps 1 through 4 for each of the 4 setups.
Setup 1 widened out to provide
sufficient room for spoil from setup 4.
Key Cut made along highwallside to maintain
65 degree highwall angle.
PCS
Phosphate . `
MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS
FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
MINING GUT
INITIAL KEY GUT
ISO 300
FIGURE 3.3
AUGUST 2003
J X
MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
At the end of the cut the dragline must make another key cut for wall control similar to the initial
key cut. Once the final block has been mined, the dragline will be moved to the beginning of the
next cut to repeat the cycle.
Variations to this sequence occur when additional draglines are added. If a second dragline is
added, one dragline would mine all the initial key cuts and the second machine could mine the
final key cuts. If a third dragline is added, one machine would not have to mine any key cuts.
3.3 Safety Dictated Minimum Possible Permit Width
Safety is the first consideration of any responsible mining operation. A primary rule in multiple
dragline operations is that the draglines are never operated in close proximity that would allow
their dragline swing circles to intersect. This situation creates the likely hazard of colliding
booms, injury and severe property damage.
Appendix drawings E610-002-01-03, Minimum Safety Dictated Width - 1 Dragline, E610-002-
02-03, Minimum Safety Dictated Width - 2 Draglines, and E610-002-03-03, Minimum Safety
Dictated Width - 3 Draglines, show the safety dictated minimum possible permit widths for one,
two and three dragline operations. Permit width dimensions include required areas for side
slopes and utility corridors for conveyors belts, mine:power, pipelines, ditches and roads. Each
dragline operating at PCS has an operating radius of approximately 290 - 295 feet. These
swing radii create operating swing circles of 580 - 590 feet in diameter for each dragline. The
safety dictated minimum permit width requirements were determined by using the swing circle
dimensions of the draglines with a 75-foot (one mining block) safety buffer between draglines.
The following shows the minimum permit width and mine bench width (the area of actual ore
extraction) required by number of operating draglines based solely on safety considerations.
Number of
Dra lines Minimum Permit Width
(ft) Mine Bench Width
ft
1 1,145 584
2 1,800 1,239
3 2,465 1,904
A r
r Y1 1)
YITI (A ?Wv
``
3-3 ,?`
? iMC?I'Si`#?It1l
« L
MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
In order for the PCS draglines to operate within a pit designed to the safety dictated minimum
permit width, the draglines would have to work continuously at the minimum safety separation
distance, which equals approximately five mining blocks only. The draglines would be required
to constantly operate, dig and move as a fleet. All draglines would be required to move and
start the next mining block at the same time. This operational requirement would be completely
unrealistic if not impossible to accomplish in a productive and cost effective manner. The
slowest dragline, defined by operational parameters or operational downtime, would define the
advance of mining for the entire dragline fleet, with loss of productivity on the remaining
machines.
Therefore minimum permit width defined solely by safety considerations is unrealisticr
operationally and economically, and would require a pit design that would not allow PCS to
meet production and cost requirements.
3.4 Minimum Operational Permit Width
A reasonable amount of working space must be added to the safety dictated minimum pit
design requirements to allow the draglines sufficient room to operate independently and to
provide short-term operational flexibility. In any mining operation unforeseen conditions and
events result in changes to the mine plan and equipment performance. Because the PCS
mining operation utilizes multiple large stripping draglines, sufficient allowances must be made
in pit designs and mine plans to allow for the ever-changing dynamics of the large excavators.
Mechanical failures and changes in digging and mining conditions to one or more machines can
create a situation whereby one machine rapidly encroaches upon another, thus requiring the
encroaching dragline to temporarily shut down production advance until the draglines can again
establish safe operating distances.
A short-term, temporary 10 - 15% change in productivity between two adjacent draglines can
allow the faster dragline to pick up two or three days for every two weeks of scheduled
production on a lagging dragline. If the lagging dragline then experiences a component failure,
such as a swing motor, swing shaft, etc., that dragline can easily fall a week behind in
production against the adjacent, encroaching dragline. Other unforeseen conditions can, and
will, cause temporary, short-term surges or lags in production on one or more of the draglines.
Such conditions include other equipment mechanical delays, water problems, pit car delays,
3-4
C Marston

MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
highwall slumps, other unexpected material rehandle requirements, and other potential delays
experienced daily in typical mining operations.
No mine plan or mining operation can succeed without contingency planning to allow for
inevitable delays. A safety dictated only pit design relies on continuous upside production
experiences and provides no allowances for downside production experiences; and thus allows
only for failure of production and excessive operational cost overruns.
For a single dragline operation, additional working space is also required in order to maintain
ongoing pit development such as road construction, power, drainage, ore lines and pit car
relocations while the dragline continues to operate and swing. Failure to provide the additional
working space would require the dragline to shut down while pit development is underway and
while men and equipment are working within the swing circle of the dragline.
To overcome normal short-term operational delays and reduce the occurrence of adjacent
draglines interfering with each other, Marston believes it is essential to build into the pit design
and mine plan a minimum one-week operational buffer for each dragline, in addition to spacing
for swing circles and safety buffers. To estimate the dimensions of these buffers, the following
production parameters were used:
• 264-foot mining cut widths
• Average dragline overburden - 75 feet
• Average ore thickness - 38 feet
• Average ore matrix pit recovery 90%
• Dragline availability - Marion 8200 86.9%
- BE 2550 88.5%
- Marion 8050 88.6%
• Dragline utilization - Marion 8200 76.4%
- BE 2550 77.8%
- Marion 8050 77.0%
• Dragline operational (pit) utilization - Marion 8200 66%
(availability x utilization) - BE 2550 69%
- Marion 8050 68%
3-5 C Marston
i0 l
MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
• Nominal Marion 8200 production rate - 3,900 bank cubic yards per operational hour
(bcy/op) hour in waste and 2,650 bcy/op hour in ore matrix for an average of 3,398
bcy/op hour
• Nominal BE 2550 production rate - 3,800 bcy/op hour in waste and 2,250 bcy/op
hour in ore matrix for an average of 3,126 bcy/op hour
• Nominal Marion 8050 production rate - 3,000 bcy/op hour in waste and 2,100 bcy/op
hour in ore matrix for an average of 2,645 bcy/op hour
• 12-hour continuous production shifts
Nominal production rates, availability factors and utilization factors are based on recent
historical production statistics provided by PCS.
This would translate to additional permit width requirements depending upon the actual number
of draglines operating. Additional permit width requirements for one-week operational buffers
by dragline are estimated to be:
• Marion 8200 353 feet p 5 QQ
p 9-?
• BE 2550 339 feet V-0
• Marion 8050 283 feet
Appendix drawings E610-002-04-03, Minimum Operational Width - 1 Dragline, E610-002-05-
03, Minimum Operational Width - 2 Draglines, and E610-002-06-03, Minimum Operational
Width - 3 Draglines, show the minimum possible operational permit widths for one, two and
three dragline operations and the resultant minimum required permit dimensions.
The following shows the minimum permit width and mine bench width required by number of
operating draglines based on safety and minimum operational width considerations.
Number of
Dra lines Minimum Permit Width
(ft) Mine Bench Width
ft
1 1,498 937
2 2,492 1,931
3 3,440 2,879
?It'uI?GU
3-6 w
C Marston
rtiu?
4
MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
3.5 Efficient Operation Minimum Permit Width
A dragline operation can be a productive and efficient method of mining if designed and
operated properly. An effective dragline set up is achieved when the dragline is able to swing
and place material in its final location, with minimal interruptions. Sequence disruption due to
equipment moves will reduce the productivity of the dragline operation. At the PCS operations,
maximum productivity is achieved when the dragline is away from the beginning and end of
mining cuts and is located within the mining cut where the machine can strip and mine ore
matrix in the mining blocks with minimal moving.
Delays occur at the beginning and end of each mining cut. The following summarizes the more
significant delays that will be encountered each time a new mining cut is opened and
completed.
Start New Mininq Cut - Develop Initial Key Cut
The highwall on the first mining block of each cut must be developed with a key cut to maintain
a 65-degree slope and avoid losing ore matrix. This block is shown on Figure 3.3. This
operation, while time-consuming, is considered good standard mining practice; however, it is
estimated that productivity falls approximately 15% while developing the mining cut key cut. At
the variable block width shown on Figure 3.3, approximately 173,000 bcy of material must be
mined at a lower production rate. Additional time required is estimated in Table 3.1, Mining Cut
Development Delays.
Start New Mining Cut - HighwalI Slope
The backslope on the highwall will require the stripping of additional overburden that will not
yield ore matrix, but is necessary for slope stability. Additional stripping, above the average
strip ratio, is estimated to be 20,000 bcy. This additional overburden equates to additional non-
productive time that is estimated in Table 3.1.
3-7 C Marston
W
Q
d
i
d
U)
O
v/
a
J
W
Z
2 M
r a O
M O N
(L) J N
.n w
W
0 Q
H
'V
V
Z
Z
2
O
0
co

C

CO
In

O
O

r-
M

0
0

CO
to

N~
M
00
M
0? I_: N N r CV) L6 CO)
d
C R

O
Q O
>%
M LO
U) t,-
Nfl-
O
d.
O
O
?
M
O
O
Fl-
I?
O
It
M?
MM
O
ti
W O
m CO N N r O Cfl M? P.
O
2
A
O
d
p O
o
co 00
=0 0)
00 o
0 r?
M 0
O co
0 0)
00 ?
~M ?
000 L6 N N 00 V) N M
O
L

O c
a>
O
0)
M
O U `. U p Q

d N
"a N N
? N
, N
> U a
? N N
? y 'a
r
j, co >, m ?
d
C U ._ U X L U U ??
f??6
V
7

U
L
C) 3

am

V

0
C
v C p C _
O C p C r
v - a M LO -00- -a
o?
C)
l
a o?.',
°
°U °o °, O
Cf)
r O
N ce)
r O
N
d
G.

O

O ? V
r+ -a
O
O O
L
L
CL (D i !C
a 4) m d 3

4)

Z

i
-
is
L
o
E
Q? (D

Z

°)
p

U
N U

N
d Z 0 10 d m
Y OO U ? Q Y m
N M tt i co P
LO M
C)
0

o N
y Y
N ?m
L
L Y
.«, d V
Q H
OQO
00 CO LO
` ?ON?P
L M r co
G a) riC6c
2 Q
Q
O
Q. 0 LOO C NI >-
U N N N
m
d
r 0 0 0 0
ma)G 0°0
c ?CMC6CM
O
U
3
o m m
a
a'd.0)
is
E Q ?Q
Z N o L
Q O
N 00 O 00
t o N O
o 2 m2
a
MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
End Mining Cut - Develop Final Wall Key Cut
Similar to the initial key cut, this work is required for highwall stability. Additional time required
is estimated in Table 3.1.
End Mining Cut - Highwall Slope
Similar to the cut start-up, the backslope of the highwall will involve additional non-productive
stripping volume. This additional overburden equates to additional non-productive time that is
estimated in Table 3.1.
End Mining Cut - Set Up to Move to Next Cut
Additional servicing time will be devoted to the dragline before walking the machine to the next
mining cut. Estimated time is shown on Table 3.1.
End Mining Cut - Move to Next Cut
Draglines'will walk from the end of the previous mining cut to the beginning of new mining cut.
This move is required at the end of each mining cut to allow the dragline to continue operating
without conflict with the pit car. The pit car will remain at the end of the mining cut until all ore
matrix has been slurried. (See Appendix drawings.) Draglines will walk perpendicular to the
face to clear ore matrix piles, pipelines, power lines, and ore slurry sumps; down the length of
the mining cut; and return to the beginning of the new mining cut. (See Appendix drawings.)
This perpendicular distance of 1,000 feet (500 feet both ways) represents a delay tied to the
beginning and ending of a cut. Total walking distance, excluding the length of the mining cut, is
approximately 1,000 feet at 0.08 mile per hour. Estimated delay times are shown on Table 3.1.
End Mining Cut - Re-set Power Supply
The estimated time to re-establish power, and shorten/lengthen power cable is shown on Table
3.1.
3-8 C Marston
9
MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
Within the mining cut, the dragline strips and mines ore matrix in each interior mining block.
Overburden is spoiled into the mined out area. The dragline then mines and piles the ore matrix
on the work bench behind the face, angling the ore piles away from the dragline near the
advancing face for the pit cars to slurry and pump the ore. The aforementioned delays will not
occur during mining of the internal mining blocks. Therefore, the longer the mining cut, the
more efficient the dragline operation is, i.e., the more ore matrix processed by the dragline for
each mining cut start and end. Additional delays may occur when adjacent draglines approach
each other's operating area and interference may force one machine to shut down.
Marston recommends that the mining cut be longer than described in Section 3.4 in order to
improve equipment productivity and ore matrix production rates. Cut lengths are somewhat
limited in extent due to physical limitations and shapes of the ore matrix deposit, pit car flexibility
and mobility considerations, and dewatering limitations. Therefore, a cut length/pit width design
which incorporates a two-week operational buffer per operating dragline, in addition to swing
circle and safety buffer dimensions, is recommended to maximize the higher productivity
reserves within the cut, minimize the number of mining cut setups within any given time frame,
minimize the frequency of realigning ore slurry pipelines and mine bench utilities, and reduce or
eliminate interference between machines.
A shorter mining cut/narrower pit width design will increase the rate of face advancement
through the permit area. A rapid face advance will reduce the time to properly dewater the pit,
increasing spoil stacking problems that lead to spoil rehandle and reduced ore matrix recovery,
and increasing the rate of costly pre-stripping conveyor moves.
A shorter mining cut/narrower pit width design will also have a detrimental effect on ore matrix
recovery. As shown on the Appendix drawings, each mining cut is outlined on each end by a
berm of unmined ore matrix, on which the mine utilities' corridors are situated. The utility
corridors are a fixed width, regardless of other pit dimensions. The shorter the mining cut, the
lower the resultant ore matrix recovery.
A wider pit design will maximize the utilization of substantially fixed operating costs such as
dewatering as well as allow maximum utilization of mine development costs.
3-9
C Marston
or
MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
Appendix drawings E610-002-07-03, Minimum Efficient Width - 1 Dragline, E610-002-08-03,
Minimum Efficient Width - 2 Draglines, and E610-002-09-03, Minimum Efficient Width - 3
Draglines, show the minimum efficient permit widths for one, two and three dragline operations
and resultant required permit dimensions.
The following shows the minimum permit width and mine bench width required by number of
operating draglines based on safety and minimum efficient width considerations.

Number of
Dra lines Minimum Permit Width
ft Mine Bench Width
ft
1 1,851 1,290
2 3,184 2,623
3 4,415 3,854
It should be noted that some of the above delays would be incurred for each move whether one
or more machines are working in the same area. These delays, summarized as Moving Related
Delays in Table 3.1, involve checking the machine prior to moving, retreating behind matrix piles
and establishing a new power supply. The remaining highwall related delays occur only at the
cut beginning and ending and would therefore be shared if more than one machine was mining
a cut. (See Table 3.1.)
3.6 Relative Productivity Analysis
A relative mining productivity index was calculated for one, two and three draglines at each of
the previously discussed mining widths (minimum safety, minimum operational, and efficient
operational widths). See Table 3.2, Relative Mining Productivities. Relative mining
productivities were calculated from the historical dragline nominal production rates summarized
above, adjusted for panel development delays. (See Table 3.1.) Production rates were also
adjusted for reduced equipment availabilities and lower production rates due to potential
operational conflicts between draglines when working in narrow pit dimensions.
Mining Cut Development Delays
Nominal equipment production rates were adjusted for the mining cut development delays
discussed in Section 3.5 and summarized on Table 3.1. For the one-dragline options, all delays
3-10 C Marston
N
O
O
U)
w
Q
Z
it
W
J
Q
Z
Z W
Oa
LL.?
L
U) 2
cn
Z U
Qa
C) O
H
W
IL
Z
2
N
W
H
V
O M
N W O
C. N
O n
mZ
Z Q
W
Q
J
W
w
Z o 0 0
N O O O

V co O M
(D (.0 (O
N
Q'
N
O
O
w
N
N
C O
?1
U I1 lf
L
?' M
? O (O N
0
w N O
N M O W (0
N
3 = C C
N O cc
O C
¢ O W C
a m O
.
?
L
v ?
U
m
? U
U ?
c _
d
4)
'c
U Qa>
x
N O) N C
'
N C
O
N C N C
_
U ? C O
CL w O
T M
O m M C

'
O ? X S?y C O
.
U
7 > LL S
O N
?
x
°
d a
ic"m
`
(
°
_
o
-
o m `

n O
Q o a`, m -
U Q
(a
CL
O D
a
m w
i m d
t
N C C O N O 'O 7
a) c C N p W Q Q
2¢ O
U C C
N N II T+ E- O O
m 0
~ 'O
w d
> N N N
O C j N
Co
F- 7 O?1 2Mmm
4) -5 CL
` 2
m c

Q C
> >
M
? o=;ccmo0
F 0 3 p
?NCO LO ml-
M
V
O
N
d

r
N

I
C
Z

MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
were applied to the single machine. For the two- and three-dragline options, the highwall
related delays were allocated over all machines used. Each machine was assigned its own
moving related delays.
Minimum Safety Width
As explained in Section 3.3, any dragline operation in a safety dictated minimum permit width
will result in an unrealistic mining configuration. Draglines will be required to work continuously
with only the minimum safety separation distance between machines. Each dragline operation
will be dependent upon the other machines to keep running and advancing through the mining
cut. If one dragline stops operation for repair or other mining problem, the other draglines will
be forced to stop operating before encroaching upon the downed machine. The draglines will
be required to operate together as a fleet and will not have any operational buffer to allow the
machines to operate independently from each other. Each dragline will only be able to operate
at the speed of the slowest machine, and will only be able to operate when all machines are
operating. Because of these severe operating restrictions each dragline becomes a component
of a single mining system.
The availability of the mining system is dependent upon the availability of each component.
Consequently the availability of the system is the product of the availability of the individual
components (draglines). While Marston does not believe that an effective mining operation
could function under the minimum safety dictated width, and does not recommend such a pit
design, the impact of availability can be demonstrated and is shown on Table 3.3, Estimated
Dragline Productivities at Minimum Safety Width.
Table 3.3 shows dragline productivities for the two- and three-dragline cases. For both multiple
dragline cases, a productivity baseline is shown, derived from historical production statistics by
machine. Historical pit dimensions, which correspond to the production statistics, have allowed
operational buffers between draglines. Table 3.3 also details dragline productivities for the
minimum safety dictated width. Dragline availabilities have been de-rated from historical levels
to account for the effect of a single mining system of multiple draglines. For a two-dragline
operation, the de-rated availability factor is 76.9% (86.9% x 88.5%) for both machines; for a
three-dragline operation, the de-rated availability factor is 68.1% (86.9% x 88.5% x 88.6%) for
all machines. Resultant scheduled production rates (bcy/scheduled hour) are shown on Table
3-11 C Marston
K 4
co
w
Q
Z
w
J
Q
0
Z
Z
0=
LL (n M
} a a)
J ?
QU ~
Za
Q
2 W
QO
_H
w
a
z
2
M
O
O
N
N
7
rn
Q
O
N
m
a
c
m
a
m
a
0
Y
d
a
c
0
w
v
0
a
d
a
., r
MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
3.3 and on Table 3.2 to represent the relative mining productivity index for the safety dictated
minimum permit widths.
Minimum Operational Width
As designed pit width increases from a safety dictated minimum width to a minimum operational
width, the dragline operation switches from a single, completely interdependent mining system
to a more flexible operation, whereby the draglines will have a minimal operational buffer. With
this operational buffer the draglines have the flexibility to withstand normal fluctuations in
equipment performance and mining conditions, but have not yet gained sufficient room to fully
utilize their productive capacity.
However, with this limited operational buffer, there is insufficient room to ensure operational
independence between draglines all the time. The minimal buffer will not allow sufficient room
for the discretionary operational flexibility the draglines will require to always keep away from
each other's operations, and to truly optimize the mining operation. Figure 3.4, Potential
Interference Areas for Multiple Dragline Operations, shows the areas of potential interference
between draglines (areas where two draglines cannot work at the same time) within a minimum
operational width pit design. The limited flexibility gained by the one-week buffer will account for
fluctuations in productivity and availability of the draglines, but does not account for interference
as it fails to afford true discretional flexibility. With only a minimum operational buffer, it is
certain that there w?u b?mPs when two draglines will be forced into the potential interference
s s own. The probability of two draglines being in one of these areas at the same time is
C estimated on Table 3.4, Probability of Potential Dragline Interference. The probability of
from 11% to 12% in all cases. However, Marston believes that this
probability can be reduce -to-50°/a_.throuo_c_areful planning and scheduling of operations.
As a result, Marston has estimated that there is up to 60/6 prob bility that two draglines will
interfere with each other at any given time within the pit.
Resultant scheduled production rates (bcy/scheduled hour) are shown on Table 3.5, Estimated
Dragline Productivities at Minimum Operational Width, and on Table 3.2 to calculate the relative
mining productivity index for the minimum operational permit widths. Productivity loss due to
dragline interference was applied only to the less productive dragline involved in the potential
interference; the more productive machine remained unaffected.
3-12 C Marston
M ,. 0
I .,
W
Q
2
CL
U)
O
LL
U)
U
13..
ln?
0
W
V
Z
W
w
w
LL
W
H
Z
W
Z
J
C9
M
O
N
ch J +-(D
O
?- W Q
1"'
a
LL
O
I-
J_
m
m
O
a
s
?a
`
.00
Q. N
O
0
c
N
R
U
d
D
3
H
m
0
0
N
co
Uo
0 OR
CO O ao
r LO LO
mx °
c x
0 m
U
C
a?
W
a w
c c
m
rn 0
N C 3
Q m0
a
N
0
(D
Im
p c c
0 0
aWo
C?
s
? c
a;
CL LO
ON
m
to
U
d
R
L
d
s
F
0
N
Go
r? W
_
0 0 .?
L
C) co
LO L 0
0
N
D
x
cU
0 m
U
c
0
W 't
N
c c
m 0
C 3
c p
cu
0
a U,
N
'
Q o
m 7
O O
a a`
c c
00

0
to
0
co
L
N O
M CO
O
LO
O
co
z m
3
m Q
a? m
Q c
U ?
c
? m
a? .S
c
?''
m
u) o
a0 a`
m
J-
M
0
M In
M
0
LO
LO
N
•?_ N
? Q
?(D
Q?
C
c >
0-0
a°a
D
0 0
O 0
x
o U
U
7 ?
a?
W 't0
N
c c
m 0
c 0
c 7
c p
?o
CL L,
O O
+. CO
3o
°
.-0
`
CL a
c c
00
w w
n I
2
H
O

w a
z
a
z
a
t a
i
Q O
z

z

L
a-
O co
U)
U-) Q OO
?O Md1 N
fn2 NW
U ~
Z
Qa F- Q
U

F-
LL In
0 O
> 0.
a
t= w
z
W J
O
a 9
m

Z ui
C
G C
G
H
w
L
7
U
N
c_
?U
x
? rn
c
'c
U
F- O'
f0 CO)
T
? H N
0 ° a?
_ a )-a
U
U > x
ii
a
m
- ? ?S O C N
Q V S Q N C
S; V T C N
p _ C Q 'a
U7 N O N
= m w 0 O
C ? C 7 O ?
N N II ?,?
N m N 'j c
y_ C 7 U 3
0-0 :3 -0
=0 > 6-0 0
Da
0U d
c
rn c
m E 2
zdQ
? N M ? Il) CO
N)
O
Z
a 6
MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
Efficient Operational Width
With a two-week operational buffer, the additional week affords the operator true operational
flexibility beyond normal fluctuations in machine performance. As a result the operator has a far
greater ability to avoid areas of interference during critical time periods. For this design, it is not
anticipated that production rates are required to be de-rated to determine the relative mining
productivity index. Table 3.2 shows resultant scheduled production rates (bcy/scheduled hour)
and productivity indexes.
Note that all dragline productivities shown on Tables 3.2 through 3.5 include adjustments for pit
development discussed above.
Ultimately the dimensions of the permit width design will determine the number of draglines that
can practically operate within the area. As the permit width falls below 3,440 feet, the pressure
will be on PCS to reduce the number of draglines in any mining alternative to two operating
draglines, due to above described interference between machines. This would equate to a
mining productivity reduction of approximately 33% for the two remaining draglines in
production. As permit width falls below 2,492 feet, the pressure will be on PCS to reduce the
number of draglines in any mining alternative to one operating dragline. This would equate to a
mining productivity reduction of approximately 67%. Reductions in mining productivity of these
proportions may have serious consequences on PCS' planned production target of 5.0 Mtpy
concentrate.
Reducing the permit width on the mining alternatives from a three-dragline minimum operational
permit width to a one-dragline.minimum operational permit width will effectively reduce the in
situ ore matrix available to be mined from approximately 84% to 63% due to the fixed width of
utility corridors discussed above in Section 3.5. This does not include pit and. operational ore
matrix losses but only considers ore matrix lost under utility corridors and wall slopes.
If the mining area width is substantially less than 3,440 feet, then PCS could only recover lost
mining productivity by developing additional mining areas. This would mean severe cost
increases associated with developing and maintaining the major infrastructure of roads, power,
conveyor systems, ditches, pipelines and pumping systems to service multiple mining locations.
Multiple locations would also require the development of additional pre-strip areas, as well as
3-13 C Marston
11
MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
new dragline boxcuts. A boxcut is the first mining cut in a new area, which typically requires
highwalls on all sides of the cut to be developed, and requires extraordinary stripping efforts and
mining cost to recover the normal amount of ore matrix. Additional pre-strip areas would be
extremely costly and may require the use of outside contractors if PCS does not have sufficient
equipment capacity to develop the pre-strip area.
3.7 Comparison of Minimum Permit Width Analysis and Historical Pit Dimensions
Marston compared the results of the minimum permit width analysis with PCS' historical pit
operational dimensions. Comparisons were made for each dragline scenario between the mine
bench widths summarized on Table 3.2, and actual ore matrix extraction boundaries from
production status maps provided by PCS. The mine bench widths summarized on Table 3.2 are
for the dimensions of ore matrix extraction only and do not include additional required areas for
pit side slopes, dragline tail clearance and utility corridors. Dragline tail clearance provides
room to allow for clearance between the dragline rear housing and the end wall slope in each
mining cut. Table 3.2 mine bench widths are directly comparable with the ore matrix extraction
boundaries on PCS' production status maps. Marston reviewed years 1997 through 2001.
The following table summarizes by year (or half-year) the actual mine bench width range and
average width mined by PCS, with comparisons to Marston's estimate of minimum safety and
minimum operational mine bench widths.
Summary of Mined Ore (Mine Bench) Widths by Year (1997 - 2001)
PCS Historic Mine Bench Wi Marston Minimum Mine Bench Width
Year Dra lines Range ft - Safe ft Min. Operational ft
1997 3 2,500-3,000 2,750\ 1,904 2,879
1998 3 2,600-2,800 2,700 1,904 2,879
1999 3 2,900-3,100 3,000 1,904 2,879
2000 1S half) 3 2,200-2,900 2,550 1,904 2,879
2000(2"' half) 2 1,400-2,100 ,750 1,239 1,931
2001 2 2,000-2,200 2 100 1,239 1,931
From 1997 through 1999 PCS mined a fairly conslan mine bench width ranging from 2,500 feet
to 3,100 feet, with annual averages ranging from ?00 feet to 3,000 feet. These operational
widths track fairly well with Marston's recommended inimum operational mine bench width of
2,879 feet for a three-dragline operation. Three dragli es were in constant operation during this
time period. Beginning in 2000 the available mine ben h width to mine ore matrix was severely
3-14
VP *,drston
e ?& a
MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
restricted on the eastern and western boundaries. During the first half of 2000 the mine bench
width decreased from 2,900 feet to 2,200 feet due to these restrictions, and averaged around
2,550 feet. By mid-year 2000 the available mine bench width was rapidly approaching minimum
safety standards, and PCS took one of its draglines out of operation. In the second half of
2000, the mine bench width continued to narrow through October, then widen back out in the
last two months of 2000. During the second half of 2000 mine bench widths ranged from 1,400
feet to 2,100 feet, and averaged around 1,750 feet. By 2001 the mine bench width ranged from
2,000 feet to 2,200 feet, averaging around 2,100 feet, again tracking well with Marston's
recommended minimum operational mine bench width of 1,931 feet for a two-dragline
operation.
While some mining cuts fell below Marston's recommended dimensions for minimum
operational dimensions in 2000, targeted production of over 5.0 million tons of concentrate was
achieved. However, it should be noted that 2nd half 2002 production fell sufficiently that on an
annualized basis production would have only been 4.8 million tons of concentrate. In 2001 PCS
continued to operate only two draglines at any time, but at a reduced production of around 4.3
million tons concentrate. Overburden thickness had a critical influence on PCS' production
success in 2000 and 2001 despite narrow, constrained pit dimensions. There was less in situ
dragline overburden in the areas mined in 2000 and 2001 as compared with the previous area
mined from 1997 to 1999. This gave the 2000 - 2001 production an advantage over the
previous three years, and despite restricted pit widths and loss of productivity, PCS was able to
meet production targets.
The following table summarizes in situ overburden thickness by year from 1997 - 2001.
Year Dra line Overburden Thickness ft
1997 73.6
1998 68.2
1999 63.2
2000 60.4
2001 60.2
Stud 75.0
A reduction in the stripping thickness of the overburden for the draglines had a positive impact
on production of concentrate in 2000 and 2001.
3-15 C Marston
.,
MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
FOR PCS PHOSPHATE AUGUST 2003
However mining operational risk (risk of not achieving required production and/or unfavorable
production costs) was increased with the narrowed mining limits. Despite the short-term
success experienced in 2000, Marston does not recommend pit width designs significantly
narrower than recommended within this report for long-term planning and production.
3-16
C Marston

APPENDIX
DRAWINGS
L ¦• •
I
I C {7 6'.l ?i -J
- .Piles ', -f

u ,
I Ts
Stock 1
I Typ k IT
? 264' j
- -.-._ 1- _ a _.._ _ .G!lGnSat..?.

V

t

t 200 Dragline j
r I _-
-

t I I
L`za•-- z64.
Advan Ing C ti
2
._-
r'-
t
t .i\ __. ..........i LEGEND
I 7RE PIPELINE---',

I \ •
820
I I
Re cattion Drag e th I
I l
liP? I ORE PIPELINE

DRAGLINE POWER

- - - - - .-- MINE POWER
¦ I
i \. -??????????, ORE PUMPING (PIT CAR)
t •
ORE PUr•c Ir POWER • ;
v
?
? -
- POWER
? -?•
...•.
DRAGLL•:-`_ POWEq BUCKET WHEEL
•'•°'°O° EXCAVATOR CONVEYOR
7?.? ?:G'+-+L CESS RDAD:(30'.WIN
t _
?! -- - -- ACCESS ROAD
MINE ROAD
INSPECTION ROAD
500'
APPROXIMATELY 1
500 - 2 t - - CLEAN WATER DITCH
,
,
I
AHEAD OF DRAGLINE FACE t . -

kf

? flF".? - 9 MUDDY WATER DITCH

CURRENT PIT CAR SET UP
t . LONG FACE CONVEYOR .... t r_
N * 00 Kim Rd'1F = ^ OTHER IT
LAR SET UPS
\
t '?
t
t I ?
I ? t
t
t
t j I
ADVANCING PRE-STRIP FAC ' t
t
t
SURFACE SANDS
8200 Dragline SHELL I.E.

(Projected to Section) 5 BOULDER LAYER
Z CLAYEY SANDS
t COQUINA BEDS
ORE MATRIX

T - DOLOMITIC SANDSTONE
LOW GRADE CLAY

90' SECTION
01• 59?' BI'
309'
Do
L a w O
0 V
1r LI
[
L. L L.
L.
d L
U W O
j O 0 100 200 300 400
L U U U
J 8200 Dr a Une -' SCALE IN FEET

s d (5 SCALE V • 100'
a Swing Circle 1'- 41
d

1 a ? PCS
Q.

i
v
C, a,

a

Phosphate
O
W \ N M MINIMUM PERMIT WIDTH ANALYSIS
w
i
N a FOR MINING ALTERNATIVES
o MINIMUM SAFETY DICTATED WIDTH
Permit Width 1,145 Feet 1 DRAGLINE
u
1
DATE: AUGUST 2003
h Width 584 Feet
Mi
B ORAPN BY:

L ne
enc SCALE: 1' 100
e Dragline - Minimum Possible Width
nO,
n n
SMarsto
.I.
DwO: ES,D_002_D,_D3
• EB A

- =_ -- -_ ---

i - 1 _

,
.
s . Wit:
--
820 D gUne \1 255n Dr
1 agll
ttt

? ...r
Ne..M. gW?clnO '
C ?
?
? r r
i
i
N
? i
'OF
.JVER.?..
..I
. i
i
-------------
.
.
L? ?1 i t I I?..

FACE CONVEYOR APPRO)<IMATELY 1,500 - 2,500'
LONG
i
Di t
SHORT FACE CONVEYOR AHEAD OF DR GLINE FACE
NtgfpfNtllDpGg7pDlkp01 I
t
t 1 -
tI
t M1 __________ { I I
t }__ADVANCING_PRE=STRIP_FACE_______________
8200 Dragline
t (Projected to Section) 2550 Dragline

SECTION A-A'

o
a m

d
e

L
w
L
O
75

°
3 o

° L
L
w

v y

u
O
u
o F 8200 Dra line 2550 Dragline F T
a
a
a Swing Circle
L, Swing Circle

a

0
c
-

N
'
a

i
a e

n

o
N
a

N

---------- N

^

----------

- e

N.
o

a

N ?

p

In
In
Permit Width 1,800 Feet
?- Mine Bench Width 1,239 Feet
Two Dragline - Minimum Possible Width
LEGEND
ORE PIPELINE
DRAG LINE PDVER SURFACE SANDS
---.--.--MINE POWER SHELL BED
............. ORE PUMPING (PIT CAR) POWER BOLDER LAYER

PCS
.......
.?BNNCNET WHEEL EXCAVATOR CONVEYOR
ACCESS ROAD ? CLAYEY SANDS
ROAD
I'.l11
Phosphate
MIMMUMPERWINIDTHANALYSM
INSPECTION ROAD COQUINA BEDS
CLEAN WATER DITCH ONE MATRIX
MUDDY vgTER DITCH L&-GWCESttgSI,TONE
RAD FOR MNINO ALTMWTNEB
MINIMUM SAFETY DICTATED WIDTH
2 DHAGLINES
??
aFlREM PIT Cat SET M ? 1tMl Da0
°'"° P" `"° """ =DNA w DqA MItXKt ]WJ
DR BT.
OM
t

?: r ars
on
Owe: EB)o-°m-DZ-m
a A,) a
I - Sp mil-? l' les - - i_-??
A
---------
_11?11L!_.

i roe . ,
?---- - F ? 050 Drn?l
y
I?? s l

22 l ` 2550 D a line
82 0 Dragline
,
Atl cinD
\ C t

ORE PIPELINE ORE PIPELINE 2550 DrbII
? RelDCOt
1
?
d`c PUMPINRIPDVER I:/• .? DRAGLINE PC, { pR_ fl IG PCt R 1
?f
LONG FACE CONVEYOR LONG FACE CONVEYOR
NIICtptt7S 1!p%pPp?I -
SHORT PACE CONVEYOR APPROXIMATELY 1,500 - 2,500' -
01 AHEAD OF DR GL1NE FACE j
1 I
r
1 R; _____________ ADVANCING_PR(=_ STRIP_FAM__ _-?-_
I ?_ ADVANCING_PRE-STRIP FACE _'y
I
8200 Dragllne 8050 Dragtine
!
(Projected to Section) 2550 Dragline (Projected to Section)
{
Ic .> ?c?ec

vw SECTION A-A'
P

L m

t D

C
i
O
L
u
L

i v
U

-

200

rn tine 3
on

>+

550

DragUne 3
on

8050

rn line m

U O

U
Q.
u
a Swing Circle
o Swing 1
o Circle
o

a
*
N
L
d
a
o

71 n

N
C)
n
a
o

a
'n
Permit Width 2,465 Feet
' Mine Bench Width 1,904 Feet
LEGEND Three Dragline - Minimum Possible Width
ORE PIPELINE r I
AGLINE PDVER SURFACE SANDS PCs
DR
® SHELL BED
- -
MP
C
•••• ?••••• OR
PU
ING (PIT CAR) POWER
BOULDER LAYER Ph i'
Phosphate
...P.......? BUCKET WHEEL EXCAVATOR CINVEYOR ?
ACCESS ROAD CLAYEY SANDS MINIMUM PERl M'IR'TH ANALYRIB
-MINE ROAD POR MNNa ALTERNATNES
-- INSPECTION ROAD _ COQUINA BEDS MINIMUM SAFETY DICTATED WIDTH
CLEAN WATER DITCH ME MATRIX 3DRAGLINES
- "_• y MUDDY WATER DITCH D?OMI TIC BANDSTME
L V GRADE CLAY RDO SDO AW DALE: .ST 100D
,•?
CURRENT PIT CAR SET UP CRANx B '
q .
E x FEET
.
'?F•' OTHER PIT C SET UPS SCNt T' - %U' 6Marston
}:
-
:
Dwc: EetD-are-w-D)

t CB A

°pot

sx_ J
?- --
- --
c
---
8200 Dragline

? x
",
eo. _
?B
Aa o
I

LIRE PIPELINE 8200 D-91l .
Relo-tkin Pot q
zry
mc?
?
DRAGLINPOVER
-
? I
I

APPROXIMATELY 1,500 - 2,500' r
AHEAD OF DRAGLINE FACE -
LONG FACE CONVEYOR 1

i XONX041c"NXIL16p0101 1N1711D61
I
I i
I 1

:
I I
:
I ? ' 1
ADVANCING PRE-STRIP FACE 1 IIti
8200 Dragline
(Projected to Section)

SECTION A-A'

D`
a m io
d i
0
t
,j o
y
1 Week e i
O
u
t
o
.F
8200
Drn line DPerotlonol B,PPer
82oo Dra
line U
?,
a
a Swin Circle g F
a +
-
{
tl
g

t
a C

n
N 6

o
N
a
ti Z:)

CD
?
Permit Width 1,498 Feet
-Mine Bench Width 937 Feet
One Dragline -1 Week Operational Buffer
EEEExB
ovE elrEUxE - _ sIRPACE sAxBs
pdGLIxE 005/ER -
------ xINE RDVfR SxELL BEB PCs
....: -- LR
SB.E T V?KELE%C .1. -1. VER
AEGEES RWB aArEr GMlBS Phosphate
®xlx _
CDGUDN BEGS MNMUMPFAMf
NANALY8E4
TEF
t?GIE/tI v?iER MTM OK W.TRI% FaRMNNO AL1BelAlIVF,3
MINIMUM OPERATIONAL WIDTH
Iuonr vATER BITCx QED" TAI. sumTU'E 1 DRAGLNE
cuaxEI RIT Cl IT w BATE:
ITT wwsi zow
?} DMR - SET IRS ORARt1 BW - '
?B • Marston
SCILfl r ` T00' DWG: EBIo-WB-OFOS
40

-
- --
-- ---------
---- ------------------
_ ---

K°` Y
tt
------------

-
------------

---------------------
I

I_
} .
L
°
? .oa Nxa:
?• 200 Draglln
s_ .550 rngline
-
`
'
I
?
?
:
K •
t
J ..,
I ', R PI ELINE L
?? I?
•
•?
i i 2550 Dr DII ;
: i

0 P 4ti;NG PDVER DR 1NE PDVER .I `•..........
RPIOCOt F{
.p.
y°
?
? ......................

LONG FACE CONVEYOR
_ --- I
APPROXIMATELY 1,500 - 2,500' LONG FACE CONVEYOR,
ppfHlNlLilfpplttlOllffNtppACt174 IN7011pYCf
I L
NN7XIIIM
MMfIXNKXC11M1Ul
- SHORT FACE CONVEYOR i
INipNIM>p%HOpOpOiptkt >O
AHEAD OF DR GLINE FACE
?WgOpl OptNlgtgf4
1 1N14NCINtppipVAI 1%f71ON
I
I
I I
ADVANCING-PRE-STRIP-----FA-CE _______y' -
t '
______ADVANCING_PRE _STRIP_FACE____ _______________________________y r
8200 Dragline
(Projected to Section) 2550 Dragline

Bv- -

SEC ION A-A'
m o L

0
TS
°
N
u O
c c L

o
t L
e 3 O

L v PA
U L)
s U 8200 Drn line I W-k O-t- w.PF•. >, 2550 rn line
1
a° Swing Circle 8200 D-AgM Swing Circle 2SS0 D.Aq?ne 4

e v
e
6 a
c
?
to
n n n O

a
a 0
in
a_ ?n
r\ 0
w
a
ti CD
M
Permit Width 2,492 Feet

LEGEND Mine Bench Width 1,931 Feet -?
DRE PIPELINE
DRAGLINE PDVER
------NINE POWER Two Draglines
PCs
1 W
k O
ational Buffer
•----------• ME PUMPING (PIT CAR) POWER - SURFACE SANDS per
ee
Phosphate
.• •? BUCKET VNEEL EXCAVATOR CONVEYOR SMELL BED
ACCESS ROAD BDULDER LAYER
MMIMUM PERMIT MADTHANALYBI8
MINE ROAD Po NIININOALTERNAVM
-- INSPECTION ROAD CLAYEY SANDS MINIMUM OPERATIONAL WIDTH
CLEAN WATER DITCH 2DRAOLINES
?q
o-A NODDY WATER DITCH ;jM CDDUINA BEDS OVJT ROOJ
DA.
U ??"'V°?r•w•
CURRENT PIT CAR SET UP "- ORE MATRIX I00 1W J00 400 DRAM, BY:
B? DOLONITIC SANDSTONE x - '
LOW GRADE CLAY SCKE N FEET
ET

OTHER PIT CM SET WS &Marston
SCKE? *' •
DWG: EB10-002-0}OJ
f ft

--- -- --- ---- i p ?opjjjoo Aa
in
n
60E
u ,
-
,

IB aoua.waat7 11% pun adolSaplS ?1y,L? 9 Ol _

I

I
e ,

?
7?
i o?

i

i

\

\
o a

Y
k
a S Z ?m
? g <? ?
?
i o i ? r
I j
i F

. s I

1
.._.__....- I i z t

u
u
8
m
8
`aa - p
; f 8

/

-

0 _

; w
n w;
ZO
J W
g?I

rI

\

'
0

L

L

d

U

L
Z7
C L
S zL
Q , n n

?1_?r/ -
v

aa33ng C}ajoS SL
LPL

'
,I 1
I n_
vv

_ rc N
, I
o w '

-
m t
s a
8
Q
N
Y

uLL, I ,
a:
:;

I
Qo
I '0 (D

?,C ?

?'
w
w ar
Q 1 H m C
.c: ..... I W
V t w 0. C
li:mmmm

i

W 1 0

.,
I
)

L
V
L
1_
O

t !
?
C

'
d i
u
f
Fa

V llo

L
t N r
- m
Ln i N
cu
Ui

,
?
1 4ajdng A4.a,}oS SL - e
es
4a..., o?v?olatl ?
dN18 a 0028. -.._.. Ni
-? • hw'i
t p NI
1 w _ i
m c m
°N W m u'8'
`? ? b' 'u ? i '~'?

! t ??
,
O W Qi

• w z aI
o

u

y
0 8
m ?

•
z ¢ I CA 0
L i+
y 0 6 F
o Cd
u e
=b

' ?•
I
/
a x x

W o o
b I o
N
3 Y W W 9?9
w o 3 0 3
r t ? W N e4y1g
w ? c
I

i
I
IC
?
i
t^
. I c 18 aounsoalJ 1!al puo adolsap!S I
a
i
I
a
uaao
pua d
-au
06 uop
u}
11o
;
d
;
d
S
.
3
J !?
R V

I
i
?.
C c t
--' ------ ---- - ----- ....... ---'- - __.__
I
T-
200 Irngline

Ad Cut Ii
m

? i i, ORE PIPELINE
vVw Relocutlon P.I.
I. /DRAGLIN?POVER
I
•
•
nawL-?cccsslaam 13a.vn? -_.
-
_. - - _ I
I :
1
APPROXIMATELY 1,500 - 2,500' I-
I
AHEAD OF DRAGLINE FACE
?, F V
- - ------------ -
I I
I I

i
I I
I
i '
ADVANCING PRE-STRIP FACE
t
8200 Drngline
(Projected to Section)
X

?V ?.? , . <.? '".5::'--:_ - ----theme --?- - - -_ -
?
trs•.?eY.,...
SECTION A-A'

- i
0
{ N d d
0
L e a
{
a L
L d
y d U
'cam
o >, L)
.
a
6200
Drn line 2 Week Operational Buffer

.d T
( Swing Circle 8200 Drngline
y C L HP
tl tl ?
I

aao

0
C.
0

0

a
a C
Permit Width 1,851 Feet
Mine Bench Width 1,290 Feet >
One Dragline - 2 Week Operational Buffer
LEGEND
ORE PIPELINE
DRAGLINE POWER SURFACE SANDS

(PIT CAR) POWER BOULDER LAYER '
?----- ORE PUMPING E
PCS
............. BUCKET WHEEL EXCAVATOR CONVEYOR Phosphate
ACCESS ROAD r CLAYEY SANDS =y
MINE ROAD
INSPECTION ROAD -_ COQUINA BEDS MINIMUM PEPMR WIOTIIANALY816
FOR MWNO ALIFANATNEB
CLEAN WATER DITCH --- ORE MATRIX
MINIMUM EFFICIENT WIDTH
DOLOMITIC SANDSTONE
MUDDY WATER DITCH LOW GRADE CLAY 1 DRAGLINE
.
iuwn xoos
D•rt:
CURRENT PIT CAR SEf UP ,? Drt - .1
OTHER PIT CAIN SET UPS
OM
t
n
_
ars
o
E r fOV
DNG: EB - -
'' %0 ?

------ - ------------- aopl a ao? Aq.n!a n ,boe
( ?
Li 1 p

l , Y C

! J T ] -
r? _ ;
-------------
Y _______ __
- _
I, _ ___ _
_______
...r
a
,TB a?uouaal? Roy p- adolsap!g
? 20

_

R
3

-
t
a 3
82
v
z
\` o
l
-L + 4 wi
J \\
x ° N
N
` ._a T ........
d g t w
W y?
?j
a ZF,#5.
o
L o
( (d °
D c
O
L S
0 O

??
! a
•
N w
a Q,

w N

I
I ,!
v a
cc
CO (N 0

° Q N N _0_
N
° ¢
? w Q V
' •' O ?
4id ae?°I.

Ile 6.. oss? . ? ?.

?

V aaiinH l?af'OS SL
.
Q. C ?

V/ 4 3

I ? 6
?? ?

l..

i--i- K

l
?I
ii
M w'
U,
4i
? r!
51
I N?

c
i A
Q o
° O)

3 N ?r

Id
'OfE
uo

i rc ?9
wm d u o

z ° m

.r i"St?
-
o w aj
>
o a! o
La,
as
d?

m
1..??
? yy ¢ U o
+'
N
N w rc
; o
O) K I ? V p
p ? ?
l
P o ij 9

^?
I
W
N W
° z'3'°d r J

----------------------
;
LI _-_ _________1, 8 aououoalo l!uy pun adolsaP!S
I
I i
?jldld
,06 ,.opl.l..0 Ai nn n .aax.od

. :

::
---------- ------
. - ....... puo uo.(anuoa d!u}g-aud
7 w w
z .,, -

- ------ ' jo
j
4o
A:
t f p!
-
w!}n ,60E
o

k Ilk go
U
- -, r

_Y
__ --- ---

S

-
'¢

B aD uo.anal7 llol puo adolsaplS
cv

Q.I ?

1•.
!
6
K -
- ,? L
3 P-1 4

a C
t
? \
J
? • N
rcl ' V
U N

r
i JJ ?\ @
.....
1 NI r
(r
1
- M
o:l
W 0
6

0
- tt ? ti! a a -'' ° ? ar
J L ?
L r
a a°
` j o ai
i
i4 > zI N u i

°? '0 1
L
m
C
L
V
L
~
d
o L.I zo iI e?
0 3
!

?
e
i
U
Y r ti
J
jaf,fnff /4.afoS SL
U

i

i (
5

P9 m

q
i

I
. d

0

e
-
L

C

0
Q?

rr+
w ll
- N
v

'

t

?

=

.........
...L tl

A

O
..

Q (?
V
O V
R

___!•_a__
t '• 4
S .
k
n•
}
L
Q
m
N -
?
? M Y \VtJ
?j

U

i,,
?
! N; a I
of N Q
! Lr)
N

- _
•€ m C
yy
i U o
I y
-------------
• J K
4 1 G
{ K W
a a z
Q

4{ d IjO?ola
na 9-oss?.. _,••? (.
,-?;
_
.aa f fng A}a3oS SL
z

4i^b i? olaa ?
aW116 oioo2a 0
?? U
I w +___.?

'. j
i
r I !
• Q 1
• w r
z
d
4
i -

i
_..•_ 1
z
Z

z u O ?
3• ty
3
J

? N
? ?

y

yy

? a a•

U?
Q
.

-

o G
L ma
v

w
? rc au14

? 0'
N;

a.

c 0
N
3

X
o u, u
rn
,

- -? -
!
w ¢
z >I
O
i o

as

>
>
111
r

3
k Q
U
w
u oy
U
m m ?

d m
c o
rc

Q 0 r

J
r H
l L a
rc H

O
f'
` 7
1: tt
'. w e c o

-
!
!

i

1
l
-------------- -------- --
II

??

____ ___ L_, ;'; ;__.i

?

.

o
Duos n a

,IB a oal3 llnl pu dolsaplS

p

jf?
a s a A,(
06 uoplauo3 6}pl}n aaMOd 1 '
1 •
r?
i ------------ «n •w.e d .f _ 6 ,
puo um(anuo3 dj, ,,S-aud
L
A ? Alt'1-7?- 1?
Z?? Z-4t

??
?- 6,-ey

?i??l/?it-low ?c?' ?? ?ic .s/? ? ?c?sv..?
zoom ooz ?-/
Owe C??
:.?'??? ??.- ?t;? ,?',? ? • ? ?` ? sup/ w

74
li2
? ?"?`? ?'?-'? ? ?:? G!='?.'i'? ?.''?,??'? /yam
cvv
%Oh ° fa2? R ZaP2 X21- ICOZ 2- GU22 ????
W? ?Y,-?? *17?7 "Olp" W?X-v
imap://bob.zarzecki [e-mail]:143/fe...
Subject: Re: 24Sep03 PCS Phosphate meeting
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 08:08:13 -0400
To: "Lekson, David M SAW" <[e-mail]>, Bob Zarzecki
<[e-mail]>, Tom Steffens <Tom. Steffens@ ncmail.net>
nope but bob will be there for us. i think tom steffens will attend as well.
had a good presentation from dr. skaggs friday - he wants us (DWQ and COE - other agencies too?) to
select pilot watersheds south of NC 33 to model and monitor ala the ones near South Creek. bob and
tom can select for us. maybe you can talk about this at the next meeting. if so, bob and tom will need to
meet to have a tentative plan before the meeting.
"Lekson, David M SAW" wrote:
All,
I hope everyone fared well during the storm!
Quick roll call for Wednesday's meeting... please let me know asap if you will be able to
attend...
Thanks!
David
1 of 1 9/22/2003 8:21 AM
imap://bob.zarzecki%40dwq.denr.ncmail. [e-mail]:143/fe...
Subject: PCS - DWQ upper stream limits of NCPC
From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 18:17:25 -0400
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
bob. zarzecki @ncmail.net
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Attached for your review is a figure (pdf) depicting DWQ upper stream limits in the
NCPC mine development block. You will notice the appearance of stream "segments" in
the northern portion of the block. These segments are the upper limits for drains on
Huddles Cut and an unnamed tributary to the Pamlico River. The lower ends of these
segments merge with other jurisdictional wetlands (mostly swamps without a defined
channel) and/or CAMA jurisdictional areas. We have included CAMA areas (estuarine
waters and coastal wetlands) on this figure for those areas where we have survey
data.
Please let me know if you have any questions/suggestions.
CZR Incorporated
4709 College Acres Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
1 of 1 9/22/2003 8:22 AM
P 1`\
\11
I P
l
I
1 Ei
I
1
1
I? I
I
?
I
1
1
1\\ 1 2
I P
1
1 P I
P P P
2

1 ? -
.1
`1 ? 2
2

2 2
I 2
P 2
1
E
I 1 1
11 F `
IV 2 ; 11
1
?
1
I
II P L
I 1 1
?
I 2

LEGEND
P '
2 Q NCPC TRACT PROJECT AREA
1
2 v
I
STREAMS
P ---------- 50 FT BUFFER
UPPER LIMIT OF PUBLIC TRUST WATERS
I" • DWQ UPPER STREAM LIMIT
1 I INTERMITTENT
P PERENNIAL
OPEN WATER _
BRACKISH MARSH
0 2400 4000
SCAtE IN RR
DWO UPPER STREAM LIMITS AND BUFFERS
IN THE NCPC TRACT MINE DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
PCS PHOSPHATE MINE CONTINUATION
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG
DATE: 9/19/03 FILE: NCPC-DWO-1
CP# 174562.02
[IftfW
41.
DRAFT
WILWNOTDN, xomN
T ID 9 21105
INOO1vol?o a? non92- FIGURE 9
'
fA% 91D n92-B1.
CESAW-RG-W/Lekson
September 23, 2003
AGENDA PCS PHOSPHATE PERMIT TEAM MEETING
SUBJECT: AID 200110096 / PCS Phosphate mine advance, Beaufort
County, North Carolina.
10:00 -10:30 Introductions/Old business/Schedule next meeting
10:30 -12:00 Discussion of Alternatives
1. NCPC Block
2. South of NC33 Block
3. Bonnerton Block
12:00 - 1:00 Lunch
1:00 - 2:30 Discussion of potential compensatory mitigation Options
2:30 - Wrap-up

PCS PHOSPHATE EIS
REFERENCE INFORMATION
FOR
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
Prepared for.
INTERAGENCY PERMIT REVIEW TEAM MEETING
24 September 2003
Prepared by:
CZR INCORPORATED
4709 College Acres Drive, Suite 2
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
SEPTEMBER 2003

7

C

1

i
1

1

C?

I
l

1

Meeting Agenda Topics - 24 September 2003
1) PCS task list summary for establishing and analyzing alternatives
2) Established Block Boundaries (Figure 2)
3) NCPC block boundary over aerial photo (Figure 3)
4) NCPC block boundary over USGS base (Figure 4)
5) South of NC 33 block boundary over aerial photo (Figure 5)
6) South of NC 33 block boundary over USGS base (Figure 6)
7) Bonnerton block boundary over aerial photo (Figure 7)
8) Bonnerton block boundary over USGS base (Figure 8)
NCPC Block
1) Additional land to Alternative E boundary
* 2) Stream origin and buffer avoidance (Figures 9 and 9a)
* 3) Old NCDWQ avoidance boundary from last permit process (Figure 10)
4) CAMA avoidance
* 5) PCS Phosphate's current permit application (Figure 11)
* 6) PCS Phosphate's original permit application (maximum planned recovery)
(Figure 12)
South of NC 33 Block
* 1) Stream origin and buffer avoidance (Figure 13 and 13a)
2) NCDWQ high quality wetland avoidance
3) Wetland minimization
* 4) CAMA avoidance (Figures 13 and 13a)
* 5) Maximum planned recovery (Figure 14)
Bonnerton Block
* 1) Stream origin and buffer avoidance (Figures 15 and 15a)
2) NCDWQ high quality wetland avoidance
* 3) CAMA avoidance (Figures 15 and 15a)
* 4) Maximum planned recovery (Figure 16)
* - Information available for alternative discussion - September 2003.
Mitigation
1) On-site boundary for mitigation (Figure 1)
2) South Creek Corridor boundary over aerial photo (Figure 2)
3) South Creek Corridor boundary with general cover types figure (Figure 3)
4) South Creek Corridor boundary with soil types (Figure 4)
5) Discussion of evaluation of other sites within the On-site boundary
6) Evaluation of other sites with the region (incl. known ecological areas of interest)

1

I
0

1

1
' PCS PHOSPHATE EIS TASK LIST SUMMARY FOR ESTABLISHING AND
ANALYZING ALTERNATIVES
' CZR Incorporated
24 September 2003?
' A. Establish alternatives for the NCPC :?
1. Mine existing permitted area (Alternative E) and return in existing
permitted area, with some land added along the southeast side.
a. PCS to establish this line after determining the minimum
amount of area needed to supply 5 million tons of ore
per year.
2. Stream origin and buffer avoidance line.
' a. Streams have been flagged, reviewed and surveyed. A
map of the upper stream limits is being presented today
' for discussion.
3. Old NCDWQ avoidance line from the last permit process.
' a. This line has already been established. CZR has it as a
layer on our NCPC Tract base mapping and it is being
presented today for discussion. This line will need to be
' modified to exclude areas within the mine permit area.
4. CAMA avoidance.
' a. Upper limits of Public Trust and open water areas have
been surveyed.
b. NCDCM has reviewed all flagged Coastal
' Wetlands/Estuarine Waters lines.
C. R.M. Chiles is completing GPS/survey and mapping of
' the flagged lines.
d. A map with all CAMA AECs (Coastal Wetlands,
Estuarine Waters, Estuarine Shorelines, and Public Trust
Areas as defined by the state of North Carolina) will be
generated after completion of surveying.
' 5. PCS Phosphate's current permit application.
a. This alternative already exists and was referenced in the
Public Notice. A map of this area is being presented
' today.
' 6. PCS Phosphate's original permit application.
a. This alternative already exists and is being presented
today.

C
LI,

i

r

1

B. Establish alternatives for the Area South of Highway 331?6
1. Stream origin and buffer avoidance line.
a. A few sites in the newly expanded 'area need to be
confirmed in the field by NCDWQ. The approximate
upper limits have been located in the field with GPS by
CZR. A draft map of these locations is being presented
today for discussion.
b. R.M. Chiles is completing stream channel
surveying/mapping.
C. R.M. Chiles will finish up the stream channel
surveying/mapping and provide it to CZR.
2. NCDWQ high quality wetland avoidance line (analogous to the
"old NCDWQ avoidance line" for the NCPC Tract from the last
permit process).
a. NCDWQ will establish this line based on biotic
community/wetland mapping to be provided by CZR.
b. CZR has done much of the biotic communities mapping,
but needs to incorporate the stream channel mapping to
be provided by R.M. Chiles.
C. Wetlands in western portion of the tract are currently
being delineated.
d. Biotic community mapping for the expanded area needs
to be completed.
3. Wetland impact minimization in the western and southern parts
of the tract.
a. Wetlands in western portion of the tract are currently
being delineated.
4. CAMA avoidance.
a. Upper limits of Public Trust areas were reviewed by
NCDCM last week and located with GPS by CZR. A
map with these locations is being presented today for
discussion.
5. Maximum planned recovery.
a. This alternative has been established and has resulted in
a need to revise the block boundary. A figure of this
alternative is being presented today for discussion.
3

I

i

N
C. Esta blish the following alternatives for Bonnerton
' 1. Stream origin and buffer avoidance.
a. Streams and upper limits have been flagged and
reviewed by NCDWQ.
' M • b. R.M. Chiles will GPS/survey the stream flags and provide
in
to CZR
the stream channel ma
g
.
pp
C. Approximate locations of upper limits have been
determined by CZR and a map of these sites is being
' presented today for discussion.
' 2. NCDWQ high quality wetland avoidance (analogous to the "old
NCDWQ avoidance line" for the NCPC Tract from the last permit
process).
' a. NCDWQ will establish this line based on biotic
community/wetland mapping to be provided by CZR.
' b. CZR has done much of the biotic communities mapping,
but needs to incorporate the stream channel mapping to
be provided by R.M. Chiles.
1
3. CAMA avoidance.
a. The only CAMA AEC in this block is the Public Trust in
' Porter Creek, which was established during the last EIS
process.
' 4. Maximum planned recovery.
a. This alternative has been established and represents the

' entire Bonnerton Block. A map of this area is being
da
t
d t
y.
presen
e
o

C
1
I

i
J

11

I• I MI I• m m m m I? m m m m m m m

SOUTH OF NC 33
V.. .0
0 5000 10000
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
BLOCK BOUNDARY
ESTABLISHED BLOCK BOUNDARIES
PCS PHOSPHATE
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 09/22/03 FILE: BOTH- BN DY-092003
CP#1 745.62.1 3
ZR 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
INCORPORATED TEL [phone] FIGURE 2
omx Mnr m ULTU s FAX [phone]

r
_k

r
? rf
•.f
NCPC BLOCK BOUNDARY
PCS PHOSPHATE
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 09/22/03 FILE: NCPC-AER-092003
0 2400 4800 CP#1745.62.13
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
SCALE IN FEET INCORPORATED WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 FIGURE 3
cimmno?uortLL m BTU s FAX [phone]

,4

Ilk

8

3
2
Found
- -
a- /
4
-

jr?

?LIC
F _
fK:,1
4 _

i
saw

B

??J • . ?
r
I
f'?
0
S Evoy Point
Lark A -

Lam
Ir I_1 4 `?? 4, ?
"A 6? Eric C),
Piling
Jeanne (C)? 41nt' 14 ` F ; \ _ _
V )` 1
%
4Andy (0)
Haltant! ` _ _
Npt
Amos
???14ni fC \?• r y 7 f ' i
re k fa! s ?,`
-- ? ? Sienna fC}>
`.'^n _ o^ - \ /--?e0
t 1 _-• Beaver (C)
-10
Pt ;; i? ?• _ { •
,? v1 \ C {
p ? ;; ti?lC ? Q 7 a
C?ek (" \ E i Ettttew. wee fL1 / 'y
Chapel
\ e
W,ndly C)
4 Aurora (C) i ;u
?J h Mary (CIr ? L--- II
gh HAI' 1 r - _ ? ? ?
AUTO
NCPC BLOCK BOUNDARY
LEGEND
PCS PHOSPHATE
BLOCK BOUNDARY SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 09/22/03 FILE: NCPC-QUAD-092003
0 2400 4800 CP#1745.62.13
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
SCALE IN FEET INCORPORATED WILMINGTON, NORTELC91O/3 2293 FIGURE 4
dNRO ."-LL O0 ULTYRS FAX [phone]

a x
a
?.s ...o...?wrsreerrs?k .. _ . , .. _ . .. .•:°_R Y G: . -..
i ? -
} h} t
Zl?
i'
i
SOUTH NC 33 BLOCK BOUNDARY
PCS PHOSPHATE
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 09/20/03 FILE: SNC33-AER-092003
0 2400 4111
CP#1745.62.13
Z R 1709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
SCALE IN FEET INCORPOR ATED WILMINGTON, NORTH EL CAROLINA 91039229403 FIGURE 5
amaouudru-?u?rurrs FAX [phone]
¦
¦ m m r m m m m = m m m = m m m = m m
High'
sch
\t ?t Hh Hilt' d
1114,
' - - -' F A1T OS
Friendship BM
1 3 l o?
SS I .. ?i f
Mon 13A (E) ?? • i) eeping F ehel
- I Chy. - ROAD-
17 a
/
t may} ` _ _
7 o A3 Idalia
Sandy GrOV- -
C
\ 6 i/
I '
60-
_-- ,? i -
? r
C l ( \ t? B Bill - - is
7..r.-?.
t -4 _ .r>
1 --- _
Is 9201
?.?\,I BM F3 - ? 1.
I;
{
A
AC.
14
f - -
-
.? -. - __-
_
SOUTH OF NC 33 BLOCK BOUNDARY
LEGEND
PCSPHOSPHATE
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TU
BLOCK BOUNDARY
DATE: 09/20/03 FILE: SNC33-QUAD-092003
0 2400 4800
CP#
1745.62.13
ZK ^ 4709 COLLEGE ACRES SDRIVE
UITE 2
SUITE 2
SCALE IN FEET - WILMINGTON, NOPTH CAROLINA 29403
FIG'JPc E
39 9

1 t o ?1 f f ! .r
01
„
i c }
" n a K.
i ; r S ?.. ?I.1q ' + y Tt y ; 1 fj
-771
. ?' t \ F •`N'. ."t j ,. mow'.}`. ??r`I 1
loot
goo,'
sY -n f?k'J j ri i r. ..
•?' a? br.? 'Yi1 r t q` Y : 5 }'.
r>x ?? Y 1 rid t
t?'l? r ~ it .r, ..F,....e-'•...° !' F - YC ?.'s??a?'.
`*-T+cti ''i. a : ? ?! 44 , ! 4 , ate. +' ? -•-• ? ? I
r d ac ` " `Aa i ^l ? '"r,,1' r ? ,r,?? ?? t r` q • ,? x / ', •
E x p.. ON 5 N
Ni?
%
t?r?3 •n 'z+l ? r g ' f
.ern. w'L i ?
A ,n•?.: -
d[ `
1(V 1R A>Y?•T+y $?t, + s7"3t .i.. i, 'L _ _ 7 _ =erera.T
w w
<: .+C• > ; ?? - ?? 'fit 4 :ti 4,a',,. k, psi r ? ?'? " ?' ? ' .: `` , ? .
}t oa .? ..
' ? w > ??'y7 y a I f '? r ?? ?nt,?,, 5?? r _ q _ . n r , ? w „ 3•`6?' f ???
1 -
? f, y `rJ/ r
BONNERTON BLOCK BOUNDARY
BLOCK `BQ Q t4
r PCS PHOSPHATE
,
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
DATE: 09/20/03 FILE: BONRTN-AER-092003
0 2400 4800 CP#1745.62.13
ZR 1709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
SCALE IN FEET WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28103
INCORPORATED TF', 910/392-9253 FIGURE 7
omaar?ulxr,u -- Fn=. 970/392-9139 F
m = m = = = m = m m m m r = m = = m

L?

15-
DURHA9
r
a
a.g
o
b@ __ j _ 1, r I 1 ,h

1.
CM
t
r
?

j
Ali \?IN,
1 3t Jd}me
f _

/cam r
-46

t

?1 ,b? tip- 1 .V ? i f;
R E A C H A M

r=
I ) yl ` F} r ??
hel Ch

/

U -?
77

s
h
_ 2? _ '- - _ _ y 2reha
001

? •
? 15 Oatchavm N ? G,p„ID_e \
hem
?
-
? G rd _
o \ Station -
1 Holy
v^ -Temple '-?

4p
BONNERTON BLOCK BOUNDARY
LEGEND
PCS PHOSPHATE
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TU
BLOCK BOUNDARY
DATE: 09/20/03 FILE: BONRTN-QUAD-092003
0 2400 4800 CP#1745.62.13
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
Z SUITE 2
A
SCALE IN FEET WILMINGTON, NORTH CARLOINA 28403
.cRPORATED TEL [phone] FIGURE 8
d•nao•uortu mauiturts FAX [phone]
m = m m m ? m m r m m m = = m m m
OPEN WATER
BRACKISH MARSH
0 2400 4800
1?
SCALE IN FEET
DRAFT
r r r r? r r r r r M r r r M= r r r r
Oar 1?
Durham 19334 1
y
r
• N???
61,
Found
. _ \ x12
h
V P
Sam
a
V, -2
P z z $ Buoy Point
i 11 p z ^_r Lark IR
V P `? x e
oMey (G. L?.
p i
a rf/' ??
Jill
I'
1 ?
?2
Jacob (C?A
p fit {?1G?
1 P (C)fir' t 1'? p J /1 / I
LEGEND
\ - ?k nJeannetQj' Point, NCPC TRACT BLOCK BOUNDARY
,,rA L '\_:.?5?lrerthorn I STREAMS
+'?t
Mdy tC) Noltand Q. \?
? \? 50 FT BUFFER
u ?{ AID Pt
1 ` ?' ?al+a %'. 1c) °
0 / • DWQ UPPER STREAM LIMIT
- ??e k INTERMITTENT
b±.naacl PERENNIAL
__ _?r??rsatci'`* OPEN WATER
BRACKISH MARSH
1
K Cek u
t
-Aurora (C) I?rc 7
d?. AaHh I ,? F iMary (CT-
sch 12
em'
0 2400 4800
i
Lpuise
t
SCALE IN FEET
DWQ UPPER STREAM LIMITS AND BUFFERS
IN THE NCPC TRACT MINE DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
PCS PHOSPHATE MINE CONTINUATION
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG
DATE: 09/22/03 FILE: NCPC-DWQ-QUAD
Z CP#174562.02
DRAFT 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
R WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
INCO R_PORATED TEL [phone] FIGURE 9A
eilviROxuExrAL m ULT.uas FAX [phone]
I• m MI m m m m i m m i m m m m m m m m
LEGEND
- - - - NCDWQ AVOIDANCE PROPOSAL
BLOCK BOUNDARY
0 2400 4800
SCALE IN FEET
m m m= m m m m? m r= m= m
LEGEND
PERMIT APPLICATION BOUNDARY
® BLOCK BOUNDARY
0 2400 4800
SCALE IN FEET
m m m = = = i = = m m m = = m = m m
LEGEND
MAXIMUM PLANNED
RECOVERY BOUNDARY
® MAXIMUM PLANNED
BOUNDARY
0 2400 4800
SCALE IN FEET

LEGEND
SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 33 BLOCK BOUNDARY
STREAMS
- - - - - - - 50 FT BUFFER
® UPPER LIMIT OF PUBLIC TRUST WATERS
• DWQ UPPER STREAM LIMIT
INTERMITTENT
P PERENNIAL
6 UNCONFIRMED BY DWQ
* UNCONFIRMED WITH GPS
DRAFT
0 2200 4400
SCALE IN FEET
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m ! m m m
I J a e
hip / BM
3 TT??
? Lh
E -r
13A (E) j Weeping hel
i
Cbt. a: Roio'
J
N .
1
--
°. / -
P
P fill"
/
.. 'I o ( \ `UPPER LIMIT OF PUBLIC TRUST
' ?•'?? .I I 4 `? WATERS AND DWO UPPER STREAM
t s LIMIT AY Ida1T8
Gro
x13
p ? ? If
13
#
# i.
:
.57
Ch ? Grgie ac'-
P 3 f'
- 1 -
0 ?h
n n? --
...
.a y II (1926)
mss. 4 c of j; • g T,; i J _ '?+ _ _ -
\ ;S3 - II y
I I
-- ----.._?.--- -- - -ji"=-•:-= ::--'ate .- - - - ---.,?"?
s -.
11
LEGEND
0 SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 33 BLOCK BOUNDARY 0 2200 4400
- - ' - STREAMS SCALE IN FEET
50 FT BUFFER DWQ UPPER STREAM LIMITS AND BUFFERS IN
UPPER LIMIT OF PUBLIC TRUST WATERS THE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 33 MINE DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
DWQ UPPER STREAM LIMIT PCS PHOSPHATE MINE CONTINUATION
I INTERMITTENT
P PERENNIAL SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG/TLJ
UNCONFIRMED BY DWQ DATE: 09/22/03 FILE: SOUTH RT33-DWQ-QUAD
CP# 1 74562.1 1
RAFT UNCONFIRMED WITH GPS 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
INCORPORATED WILMINGTON, NORTH OL?1,111 ITT: 3 FIGURE 173 A
EIfVIPOMYEIRLL col6uram FAX [phone]

r
LEGEND
MAXIMUM PLANNED
RECOVERY BOUNDARY
BLOCK BOUNDARY ° 2400 48W
KALE IN FEET

I
I?
l ,
1? I
I
*IP
P?? I
N
mA/
rr/
P
LEGEND
Q NCPC TRACT BLOCK BOUNDARY
STREAMS
- 50 FT BUFFER
® UPPER LIMIT OF PUBLIC TRUST WATERS
DWQ UPPER STREAM LIMIT
INTERMITTENT
P PERENNIAL
DWQ UPPER STREAM LIMITS WERE
REVIEWED BY DWQ AND LOCATED BY
CZR GPS, EXCEPT FOR FOUR POINTS
(-) WHERE VEGETATION COVERAGE
PREVENTED USE OF GPS EQUIPMENT.
1
I` 11
I
0 1600 3200
SCALE IN FEET
DWQ UPPER STREAMS LIMITS AND BUFFERS IN
THE BONNERTON MINE DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
PCS PHOSPHATE MINE CONTINUATION
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG
DATE: 09/22/03 FILE: BONNERTON-DWQ-1
Z CP#174562.02
D "FT 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403
INCO RPO RAT EO TEL [phone] FIGURE 15
cmeowunrtu caew*um FAX [phone]
m m m m m m m r m m r m m m m m m m m
B
c f Qa0brq+ Horse Point
! 8taguS fit
f.,•L. /" ". ? ?? - -? ? /`v t ?'.. t Lt 016
11, T94'5 ?`
Fi ui{?. '2Q' 1 sa t? Mai ` ` , ,?„ ^•
S ! ' I Jh! i U ?J
r II L
I i 1'T
g?Cem it l4
Y ? IH ? AAet'EOA
J jl}
//"'
a
x
S_ p
'Aame Cot
y f Y l 'i
LEGEND
NCPC TRACT BLOCK BOUNDARY
\'r
STREAMS
el Ch"
50 FT BUFFER
UPPER LIMIT OF PUBLIC TRUST WATERS
??yJ l ??' /J \- ?= ® DWQ UPPER STREAM LIMIT
INTERMITTENT
P PERENNIAL
' I f r DWQ UPPER STREAM LIMITS WERE
REVIEWED BY DWQ AND LOCATED BY
CZR GPS, EXCEPT FOR FOUR POINTS
T
'? ' ;may ?;; I (*) WHERE VEGETATION COVERAGE
PREVENTED USE OF CPS EQUIPMENT.
a? lll„JJJ /1 k _ / •
i
i
r ?? ?? dYBfl? ? ' 3 1/ v ? Rg4E _
q
-? I
.? Holy.
%Tempie l I a
0 2000 4000
? ?\??-') 48 • SCALE IN FEET
DWQ UPPER STREAMS LIMITS AND BUFFERS IN
THE BONNERTON MINE DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
PCS PHOSPHATE MINE CONTINUATION
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG
DATE: 09/22/03 FILE: SONNERTON-DWQ-QUAD
CP# 1 74562.02
Z4709
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON09vOR H?CAROC NAS TDRIVE
E 2
DRAFT INCORPORATED FIGURE
M r¦? on M MM W MM i M M M M M M
* 4s
f
¦
mot!
.
• /••.°
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
f •
.1w : •
/
/
/
lb •AIL
I
LEGEND
s
- - MAXIMUM PLANNED
RECOVERY BOUNDARY
•
BLOCK BOUNDARY
-?
ED
•
• i
•
/ 4?
t
• 0 1600 3200
• p SCALE IN FEET
BONNERTON BLOCK BOUNDARY
MAXIMUM PLANNED RECOVERY
PCS PHOSPHATE
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG
DATE: 09/22/03 FILE: SONNERTON-ONCY-FIO16
CP#174562.02
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
INCORPORATED TEL [phone] FIGURE 16
cwuow?n+ru cpeuLium FAX [phone]
m m m m m m m r m m m m m m m m m m m
i5. rl.Ilk ?FintOYk!! .f
Wds 01/
Unffaft
ev Q - - q?q" erects Aye tEsville o Havdee? Votr?
ssroa r ??. '/ W ing?gl+IFfr ` rossroa Beck it v°
Cookout ii i
FbLmi
lower
22 i Whit S I t y?1'
tea. I Country tub y C
Sid
33 Ah
ao L, MR($ off`., •?. 1-+C EK t Winsteadvi pp
w ?v ?oint ??;z \"? aA r At7t{( 7
r :? (( o ) Bur6aQe Crossr s qQ1
a (•'!c _ •. t.AQOia Poin9 rt a? ? t ' a so it n' 7
e ?
Cof--, Pint - R Grocar Poi
rossroads of r.i ?l
4 I - 1 -6.- -- d"'
1 ` Currima Pcird Lee reek Moor Beach a ico Be
Wilm r S, ?? i s o
LDO u t r - s Y l_ x..J '•? A I W
J? Lacs point
\ st ?,? Plant _
'C?o?xs? Crossro s 4 I WiaH Oslo
elb 33 W4." POW
' lla?mpef
3e reie k a ?. y r--
J South Cr k I ? ocd ?o1nt ?
ay Y '35°ec Sorina C ek a
G ey two
" xo co yer Aorota ; l
Z? 'm ceboarso =q \ Fn . Tn_ ; '* _! i COOS
i \ r0
I?

f Hill g.?t Polni ..?
aYe "i j caff Ah li C ek
lia
4
B \
, ? P

?P' se
_
n

I t
I \ H

IY

`AGO EI 0
esic ? i

Hope
7 ± n
task er { f
!i( ?y
-
•s and mergs
Pei, P
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
YrY R
6.-
PARCEL BOUNDARY
ROAD
SOUTH CREEK CORRIDOR BOUNDARY
PCS PHOSPHATE
SCALE: AS SHOWN 1APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
0 3000 6000 DATE: 09/20/03 1 FILE: SOCRKEXPAN
CP# 1745.59
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SCALE IN FEET SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 29403
INCDRPORAT ED TEL 91O/392-9253 FIGURE 2
omRon�arxrr.� mreu�rum FAX [phone]
A
,'�
b -}y
`1'
.+, -may
S
Li-u?�i�'i�. •,�Ca �R .
4 3
_
m
6A S-
S
yF
YrY R
6.-
PARCEL BOUNDARY
ROAD
SOUTH CREEK CORRIDOR BOUNDARY
PCS PHOSPHATE
SCALE: AS SHOWN 1APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
0 3000 6000 DATE: 09/20/03 1 FILE: SOCRKEXPAN
CP# 1745.59
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SCALE IN FEET SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 29403
INCDRPORAT ED TEL 91O/392-9253 FIGURE 2
omRon�arxrr.� mreu�rum FAX [phone]
xrCn
4 i':
m
YrY R
6.-
PARCEL BOUNDARY
ROAD
SOUTH CREEK CORRIDOR BOUNDARY
PCS PHOSPHATE
SCALE: AS SHOWN 1APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: TLJ
0 3000 6000 DATE: 09/20/03 1 FILE: SOCRKEXPAN
CP# 1745.59
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SCALE IN FEET SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 29403
INCDRPORAT ED TEL 91O/392-9253 FIGURE 2
omRon�arxrr.� mreu�rum FAX [phone]

Si ?m?
1
11
\ PARKER FARM
LEGEND
PARCEL BOUNDARY
- - - - - - - ROAD
-- AREA WITHIN PARCEL THAT
HAS BEEN TIMBERED
rzam TIMBERED AREA 366.3 cc
0 0 0 0 0 FARM FIELDS 105.7 cc
',VOODLANC 296.3 ac

0 3000 6000
SCALE IN FEET
DRAFT
AURORA
NC
` 33 I NC HWY 33

I
SR ,
1

\ PARKER FARM
LEGEND
PARCEL BOUNDARY

- - - - - - - ROAD
AREA WITHIN PARCEL THAT
HAS BEEN TIMBERED
v?? HYDRIC ORGANIC 217.1 cc
p p p p p HYDRIC MINERAL 107.1 cc
NON-HYDRIC 45.4 cc
DRAFT
0 3000 6000
SCALE IN FEET
AURORA
Nc
33 I NC Nwr 33

n
5
5
z
E
a
P
$
a
z
2)
?T
N
(D
N
O
In
n
U)
cr
rCh
G
CD
Z
CD
Q.
F
0
N
CO
(D
In
M
Z
0
0
N
CTi
N
CT
Cn
v
u
? o
m
TI
C
77
m
cn
v ,
CZR
INCORPORATED
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1725
CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
TO: See Distribution
FROM: Kent Karfiker, Dawn Carroll
DATE: 25 February 2003
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
MAR 1 0 2003
WATER QUALITY SECTION
RE: Minutes of the 7 January 2003 meeting for the PCS Phosphate Mine
Continuation permit application review
1 The seventh meeting for the review of PCS Phosphate's Mine Continuation permit
2 application was held at the Washington Regional Office of the North Carolina
3 Department of Environment and Natural Resources on 7 January 2003. The
4 following people were in attendance:
5
6 David Lekson - USACE 18 David Moye - NCDCM
7 Scott Jones- USACE 19 Sean McKenna - NCDMF
8 Bernadette Smallwood - USACE 20 Kathy Matthews - USEPA
9 Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate 21 Mike Wicker - USFWS
11 Jerry Waters - PCS Phosphate 23 David McHenry - NCWRC
12 Bill Schimming - Potash Corp. 24 Floyd Williams - NCDLR
13 Terry Baker - PCS Phosphate 25 David McNaught - ED
14 Deborah Sawyer - NCWRP 26 Mary Alsentzer - PTRF
15 John Dorney - NCDWQ 27 Kent Karriker - CZR Incorporated
16 Tom Steffens - NCDWQ 28 Dawn Carroll - CZR Incorporated
17 Terry Moore - NCDCM
29
30 Ron Sechler (NMFS) was not able to,attend due to a death in the family.
31
32 At approximately 10:05 a.m., Mr. Lekson called the meeting to order. An
33 agenda was passed out that listed the following eight items for consideration:
34 1. Corps Project Manager Transition/ Old business;
1
1061 EAST INDIANTOWN ROAD • SUITE 100 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5143
TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • [e-mail] • www.CZRINC.com
35 2. Task List, review and discussion;
36 3. "EIS Preliminary Project Area Mapping and Resource Inventory", review
37 and discussion;
38 4. Elimination of proposed mine development blocks from further
39 consideration;
40 5. Mine alternative boundary development within remaining mine
41 development blocks;
42 6. Mitigation bankers offering credits to PCS;
43 7. Creek navigability/ Public Trust/ Ownership;
44 8. Schedule next meeting.
45
46 Mr. Lekson thanked everyone for coming and asked that everyone introduce
47 himself or herself. He briefly discussed his transition as Corps Project Manager and
48 laid out the ground rules for the team meeting. Mr. Lekson noted that earlier team
49 meetings had taken a broad approach to the issues, but also noted that the process
50 now is entering the stage when it will begin to take a more formal approach to
51 formulating alternatives. Mr. Lekson asked Mr. Smith to confirm whether the Team
52 had reached a consensus on the Project Area boundary. Mr. Smith stated that
53 there was not a 100 percent consensus, though everyone had shared his or her
54 views. Dr. McNaught and Ms. Sawyer agreed.
55
56 A handout titled "Developing High Performing Teams" was passed around,
57 which Mr. Lekson used to discuss the need for the Team's constructive input,
58 especially considering the diverse nature of the group. Mr. Lekson used the
59 handout to define the breakpoint between consensus and lack of consensus on a
60 particular issue. To help the permitting team stay focused, Mr. Lekson discussed a
61 USACE flow chart depicting the EIS permitting process. Mr. Lekson noted that the
62 Team is between the stages "Initiate Scoping Process" and "Draft EIS Submitted".
63
64 Mr. Lekson stated that he is in the process of going through Scott
65 McLendon's old files to ensure that he has copies of each agency's
66 correspondence. He also wishes to ensure that he has a clear idea of each
67 agency's positions on the major issues and any outstanding concerns. Mr. Lekson
68 noted that his file search had turned up an old request from Dr. McNaught to
69 overlay the NCDWQ mining exclusion line and the old Alternative B boundary on
70 PCS Phosphate's currently proposed mining boundary on the NCPC Tract. Dr.
71 McNaught confirmed that he had made the request. Mr. Karriker indicated that the
72 requested map had been provided during a Team meeting in December 2001. Ms.
73 Sawyer confirmed that the map included the NCDWQ exclusion line. Mr. Moye
74 pointed out that past meeting minutes and other documents had referred to "Public
75 Trust Waters", but the proper term is "Public Trust Area".
76
2
77 Mr. Lekson then asked Mr. Karriker to give a progress update on the task list
78 from the 25 February 2002 Team meeting. Mr. Karriker handed out copies of the
79 task list and explained the progress made on each item.
80
81 Task 1 required a preliminary inventory of natural resource features within
82 the Project Area boundary. Mr. Karriker noted that the preliminary inventory has
83 been completed, and the products of the inventory are contained in the package
84 that was mailed to the Team members in early December. The other component of
85 Task 1 involved an analysis of technical and economic issues for the various mine
86 blocks in the Project Area. Mr. Karriker noted that PCS Phosphate is in the process
87 of evaluating technical feasibility and has hired consultants to model economic
88 feasibility. Mr. Smith explained that PCS Phosphate is developing a model to use
89 as a tool to forecast future costs and aid in the economic comparison of
90 alternatives.
91
92 Ms. Alsentzer asked when the economic feasibility model will be finished.
93 Mr. Smith replied that the model is approximately two months from being finished.
94 Mr. Dorney expressed concerns about possible problems with proprietary
95 information. Mr. Smith stated that proprietary information will be an issue that
96 must be worked out with the USAC . Mr. Lekson added that the USACE will
97 engage Corps economists to assist in re iewing the economic feasibility model.
98 avl-? .DW ( (Pgr Sk.t D-rnf?, 2 ?o3
99 Mr. Wicker expressed concern about constraints applied to the model and
100 the difficulty involved in predicting the future. He asked PCS Phosphate if the
101 model will evaluate differences in profitability and the effects of price fluctuations
102 in the market. Mr. Waters responded that the model will be a cost comparison
103 model, and as such will not consider profitability. It will estimate the cost per ton,
104 in 2002 dollars, of phosphate ore delivered to the stock pile. The cost per ton can
105 be used to compare the economic efficiency of the various alternatives, relative to
106 each other, throughout the mining period. Mr. Furness continued by stating that
107 PCS Phosphate is contracting consultants to analyze technical characteristics and
108 feasibility of mining the Area South of Highway 33. PCS Phosphate is
109 concentrating their efforts in the Area South of Highway 33 and may apply their
110 efforts to other tracts.
111
112 Dr. McNaught cautioned the Team to distinguish between "mining blocks"
113 and "alternatives;" the two terms are not interchangeable. Mr. Lekson agreed by
114 stating that there can be a range of alternatives within a given mining block.
115
116 Mr. Karriker continued with the task update, moving on to Task 2 regarding
117 stream origin determinations on the NCPC Tract and Bonnerton. He stated that
118 stream origin determinations have been completed on these two blocks, and stream
3
119 channels have been flagged in the field. A survey of flag locations (via sub-meter
120 GPS) is currently being conducted by R.M. Chiles. As of late December, Chiles
121 was approximately halfway finished with the NCPC Tract.
122
123 Task 3 is the formulation for the NCPC Tract of a new NCDWQ avoidance
124 line that accounts for the recently determined stream origins. Mr. Karriker noted
125 that exact placement of the NCDWQ avoidance line must await completion of the
126 stream flag survey. However, a conceptual avoidance line can be developed using
127 the preliminary inventory data, should NCDWQ wish to begin exploring avoidance
128 concepts. Mr. Dorney stated that NCDWQ may begin looking at concepts, but
129 they probably will wait for the survey data before they produce an avoidance line
130 for distribution to the Team. Ms. Sawyer stated that in addition to streams,
131 wetland values also are considered in developing NCDWQ avoidance lines. Dr.
132 McNaught asked Ms. Sawyer about a time frame for wetland ratings on the NCPC
133 tract. Ms. Sawyer replied that NCDWQ would continue to use wetland ratings
134 developed during the last EIS for any decisions on avoidance lines on the NCPC
135 tract.
136
137 Mr. Karriker moved on to Task 4, which is an evaluation of two potential
138 straight-line return sweeps on the NCPC Tract involving one dragline and two
139 draglines. Mr. Karriker asked Mr. Smith to elaborate on progress on this task. Mr.
140 Smith stated PCS Phosphate is developing information on the technical feasibility
141 of one, two, and three dragline return sweeps, but the information is too
142 preliminary to present to the Team at this time. He further explained that once
143 alternatives are chosen for analysis, the modeling that PCS Phosphate is developing
144 can be used to evaluate the feasibility of those alternatives. Mr. Lekson asked if
145 the model is finished. Mr. Waters replied that the model is a couple of months
146 away from completion. Mr. Smith suggested that the USACE review the
147 development of the model with PCS Phosphate. Mr. Furness added that the model
148 is still under development by the consultants. Mr. Lekson stated that the USACE
149 will review the model when it is submitted by the consultants.
150
151 Dr. McNaught asked Mr. Smith to share a summary of the analysis of
152 feasibility in the Area South of Highway 33. Mr. Smith stated that PCS Phosphate
153 feels very comfortable with the geologic aspects of the analysis, and he noted that
154 the overburden and other characteristics differ from the NCPC Tract in ways that
155 may affect feasibility. He cautioned that PCS Phosphate has put forth a great deal
156 of effort in evaluating mine block configuration and other technical considerations
157 on the NCPC Tract, but a similar level of effort has not been put forth on the Area
158 South of Highway 33. Therefore, he cautioned the Team not to compare "apples
159 and oranges." Dr. McNaught insisted that the Team will require an "apples to
160 apples" comparison to allow an assessment of the feasibility of alternatives. Mr.
4
161 Smith encouraged the Team to narrow the Project Area before proceeding with
162 detailed feasibility analyses. He noted that PCS Phosphate has spent hundreds of
163 thousands of dollars developing a technical feasibility model for the Area South of
164 Highway 33. He stated that PCS Phosphate will be very sensitive to the magnitude
165 of any additional land area that must be evaluated to the same level of detail.
166
167 Mr. Karriker moved on to Task 5, which states that CZR will develop a
168 revised NCPC Tract preliminary alternatives map that will include a revised NCDWQ
169 avoidance line, a revised "old Alternative B" that accounts for the 30-foot-wide
170 Public Trust Shoreline AEC, and any feasible straight-line return sweeps. Mr.
171 Karriker stated that development of the revised map must await completion of
172 Tasks 3 and 4. Dr. McNaught asked Mr. Karriker if CZR will include old Alternative
173 D on the revised map. Mr. Karriker stated that CZR will include the boundary on
174 the NCPC Tract if the Team so directs. Mr. Furness noted that old Alternative D
175 was one of the seven possible alternatives on the NCPC tract discussed in the last
176 Team meeting on 25 February 2002.
177
178 Task 6 states that CZR and PCS Phosphate will meet with NCDCM to
179 determine the upper limits of Public Trust areas (according to the NCDCM
180 definition) on the Area South of Highway 33. Mr. Karriker stated that his task has
181 not yet been done, but CZR and PCS Phosphate will schedule the meeting in the
182 near future.
183
184 Mr. Lekson suggested to Mr. Smith that the issue of Public Trust/Ownership
185 be moved up the agenda list and discussed now. Mr. Smith explained that PCS
186 Phosphate has not resolved the issue of Public Trust and property rights, but their
187 goal is to resolve the issue in 2003. Mr. Lekson added that a letter dated 4
188 February 2002 was sent out by the USACE that stated the USACE will use
189 NCDCM's Public Trust definition in the EIS.
190
191 Mr. Karriker then discussed Task 7, which states that CZR will use the
192 NCDWQ wetlands rating method on the Area South of Highway 33 so that
193 NCDWQ can develop an avoidance line for this block. He noted that CZR has
194 recently completed collecting data for the wetland ratings and has the information
195 available to transmit to NCDWQ. Mr. Karriker added that CZR can be available to
196 assist NCDWQ should they wish to verify the ratings prior to using them in
197 alternative development. Mr. Dorney agreed and stated that he would be available
198 to set up a time for field verification after the Team meeting was adjourned.
199
200 Task 8 directs CZR to consult with the USACE and PCS Phosphate in the
201 development of a preliminary alternatives map for the Area South of Highway 33.
202 Mr. Karriker stated that based on Team input at this meeting, conceptual
5
203 alternatives can be developed for the Area South of Highway 33 using the
204 information from the preliminary resource evaluation. However, exact placement of
205 alternative lines must await completion of a field survey of wetland/stream flags
206 and an NCDCM determination of Public Trust Areas.
207
208 Task 9, the last item on the list, states that PCS Phosphate and the USFWS
209 will continue to work toward a solution of the cadmium issue. Mr. Karriker stated
210 that PCS Phosphate and the USFWS have agreed to standards for capping of the
211 reclamation areas. Mr. Augspurger elaborated by stating that the cadmium issue
212 was resolved successfully by meeting on-site with PCS Phosphate and evaluating
213 feasible standards and methods for capping. PCS Phosphate and the USFWS
214 agreed to a resolution that will be implemented and become part of the Alternative
215 E permit. Mr. Lekson noted that the USACE sent out a letter dated 15 July 2002
216 that stated that PCS Phosphate and the USFWS have agreed on capping standards,
217 and that those standards have been made a condition of the permit.
218
219 Mr. Augspurger asked about the progress of the capping of the reclamation
220 areas. Mr. Waters replied that progress is good, and that PCS Phosphate is
221 currently capping R6 and is planning to evaluate various alternative capping
222 methods this year.
223
224 Mr. McHenry requested information regarding PCS Phosphate's success rate
225 in achieving the specified coverage. Dr. McNaught asked about the extent of the
226 area to be capped and whether old reclamation areas (prior to the Alternative E
227 permit) will be capped. Mr. Augspurger responded that the areas covered under
228 the 1997 permit (Alternative E) were the only areas for which the USFWS and the
229 USACE have the authority to require capping. Mr. Smith noted that NCDLR
230 accepted the change in the reclamation plan that specified the capping of
231 Alternative E reclamation areas, and the other agencies involved (USFWS, USACE,
232 and NCWRC) have agreed to the capping plan. Mr. Augspurger stated that the
233 USFWS still is concerned about the earlier reclamation areas, but noted that they
234 have no clear authority over those areas. He added that perhaps the knowledge
235 gained on the Alternative E areas might lead to a solution for the older areas if they
236 are revisited. Mr. Lekson reminded PCS Phosphate of their responsibility to meet
237 the January 2007 deadline for capping R4 and R6.
238
239 After Mr. Karriker finished reviewing the task list, Mr. Lekson remarked that
240 the agreement made by PCS Phosphate and the USFWS on capping reclamation
241 areas was the only task completed, but progress has been made on the other
242 tasks. Mr. Lekson added that the economic analysis of the mining blocks will have
243 great bearing on the development of alternatives.
244
6
245 Mr. Furness reminded the Team that alternatives can be discussed without
246 the economic feasibility model, and that the model will be used to assess the
247 feasibility of the various alternatives once they have been developed. Mr. Smith
248 further clarified that the economic feasibility model is a tool for evaluating
249 alternatives, not for developing the boundary of each individual alternative.
250 However, Mr. Furness added that alternative boundaries may need to be adjusted
251 based on the outcome of the model. Mr. Waters added that the Team must
252 establish the technical feasibility of an alternative before evaluating the economic
253 feasibility.
254
255 Mr. Wicker asked whether the economic feasibility model will show the
256 profitability range. Mr. Smith replied that the model will not show profitability, but
257 will illustrate cost per ton of phosphate rock concentrate delivered to the stock pile
258 over a period of time. Mr. Smith added that phosphate rock concentrate is not
259 considered a marketable product, therefore a model that evaluates concentrate cost
260 cannot consider profitability.
261
262 Ms. Matthews asked if PCS Phosphate can provide economic comparisons
263 with existing models and current mining operations. Mr. Smith stated that PCS
264 Phosphate can provide such comparisons. Ms. Matthews stated that if profitability
265 cannot be compared, then unit cost must be compared with industry standards. Dr.
266 McNaught noted that ultimately the USACE has to use the economic cost model to
267 evaluate profitability. Mr. Furness and Mr. Smith agreed, but noted that the model
268 is only a tool to help the USACE evaluate profitability.
269
270 Mr. Wicker asked whether transport of the phosphate rock concentrate will
271 be considered in the model. Mr. Smith replied that the model will evaluate the cost
272 per ton of phosphate rock concentrate delivered to the stockpile at the plant, even
273 if the mining area being evaluated is far away. Dr. McNaught asked about the
274 option of a No Mining Alternative involving the importation of phosphate rock
275 concentrate. Mr. Smith and Mr. Lekson agreed that importing phosphate rock will
276 be evaluated.
277
278 Mr. Wicker stated that the important variable to consider in the economic
279 model is profit margin, because one ton of phosphate ore in Aurora may be worth
280 more or less elsewhere. Mr. Smith replied that profit margin is very complicated to
281 evaluate and project due to the wide variety of marketable products PCS Phosphate
282 makes from phosphate ore. Mr. Schimming stated that PCS Phosphate could
283 evaluate the cost of importing Moroccan phosphate rock accurately, but
284 profitability cannot be evaluated efficiently. Mr. Waters added that the cost of
285 mining and transporting the phosphate rock concentrate to the stock pile can affect
286 the margin, but the margin itself is difficult to pin down. Mr. Smith stated that
7
287 PCS Phosphate will deliver the cost model to the USACE, and the USACE will
288 direct PCS Phosphate to the next step.
289
290 Mr. Wicker questioned the efficiency of the model and whether it will
291 evaluate costs of avoidance areas. Mr. Smith reiterated that the technical
292 evaluation must be carried out prior to the use of the economic model. He further
293 stated that the economic model does not evaluate one large mining block; it breaks
294 the mining block into units and therefore is capable of evaluating the effects of
295 avoidance areas on costs.
296
297 Mr. McKenna asked if there is a peer review plan for the economic feasibility
298 model. Mr. Furness and Mr. Smith stated that it is the USACE's responsibility to
299 review the model. Mr. Lekson stated that the USACE will consider the issue of
300 peer review of the model. Dr. McNaught noted that the economic analysis needs
301 to define the level of profitability that PCS Phosphate requires to sustain their
302 business while still protecting environmental resources.
303
304 Mr. Augspurger asked if all tons of phosphate rock concentrate are
305 equivalent. Mr. Waters replied that phosphate rock concentrate has a certain
306 percentage of P2O5, which differs among mining blocks. Mr. Augspurger then
307 asked if this variable will be a multiplier in the cost model. Mr. Waters replied that
308 it will, and Mr. Smith added that PCS Phosphate might have to consider cost per
309 ton of P2O5, rather than cost per ton of concentrate. Mr. Waters further explained
310 that the basis for the cost model is PCS Phosphate's past and current experience.
311 Mr. McKenna asked about the mathematical complexity of the model. Mr. Waters
312 replied that the rationale behind the model will be something that everyone can
313 understand. Mr. Lekson emphasized that everyone will be involved in decisions
314 regarding the cost model.
315
316 Mr. Wicker expressed concern that the Team members are not economists
317 and are not qualified to review the model. He and Mr. Lekson discussed the need
318 for a "stamp of approval" from an independent source to verify that the data
319 analysis is legitimate. Mr. McKenna asked if mitigation cost will be included in the
320 cost model. Mr. Lekson answered that everything will come into play.
321
322 After an hour lunch break, Mr. Karriker began reviewing the "EIS Preliminary
323 Project Area Mapping and Resource Inventory." He stated that the purpose of the
324 preliminary evaluation of natural resources within the EIS Project Area was to
325 conduct a coarse-scale evaluation to allow the Team to determine which potential
326 mine blocks will contain alternatives to be analyzed in detail. Because the
327 evaluation was preliminary, it was conducted using existing information as much as
328 possible, with only limited field-truthing. A more accurate and detailed assessment
8
329 will be performed for each of the alternatives developed. Mr. Lekson agreed that
330 this preliminary evaluation will assist the permit team in developing alternatives.
331
332 Mr. Karriker continued by reviewing the parameters evaluated in the EIS
333 preliminary evaluation. He explained that during the last PCS Phosphate EIS
334 process, the regulatory and review agencies developed the concept of Wetland
335 Areas of Special Concern (WASC) as a way of evaluating impacts to those
336 jurisdictional wetlands that were perceived to be of particularly high value. Mr.
337 Karriker noted that the term "WASC" is not a regulatory term. The WASC types
338 are defined as follows:
339 • Creeks/river, which consists of open water subject to wind or lunar tides.
340 • Brackish marsh complex, which approximates the Coastal Wetlands AEC.
341 . Bottomland hardwood forest (equivalent to "swamp forest" or "cypress-
342 gum swamp").
343 • Certain stands of wetland hardwood forest. Only large stands with
344 mature trees or stands that buffer streams are considered WASC.
345 • Certain stands of wetland pine forest. Only stands that have exceptional
346 understory plant species diversity or are important for buffering streams
347 are considered WASC.
348 • Pocosin-bay forest, which is dominated by some mixture of pond pine
349 and/or bay trees and typically occurs only on muck or mucky sand soils.
350
351 Mr. Karriker directed the Team's attention to Figure 1 in the "PCS Phosphate
352 EIS Preliminary Project Area Mapping and Resource Inventory" booklet and
353 reviewed the following seven potential mine development blocks within the Project
354 Area: Pamlico River, Core Point, Bonnerton, Edward, Grace Tract, Area South of
355 Highway 33, and NCPC Tract. Mr. Karriker explained that wetlands have been
356 field-delineated on the NCPC Tract, the Area South of Highway 33, and Bonnerton.
357 The NCPC Tract and Bonnerton were delineated during the last EIS process, and
358 the Area South of Highway 33 was delineated recently because it is assumed that
359 it will contain alternatives to be analyzed in detail. The other blocks (Pamlico River,
360 Core Point, Edward, and Grace Tract) were mapped using 1998 color-infrared aerial
361 photographs supplied by the USGS and wetland type mapping provided by
362 NCDCM. These sources were supplemented with NRCS soil mapping and first-
363 hand knowledge of the Project Area gained during other field work.
364
365 Dr. McNaught asked what set of criteria were used to develop the mining
366 block boundaries. Mr. Karriker replied that PCS Phosphate developed the seven
367 mining blocks using geographic criteria. Mr. Smith elaborated by noting that
368 Highway 33 divides Bonnerton from Edward, the Suffolk Scarp sand ridge divides
369 Edward from the Area South of Highway 33, and the Grace Tract consists of land
370 owned by Reserveco. Dr. McNaught again cautioned the group not to look at
9
371 blocks as if they are alternatives. Mr. Lekson agreed and stated that the team may
372 develop alternatives that cross the current block boundaries. Dr. McNaught
373 continued that even though the Grace Tract contains large areas of wetlands,
374 perhaps non-wetland parts of it could be combined with adjacent blocks. Mr.
375 Karriker pointed out that the largest non-wetland area in the Grace Tract is an
376 approximately 1,200-acre block in the north end.
377
378 Mr. Karriker continued with a discussion of Table 1, which contains an
379 inventory of the major environmental resources in the seven potential mine blocks.
380 He began by stating that the Grace Tract has the largest land area of the seven
381 mining blocks. He pointed out that the Grace Tract also has the largest amount of
382 WASC and the largest amount of total wetlands of any of the land-based blocks.
383 He stated that the wetlands on the Grace Tract consist mostly of pocosin-bay
384 forest, although there are significant areas of bottomland hardwoods as well. Mr.
385 Karriker noted that CZR assumed that most of the Grace Tract is wet, even though
386 it is crossed by a system of ditches and canals. CZR made this assumption
387 because the ditches are spaced approximately 1,200 feet apart. Similarly spaced
388 ditches in similar soils have been shown to be insufficient for removing wetland
389 hydrology. Mr. Karriker further stated that the large rectangle shown as non-
390 wetland at the north end was assumed to be drained because the ditches in that
391 area are spaced 660 feet apart. He said that this assumption was based on field
392 experience in areas with similar ditch spacings on similar soil types near the Area
393 South of Highway 33. The USACE determined those areas to be drained. Mr.
394 Wicker related the results of some modeling research on restoring hydrology to
395 drained farm fields on muck soils. He noted that the modeling showed that simply
396 plugging the interior ditches (which were spaced 300 feet apart) was shown to be
397 insufficient to restore wetland hydrology. This was due to the effects of the more
398 widely spaced collector canals, which were excavated down into the sand and
399 caused subsurface drainage.
400
401 Mr. Karriker continued the discussion of Table 1 by noting that the NCPC
402 Tract has the least amount of WASC. However, due to the recent harvesting of a
403 large block of wetland hardwood forest in the Area South of Highway 33, the
404 wetland hardwood forest acreage South of 33 has been reduced to approximately
405 255 acres. This reduces the total WASC acreage in the Area South of Highway 33
406 to approximately 260 acres, which is comparable to the NCPC Tract. Mr. Furness
407 added that Weyerhaeuser owns the timber rights for the WASC area South of 33,
408 while PCS Phosphate owns the mineral rights. Dr. McNaught cautioned the Team
409 not to build presumptions on what Weyerhaeuser might do in the future.
410
411 Mr. Karriker compared the categories of WASC in the various mining blocks:
412 the NCPC Tract has the least amount of WASC acreage, with the majority
10
413 consisting of bottomland hardwood forest; Core Point contains a large amount of
414 open water, brackish marsh complex, and bottomland hardwood forest; Edward
415 contains mostly bottomland hardwood forest and some wetland hardwood forest;
416 and the Grace Tract contains mostly pocosin-bay forest, but also large areas of
417 bottomland hardwood forest. He noted that the Grace Tract has the most total
418 acres of wetland, while the Area South of Highway 33 has the least total wetland
419 acres. The Area South of Highway 33 has the most non-jurisdictional area because
420 of large areas of prior-converted cropland. The Grace Tract has a large amount of
421 total non-jurisdictional area as well; however, the largest contiguous block of non-
422 jurisdictional land in the Grace Tract is approximately 1,200 acres.
423
424 Mr. Karriker stated that the Edward Tract contains the most linear footage of
425 streams by far, with Bonnerton and Area South of Highway 33 containing the least
426 amount of stream linear footage. Riparian buffer acreage follows the same pattern
427 as streams. Mr. Karriker explained that NCDWQ has made field determinations of
428 streams on the NCPC Tract, Area South of Highway 33, and Bonnerton; however,
429 because flag survey work is ongoing, stream channel locations up to these limits
430 have been estimated using aerial photographs, USGS maps, and soil maps. Stream
431 upper limits on the other tracts were estimated using aerial photographs, USGS
432 maps, and NRCS soil maps in light of experience gained locating upper limits in the
433 field with NCDWQ. Mr. Karriker added that riparian buffers were scaled back 50'
434 on each side of streams and 50' landward of shorelines and brackish marsh
435 complex.
436
437 Mr. Karriker stated that Core Point has the largest amount of linear feet of
438 Public Trust/ Estuarine shoreline due to Durham Creek and tributaries. The Edward
439 Tract also has a significant amount of Public Trust/ Estuarine shoreline footage due
440 to the upper part of Durham Creek, most of which is likely to be navigable. The
441 Grace Tract is far removed from creeks and rivers, therefore, it has the lowest
442 linear footage of Public Trust/Estuarine shoreline. Mr. Karriker noted that NCDCM
443 has made field determinations of Public Trust upper limits on the NCPC Tract.
444 Public Trust limits have not been determined in the field on the other parcels, but
445 upper limits were estimated based on comparing aerial photos and maps of those
446 areas with photos and maps of known Public Trust limits chosen by NCDCM.
447
448 Ms. Sawyer asked the Team if Figure 11 looked like a reasonable depiction
449 of Public Trust in the Area South of Highway 33. Mr. Karriker replied that there is
450 a significant amount of channelization in the Area South of Highway 33, which
451 likely makes the streams navigable by canoe nearly to their origins.
452
453 Mr. Steffens asked if the Grace Tract would be treated in the same manner
454 as the Area South of Highway 33 in terms of removal of WASC due to timber
11
455 harvesting. Mr. Furness replied that there is no timber harvesting in the Grace
456 Tract as far as he knew. Mr. Karriker noted that CZR would attempt keep up with
457 any changes; however, CZR has no field work currently in progress in the Grace
458 Tract and would be likely to miss any timber harvesting that might occur.
459
460 Mr. Wicker expressed concern that the acreage shown for creek impact in
461 the NCPC mining block is an underestimate because removal of the creeks'
462 drainage basins will turn them into embayments of South Creek and will change
463 their functions. Mr. Dorney noted that CZR has been monitoring the creeks for
464 any effects associated with the Alternative E drainage basin reductions. Mr.
465 Karriker stated that much seasonal and annual variability has been documented, but
466 no effects clearly attributable to drainage basin reduction have been observed. Mr.
467 Karriker added that the EIS will be required to address indirect impacts outside the
468 footprint of the mine.
469
470 Dr. McNaught stated that the NCPC Tract has been delineated following PCS
471 Phosphate's desire to use it as an alternative, yet the Team should remain wary of
472 making quick comparisons and tossing out a mining block by using Table 1 and the
473 results it contains. Mr. Furness indicated that the point of the preliminary analysis
474 of the 70,000-acre Project Area was to review and compare points of interest in
475 each of the large mining blocks. He further stated that while entire blocks may not
476 be thrown out and alternatives may cross block boundary lines, there is no point in
477 analyzing an area in detail if it would have greater environmental impact than PCS
478 Phosphate's proposal.
479
480 Dr. McNaught stated that he believes CZR is providing adequate information,
481 but he wants to be cautious because the last EIS process did not evaluate a full
482 range of alternatives. He added that his response is not to eliminate the Grace
483 Tract entirely, but to keep parts of it that might have less environmental impact
484 than the NCPC Tract.
485
486 Ms. Sawyer reminded the Team that different types of wetlands have
487 different functions. She stated that pocosins function differently from other
488 wetlands and, from a water quality perspective, are not as valuable as bottomland
489 hardwood forests or brackish marsh complex. Dr. McNaught stated that one of the
490 principal objectives of identifying WASC was to protect wetlands that contribute to
491 the water quality of the tributary creeks. Ms. Sawyer added that NCDWQ's
492 foremost issue is the protection of water quality. Ms. Matthews replied that in
493 EPA's view, pocosin is highly valuable because it is a globally rare ecosystem. Dr.
494 McNaught agreed with Ms. Matthews' statement.
495
496 Mr. Moye expressed concern that the results in Table 1 for the NCPC Tract
12
497 are not comparable to other mining blocks because avoidance lines have been
498 applied to the NCPC Tract, but not to the other blocks. This gives the impression
499 that mining on the NCPC Tract would cause less impact to WASC than mining in
500 the other blocks. Mr. Moye stated that the NCPC Tract appears more like an
501 alternative than a mining block. Mr. Karriker replied that the preliminary analysis
502 did not assume that similar avoidance boundaries could not be developed for the
503 other blocks. Dr. McNaught suggested that a similar series of alternatives needs to
504 be created for the other blocks.
505
506 Ms. Sawyer questioned how the boundary line was drawn for the Core Point
507 block, noting that it includes creeks and portions of the Pamlico River. Mr. Karriker
508 replied that the Core Point boundary line was drawn that way to include an area
509 large enough to constitute a feasible mining plan. Mr. Smith concurred with Mr.
510 Karriker's explanation. Mr. Furness suggested an exhibit of the entire Project Area
511 that would show the environmental features in all blocks and would assist the team
512 in drawing avoidance boundaries. Dr. McNaught stated that he feels the Team is
513 making progress, but the numbers in Table 1 appear to skew the results because of
514 the way the lines were drawn.
515
516 Mr. Lekson asked if everyone had reviewed the preliminary analysis
517 document sufficiently and was prepared to consider agenda item 4 (elimination of
518 proposed mine blocks from further consideration). Dr. McNaught stated that, in his
519 opinion, the Team is not prepared to eliminate any of the proposed mine
520 development blocks from further consideration. Dr. McNaught and Mr. Lekson
521 discussed the need to analyze the Project Area in a more comprehensive manner
522 and define areas in which more information would need to be collected in order to
523 narrow the scope of areas to be considered for alternatives. Mr. Lekson asked Dr.
524 McNaught to prepare a statement to facilitate rewording agenda item 4. He
525 reiterated that Table 1 is a valuable tool to aid the Team in deciding where to
526 construct alternatives.
527
528 Mr. Karriker continued reviewing Table 1. He stated that Bonnerton contains
529 the highest number of archaeological sites compared to the other mining blocks,
530 none of which are shown by Table 1 to contain any archaeological sites. Mr.
531 Karriker added that there is a large potential for error in this category because at
532 the time the table was constructed, only the NCPC Tract and Bonnerton had been
533 surveyed on the ground. He stated that it is quite likely that the number of
534 archaeological sites was underestimated in the areas that have not been surveyed,
535 particularly on the high ground along the shoreline at Core Point and on the Suffolk
536 Scarp sand ridge in the Edward and Grace Tract blocks. Mr. Karriker noted that a
537 field survey of the Area South of Highway 33 had just been completed prior to the
538 meeting, the results of which are not shown in Table 1. Seven low-quality
13
539 archaeological sites were located, all of which date from the late 19" to early 20th
540 century. Mr. Karriker added that Edward is the only mining block with a known
541 historic site. Other sites may have been missed due to the lack of surveys.
542
543 Mr. Karriker stated that cemeteries were mapped using USGS maps and
544 CZR's general knowledge of the Project Area. Mapping on Bonnerton and the
545 NCPC Tract was supplemented with information collected by the cultural resources
546 survey during the last EIS process. Mr. Karriker noted that USGS maps often miss
547 cemeteries, so it is likely that the cemetery inventory is more complete for
548 Bonnerton and the NCPC Tract than for the other blocks. Mr. Karriker added that a
549 recent cultural resources survey of the Area South of Highway 33 did not locate
550 any cemeteries. He noted that Bonnerton has the highest number of known
551 cemeteries.
552
553 Mr. Karriker indicated that churches also were mapped using USGS maps
554 and CZR's general knowledge of the Project Area. He stated that churches were
555 found in Edward, the Area South of Highway 33, and Bonnerton.
556
557 Mr. Karriker explained that residences on the NCPC Tract and Bonnerton
558 were enumerated as part of the last EIS process. For the other potential mine
559 blocks, residences were identified on digital aerial photography and enumerated in
560 the GIS database. Mr. Karriker added that this aerial photo-based method might
561 have overestimated the number of residences somewhat, as it is possible that
562 some outbuildings, businesses, and abandoned houses were counted as residences.
563 However, CZR made every effort to exclude such non-residential buildings by using
564 context clues in the landscape immediately surrounding the structure, such as
565 driveways, size and shape of the structure, presence of a maintained lawn, and the
566 proximity to other structures. Mr. Karriker stated that the Edward Tract contains
567 the highest number of residences, with Bonnerton containing the next highest
568 number. The NCPC Tract contains no residences.
569
570 Ms. Sawyer asked if there was a map depicting residences for each mining
571 block that could be utilized for planning purposes. Mr. Karriker replied that no
572 maps showing residences were prepared because no georeferenced housing
573 information exists for the NCPC Tract and Bonnerton. However, he noted that CZR
574 has location information for residences in the other blocks and can make maps of
575 residences in these areas if necessary. Mr. Furness noted that the houses along
576 Highway 33 are not included in the Area South of Highway 33 mining block.
577
578 Mr. Karriker then stated that he was finished reviewing the preliminary
579 analysis information and would entertain any questions.
580
14
581 Dr. McNaught stated his opinion that the Team should not eliminate any of
582 the mining blocks except for Core Point and the Pamlico River. He added that the
583 initial evidence is compelling that a permit would not be issued for the Pamlico
584 River, therefore resources should not be exhausted by analyzing these blocks any
585 further. Dr. McNaught added that he believes he speaks for most by stating that
586 the Team should narrow the scope for alternatives analysis by eliminating only the
587 Core Point and Pamlico River blocks.
588
589 Mr. Schimming stated that if Dr. McNaught would like to eliminate Core
590 Point and the Pamlico River, then PCS Phosphate would like to eliminate Edward
591 and the Grace Tract. Mr. Dorney stated that the Edward Tract contains a high
592 number of residences, but the wetlands are not of high value. Dr. McNaught noted
593 that the residences run along Highway 306, therefore the entire block should not
594 be eliminated. He added that a satellite alternative consisting of uplands in the
595 Edward block might be a possibility. Dr. McNaught and Mr. Karriker discussed the
596 possibility of the 1,200-acre non-wetland area in the north end of the Grace Tract
597 serving as a satellite option. Mr. Schimming replied that PCS Phosphate does not
598 own the Grace Tract and there is a high number of residences in the Edward tract,
599 so economic feasibility is skewed against developing alternatives in these blocks.
600
601 Dr. McNaught stated that there is no difficulty in understanding why the
602 Team does not want PCS Phosphate mining the Pamlico River; however, the same
603 rationale does not exist for eliminating the Grace Tract. He stated that a portion of
604 the Grace Tract could be purchased from Reserveco and used as part of an
605 alternative. Mr. Lekson asked if PCS Phosphate wants to eliminate the Grace Tract
606 because they do not own it, which Mr. Schimming confirmed. Several Team
607 members pointed out that PCS Phosphate also does not own the Pamlico River.
608 Mr. Schimming countered that they do hold a lease on it. Ms. Matthews stated
609 that she concurs with Dr. McNaught's recommendations of eliminating the Pamlico
610 River, but not eliminating the Grace Tract or Edward. She stated that with EPA's
611 involvement, there could be no feasible way to obtain a permit to mine the Pamlico
612 River.
613
614 The group then began to discuss the impact of residences on the
615 development of feasible alternatives. Mr. Karriker stated that it would not take a
616 large effort to produce a map depicting residences in each mining block. He
617 referred to Figure 1 and noted that there are many residences located in the eastern
618 part of Edward along Highway 306, which runs along the crest of the Suffolk
619 Scarp. Mr. Smith reiterated that the boundary between Edward and Area South of
620 Highway 33 was drawn at the toe of the Suffolk Scarp partly because of the
621 residences along it.
622
15
623 Ms. Sawyer stated that with any alternative that is chosen, PCS Phosphate
624 will have to mitigate. She asked how mitigation would be completed for the
625 Pamlico River. Mr. Furness and Mr. Schimming gave a brief description of the
626 technical aspects of mining the Pamlico River. They explained that it would be
627 mined in a series of small cells, and that each cell would be backfilled and the
628 water would cover it when mining was complete. Mr. Wicker encouraged the
629 Team to collaborate on the issue of eliminating proposed mining blocks and stated
630 that it is illogical to further analyze the Pamlico River from an environmental
631 perspective.
632
633 Ms. Matthews noted that the Team is requesting more information on the
634 Grace Tract. Mr. Furness agreed that the 1,200-acre ditched area Mr. Karriker
635 described earlier would be analyzed further by determining if wetland hydrology still
636 exists.
637
638 Mr. Schimming explained that PCS Phosphate does not own the Grace Tract;
639 it is owned by Reserveco. Because Reserveco's parent company paid a high price
640 for the Grace Tract in the early 1980s and took some write-downs during the time
641 they have owned it, they are valuing the property at a high price, probably well
642 above market value. Therefore, PCS Phosphate probably would have to pay a high
643 price if they attempted to buy the Grace Tract.
644
645 Dr. McNaught stated that he is looking for confirmation to eliminate Core
646 Point and the Pamlico River from further consideration. He added that more
647 clarification of the economics that Mr. Schimming discussed will be needed to
648 eliminate other blocks. He reminded the Team that the process is not a trade off
649 with PCS Phosphate where each side gets to eliminate certain areas that it does
650 not like.
651
652 Mr. Smith then asked the Team what information is required to proceed with
653 eliminating other areas from consideration. Mr. Dorney and Ms. Sawyer both
654 replied that maps illustrating locations of residences will be needed for Edward and
655 the Area South of Highway 33. Dr. McNaught added that more detailed
656 information will be needed on wetlands that were not categorized as WASC in the
657 eastern part of Edward.
658
659 Mr. Lekson asked Mr. Karriker how CZR evaluated endangered species. Mr.
660 Karriker replied that CZR had conducted surveys for rough-leaved loosestrife along
661 the Suffolk Scarp in portions of the Grace Tract, Edward, and Bonnerton. He
662 stated that no populations of rough-leaved loosestrife were found. He noted that
663 the habitat was poor because of fire suppression.
664
16
665 Mr. Smith stated that the Team knows what PCS Phosphate wants as an
666 alternative, and he asked if the Team can show on a map what they want as an
667 alternative. Dr. McNaught replied that the Team would like PCS Phosphate to
668 avoid impacts to wetlands and still make a profit. Mr. Smith stated that PCS
669 Phosphate has a preference for the NCPC Tract, but he realizes that the Area South
670 of Highway 33 (with adjacent peripheral areas) seems to be the leader in terms of
671 minimizing environmental impacts. He further stated that if the Team can narrow it
672 down to these two blocks, PCS Phosphate is ready to move forward. Dr.
673 McNaught restated that the Team will need more clarification on the environmental
674 resources in the other blocks.
675
676 Ms. Matthews questioned why PCS Phosphate wants to eliminate Bonnerton
677 from the list. Mr. Furness noted a concern with the number of houses and
678 churches that are present in Bonnerton. Dr. McNaught stated that the Team has
679 not reached the point at which Bonnerton can be eliminated. Mr. Smith explained
680 that Bonnerton is the second half of old Alternative C and does not contain enough
681 land to constitute a long-term mine plan. He also pointed out that Bonnerton is
682 disjunct from the other blocks, and he asked the group if it makes sense to
683 consider it given the large amount of WASC and the socioeconomic impacts. Dr.
684 McNaught replied that he does not want to eliminate the whole block if part of it
685 could be used to piece together a viable alternative. Mr. Smith clarified that he
686 was trying to make the point that Bonnerton does not have enough phosphate to
687 constitute a stand-alone alternative, not that it is not viable in any form. Ms.
688 Matthews added that there is not enough information to eliminate Bonnerton as a
689 feasible alternative.
690
691 Mr. Smith stated that PCS Phosphate needs to know what information is
692 needed to allow the Team to proceed with eliminating some of the proposed mine
693 development blocks from further consideration. Mr. Lekson replied that the Team
694 could put together a list for those that need more information.
695
696 While PCS Phosphate and the agencies broke off into groups for 20 minutes,
697 a list of tasks that need to be completed to allow the alternatives analysis to
698 proceed was developed:
699 1. Develop a map depicting housing nodes in Edward, Bonnerton, the Grace
700 Tract, and the Area South of Highway 33 (CZR).
701 2. Conduct a field verification and develop a narrative description of wetland
702 types and quality in the eastern part of Edward and in the Grace Tract
703 (USACE/other agencies/CZR/PCS Phosphate).
704 3. Obtain an acquisition cost for the Grace Tract (PCS Phosphate).
705 4. Verify the jurisdictional status of the 1,200-acre "drained" area in the
706 Grace Tract (USACE/other agencies/CZR/PCS Phosphate).
17
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
5. Conduct a field verification and develop a narrative description of
representative pocosin areas in the Grace Tract (USACE/other
agencies/CZR/PCS Phosphate).
After PCS Phosphate and the Team reconvened, Dr. McNaught stated that
the Team will not eliminate the Edward Tract, but will focus on the eastern part of
the block.
Mr. Smith asked the Team what type of economic information is required to
determine whether an alternative is viable. Mr. Wicker replied that an analysis of
cost effectiveness will be required.
Mr. Smith then asked how many field days will be required to accomplish the
task list. Mr. Lekson and Mr. Furness replied that 3 days should be sufficient. Mr.
Lekson, Mr. Karriker, and Mr. Furness scheduled the field visit for 4, 5, and 6
February 2003.
Mr. Furness stated that he would like to briefly discuss agenda item 6 (offers
of mitigation bank credits to PCS Phosphate). Mr. Furness said that he has
received a call from a representative of the Flat Swamp Mitigation Bank in Craven
County. Mr. Lekson added that a representative of the Great Dismal Swamp
Mitigation Bank had asked him about selling credits to PCS Phosphate. Mr.
Furness asked the Team if they would be interested in having PCS Phosphate
sponsor either of these banks as mitigation for this project. Mr. Lekson replied that
the USACE cannot commit to a bank for this project at this time. Dr. McNaught
and Mr. Dorney both replied that the two subject banks are too far from the PCS
Phosphate project site. Ms. Sawyer stated that NCWRP possibly could be used if
sites are available. She stated that buffer mitigation would be the most likely use
for NCWRP credits.
Dr. McNaught indicated that mitigation bankers are in business for a profit
and that there is a considerable demand for mitigation for PCS Phosphate. He
stated that he likes the idea of a wildlands corridor between the Pamlico and Neuse
River, which is similar to the South Creek corridor that PCS Phosphate proposed as
part of an early mitigation plan during the last EIS process. Mr. Furness noted that
the existing Parker Farm mitigation site forms part of the framework for such a
corridor.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:10 p.m. If you feel that we have
omitted or inaccurately depicted any of the issues that were discussed, please
submit your comments to us in writing. Please list the appropriate page and line
number(s) in your comments.
18
749 The next Team meeting is scheduled for 26 February 2003 at 10:00 a.m.
750 Another meeting is tentatively scheduled for 26 March 2003. Both meetings will
751 be held in the conference room in the Washington office of NCDENR.
752
753
754 Distribution
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. William A. Schimming
Potash Corp.
P.O. Box 3320
Northbrook, IL 60062
Mr. Terry Baker
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Ms. Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Regulatory Section
USEPA/EAB
Wetlands Management Division,
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605
Ms. Mary Alsentzer
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
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. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
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
Mr. David M. Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
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. Sean McKenna
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
19

t
Mr. David McHenry
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Augspurger
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Ms. Deborah Sawyer
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
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. Jerry Waters
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Floyd Williams
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road
Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. James M. Hudgens
CZR Incorporated
140 Intracoastal Pointe Drive
Suite 301
Jupiter, Florida 33477-5064
Mr. Bob Zarzecki
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
20
Q
ZR
INCORPORATED
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
czrwIIm0aol.com

TO: See Distribution
FROM: Kent Karriker, Jeff Coward
DATE: 16 April 2002
RE: Minutes of the 25 February 2002 meeting for the PCS Phosphate Mine
Continuation permit application review
I The sixth meeting for the review of PCS Phosphate's Mine Continuation permit
2 application was held at the Washington Regional Office of the North Carolina
3 Department of Environment and Natural Resources on 25 February 2002. The
4 following people were in attendance:
5
6 Scott McLendon - USACE 20 David Moye - NCDCM
7 David Lekson - USACE 21 Ed Lynch - NCDCM
8 Bill Biddlecome - USACE 22 Guy Pearce - NCDCM
9 Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate 23 Sean McKenna - NCDMF
10 Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate 24 Kathy Matthews - USEPA
11 Jerry Waters - PCS Phosphate 25 Ron Sechler - NMFS
12 Pete Wind - PCS Phosphate 26 Mike Wicker - USFWS
13 Terry Baker - PCS Phosphate 27 Tom Augspurger - USFWS
14 Deborah Sawyer - NCDWQ 28 William Wescott - NCWRC
15 John Dorney - NCDWQ 29 Shannon Deaton - NCWRC
16 Bob Zarzecki - NCDWQ 30 David McNaught - ED
17 Jimmie Overton - NCDWQ 31 Mary Alsentzer - PTRF
18 Maria Tripp - NCDWQ 32 Kent Karriker - CZR Incorporated
19 Terry Moore - NCDCM 33 Jeff Coward - CZR Incorporated
34
1
140 INTRACOASTAL POINTE DRIVE • SUITE 301 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5064
TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • czrjup0ad.com

35
36 At approximately 10:10 a.m., Mr. McLendon called the meeting to order.
37 He requested that the discussion be confined to alternatives, stating that he did not
38 wish to spend a significant amount of time discussing Project Area. At Mr.
39 Dorney's request, he briefly discussed the content of the 24 January 2002 USACE
40 letter, which defined the Project Area as the Aurora Area but noted that the Aurora
41 Phosphate District would still be considered and discussed in the EIS. Mr.
42 McLendon added that alternatives will be confined to the Aurora Area, but
43 reminded everyone that if any reasonable alternatives arise outside the Aurora
44 Area, they will be examined.
45
46 Mr. Augspurger asked for twenty minutes at the end of the meeting to
47 discuss the cadmium issue and the PCS Phosphate letter to NCDLR dated 21
48 February 2002. Mr. McLendon agreed to set aside time at the end of the meeting
49 to discuss the letter.
50
51 The discussion then turned to alternatives. Mr. Smith handed out an 8Y2 " x
52 11 " graphic that depicts potential mine development blocks in the Project Area..
53 This graphic also illustrates previously mined areas and the currently permitted
54 mine. The potential mine development blocks depicted on the graphic are the
55 NCPC Tract, the Area South of Highway 33, the Grace Tract, the Edward Area, the
56 Bonnerton Area, Core Point, and the Pamlico River. Mr. Smith indicated that the
57 Project Area includes approximately 69,000 acres that do not fall under the current
58 permit, but added that PCS Phosphate does not yet know the tonnage of
59 phosphate for all of the potential mine blocks. He also noted that the town of
60 Aurora, the community of Edward, and South Creek are not included in any of the
61 potential mine development blocks.
62
63 Mr. McNaught asked how many acres are in each block. Mr. Smith stated
64 that these acreages have not been calculated yet. Mr. Moye asked if the 69,000-
65 acre estimate includes the Pamlico River and other open waters within the Project
66 Area. Mr. Smith indicated that it does. Mr. Moye asked how many acres of the
67 estimated 69,000 consist of open waters. Mr. Furness stated that the Pamlico
68 River lease is approximately 10,000 acres, and Mr. Smith indicated that the total
69 open water area within the Project Area has not been calculated. Mr. Wicker
70 asked if the tonnage of phosphate per surface acre is known. Mr. Smith pointed
71 out that this information is contained in one of the graphics handed out during a
72 previous meeting. Mr. McNaught inquired whether the acreage estimate excludes
73 the town of Aurora and South Creek. Mr. Smith indicated that it does not. Mr.
2
74 McNaught then estimated by visual inspection of the graphic that what PCS
75 Phosphate really has available for mining is around 45,000 acres. Mr. Smith
76 agreed with this estimate. Mr. McNaught asked how many acres compose the
77 NCPC tract. Mr. Furness indicated that the NCPC Tract covers approximately
78 4,500 acres. He further explained that PCS Phosphate is trying to look at all
79 potential alternatives, as suggested by Mr. McNaught at the last meeting, by
80 developing and using a set of avoidance principles throughout the Project Area.
81 Mr. Furness stated that he envisions a logical mining sequence for the Project Area
82 that would begin by looking at the NCPC Tract, and then work around the Project
83 Area in a clockwise direction.
84
85 Mr. Furness then asked Mr. McLendon if the generic mine blocks shown on
86 the graphic are a suitable starting point for developing alternatives. Mr. McLendon
87 indicated that they look like an appropriate starting point. Mr. McNaught stated
88 that they look reasonable. He added that establishing the principles for avoiding
89 environmental impacts on the NCPC tract and applying these principles to
90 subsequent blocks would reduce the time and effort required to evaluate these
91 other areas.
92
93 Mr. McLendon stated that the group needs to look at various scenarios on
94 Hickory Point. He cautioned that while there is an infinite number of potential
95 alternatives, the group needs to draw some lines that will capture the full range of
96 variation within a manageable number of alternatives. He added that the issue of
97 Hickory Point needs to be resolved, and he referred to the CZR map (sent out prior
98 to the 17 December 2001 meeting) of the NCPC Tract with three potential mining
99 alignments as a starting point for that resolution. Mr. McNaught pointed out that
100 the graphics presented so far do not have Alternative D overlaid, as he had
101 requested during the last meeting. Ms. Sawyer made copies for everyone of the
102 Alternative D graphic from the last EIS.
103
104 Mr. McLendon brought up the issue of considering mitigation during the
105 alternatives analysis. He stated that, ideally, mitigation is not supposed to be
106 considered during the alternatives analysis. However, he added that Hickory Point
107 will have to be restored to a useable form, and the restoration of the watersheds
108 will factor into decisions on alternatives.
109
110 Mr. McLendon asked for a discussion of how the three possible mining lines
111 on the CZR NCPC Tract map were drawn. Mr. Dorney explained that NCDWQ
112 used their standard wetland rating system to help draw their mining exclusion line,
3
113 which is one of the possible mining lines depicted on the CZR map. He added that
114 there had been considerable discussion over whether to exclude from mining the
115 hardwood forest area known as Section 44. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
116 Program (NCNHP) evaluated Section 44 and said it was not a unique community;
117 therefore NCDWQ did not exclude it from the mining area. Mr. Dorney stated that
118 the NCDWQ line likely excludes most streams and buffers from the mining area,
119 but the line probably will have to move back in some areas to exclude all streams
120 and buffers as they currently are defined by NCDWQ. He added that the wetlands
121 avoidance depicted by the NCDWQ line still should be valid.
122
123 Mr. McNaught pointed out that old Alternative D avoided Section 44, and he
124 suggested that a similar avoidance alternative needs to be evaluated during the
125 current EIS process. Ms. Alsentzer asked how long it will take to get an updated
126 version of the NCDWQ line that depicts streams and buffer areas according to
127 current criteria. Ms. Sawyer indicated that it probably will take until this summer
128 since the field determinations are not complete yet.
129
130 Mr. McLendon asked Mr. McNaught if he had been alluding to a similar multi-
131 line map for the Area South of Highway 33. Mr. McNaught indicated that he is
132 interested in seeing such a map because avoidance in the NCPC Tract may not
133 allow a full mine plan there. It may be necessary to supplement the NCPC Tract
134 mine plan with part of the Area South of Highway 33. Mr. Lekson added that
135 during the last EIS, the agencies formulated specific criteria for identifying Wetland
136 Areas of Special Concern (WASC). The WASC concept could be used to identify
137 avoidance areas in other tracts.
138
139 Mr. McNaught stated that although NCDWQ did not exclude the wetlands in
140 Section 44 from potential mining during the last EIS, he felt that Section 44 was
141 nice habitat. Mr. Dorney stated that NCNHP thought it was nice habitat, but not
142 unique. Mr. Furness indicated that the area is being logged now.
143
144 Mr. McLendon asked if old Alternative B was set up to be reasonable in
145 terms of mine costs, or if it was based strictly on CAMA avoidance. Mr. Moye
146 indicated that it was based on CAMA avoidance. Mr. Furness added that although
147 it was based on CAMA avoidance,. the line was reasonable from a mine planning
148 standpoint. Mr. McLendon stated that during the last EIS process, the
149 determination of whether alternatives were reasonable was based on the
150 economics of the entire mining process. Instead of looking solely at how much ore
151 is in the ground, the group needs to consider what it will cost to recover the ore in
4
152 a particular area and transport it to the mill. As an example of the kinds of costs
153 that must be considered, he noted that the total cost of recovering and milling the
154 ore goes up considerably the farther it must be transported to the mill. Mr. Smith
155 noted that last time, the economic analysis used the unit cost (per ton of
156 concentrate) to develop an annual cost amortized over the 20-year mine plan.
157
158 Mr. McLendon stated that the group now has a starting point for
159 alternatives, and that sooner or later the group will have to begin looking at some
160 alternative lines. He noted that this point in the alternatives development process
161 is a good opportunity for everyone to say what he or she likes and does not like.
162 Mr. Dorney volunteered to write potential alternatives on the board. As a starting
163 point, the group composed the following list of possible alternatives on the NCPC
164 Tract:
165 I. PCS Phosphate's current proposal,
166 II. old Alternative B (CAMA avoidance),
167 III. the NCDWQ mining exclusion line (significant wetlands),
168 IV. the NCDWQ line with additional avoidance of streams and buffers as
169 they are currently defined,
170 V. old Alternative D (CAMA, WASC avoidance),
171 VI. the narrowest possible "return sweep" toward the southwest after the
172 current Alternative E has been completed.
173
174 Mr. Overton asked how much distance is required to turn the mining
175 equipment for the "return sweep" noted in VI. Mr. Smith stated the depth of the
176 overburden has a big impact, and in the north end of the NCPC Tract, where the
177 ore is deep, it would require a wider area to turn. Mr. Furness added that the
178 width also depends on how many draglines need to fit through the turn. PCS
179 Phosphate prefers to use three draglines, but occasionally they are separated,
180 depending on current mining needs. Mr. McNaught asked Mr. Overton to clarify if
181 he was asking about the minimum width that would allow the return sweep. Mr.
182 Overton said yes, noting that enough room would have to be left to maneuver the
183 equipment. Mr. Smith stated that the width would differ depending on whether
184 they use one dragline or three. He further explained that if only one dragline is
185 used on Hickory Point, the other two must be working somewhere else. He noted
186 that a recent operation involving two draglines in the southwest portion of
187 Alternative E required 2,500 feet, but production was limited during this operation.
188 Mr. Waters indicated that optimum width for three draglines is 4,000 feet. Mr.
189 Lekson asked if the width of the Alternative E land trade that was proposed by PCS
5
190 Phosphate in 2000 was 4,000 feet. Mr. Furness confirmed that it was 4,000 feet.
191 Mr. Lekson stated that he recalled talking to the dragline operators, who stated
192 that three draglines could operate in a 1,000-foot-wide pit. Mr. Smith stated that a
193 1,000-foot pit width is not feasible because each dragline has a 255 foot swing
194 radius, which means each requires a 510 foot circle in which to work. Mr. Lekson
195 reiterated that the USACE spoke with an operator who said it could be done. He
196 added that it would not be optimum, but the group needs to talk about a starting
197 point. Mr. Smith stated that PCS Phosphate could not make production at that
198 width. Because the draglines side cast material as they work, they would make
199 one cut and then have to stop because they would run out of room to work.
200
201 Ms. Sawyer asked if the dispute over the upstream limits of Public Trust
202 waters has been resolved. Mr. Moye answered that there now are two lines
203 representing two different opinions of Public Trust, the NCDCM opinion and the
204 PCS Phosphate opinion. He stated that the current application does not avoid
205 CAMA jurisdictional areas because it impacts areas that NCDCM considers Public
206 Trust.
207
208 Mr. McNaught then suggested the addition of potential Alternative VII, which
209 allows for no more mining on the NCPC Tract after the current permit expires. Mr.
210 Dorney added VII to the list. Mr. McNaught noted that VI is a needed step
211 between VII and V, because it allows for the minimum possible return sweep,
212 rather than just picking up and moving when the end of Alternative E is reached.
213 Mr. Furness indicated that VI is not considered an option for PCS Phosphate if it
214 involves splitting the currently permitted Alternative E area on the assumption that
215 the southeastern side of it will be mined along with a narrow strip of new land
216 during the return sweep. Such a scenario would give up currently permitted land in
217 the hope of receiving a future permit for the additional strip of new land. Mr.
218 McNaught stated that he understood PCS Phosphate's hesitancy, but said that he
219 would like to consider it as an option. He expressed the opinion that at least it
220 would be better for PCS Phosphate than picking up and moving the equipment
221 upon completion of Alternative E. Mr. Smith stated that if PCS Phosphate were
222 told today that there would be no more mining on the NCPC Tract, they would not
223 split the current mine in half and mine back; they would go to the end and stop.
224 Mr. McNaught asked if this would hold true even if a wider return strip is allowed.
225 Mr. Smith said they would have to consider that option.
226
227 Mr. Dorney briefly went over the list of potential NCPC Tract alternatives
228 that he had written on the board up to this point in the meeting. Mr. Smith then
6
229 asked if III (NCDWQ mining exclusion line) could be eliminated because it is a
230 variation of IV (NCDWQ line updated to avoid streams and buffers). Mr. Dorney
231 and Ms. Sawyer agreed, and III was erased. After this change, the list of
232 alternatives was as follows:
233 I. PCS Phosphate's current proposal,
234 II. old Alternative B,
235 III. (blank),
236 IV. the NCDWQ mining exclusion boundary (significant wetlands) with
237 additional avoidance of streams and buffers as they are currently
238 defined,
239 V. old Alternative D (CAMA, WASC avoidance),
240 VI. the narrowest possible "return sweep" toward the southwest after the
241 current Alternative E has been completed, and
242 VII. no further mining on the NCPC Tract.
243
244 Mr. Wicker stated that PCS Phosphate needs an alternative with an efficient
245 scale of operation (i.e., a straight-line alternative that is wide enough not to cause
246 operational problems). He further suggested that if such an alternative can be
247 permitted, then perhaps PCS Phosphate can offer a little more mitigation and
248 restoration of the landscape and topography. Such a unified approach involving the
249 mining alternative, the mitigation, and the reclamation/restoration of the landscape
250 would allow the ultimate outcome to be examined instead of just comparing the
251 level of avoidance contained within each alternative. Mr. Smith stated that he likes
252 the idea because alternatives with "sawtooth" avoidance boundaries present
253 operational problems. However, the agencies need to understand that a certain
254 amount of give and take would be necessary to make such an alternative work.
255 Mr. Wicker suggested that such an alternative would contain additional mitigation
256 and reclamation conditions that would not be applicable to other alternatives. Ms.
257 Matthews cautioned that, under the Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines, impacts cannot
258 be bought down with mitigation.
259
260 Ms. Sawyer noted that wetlands in the Area South of Highway 33 needed
261 to be evaluated so they can be compared to wetlands in the NCPC Tract. Mr.
262 Smith indicated that PCS Phosphate has preliminary wetland information for the
263 Area South of Highway 33.
264
265 Mr. Wicker stated his belief that mining can happen without significant
7
266 impacts to wetlands. He acknowledged that his suggested approach may deviate
267 somewhat from the Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines, but if it produces a better end
268 result, it is acceptable in his opinion. Mr. McNaught praised Mr. Wicker's visionary
269 ambition, but noted that he is fearful of how it could play out. Mr. McNaught
270 stated that the environmental impacts must be avoided and minimized while
271 allowing PCS Phosphate a viable operation with a reasonable return. He added that
272 if the group negotiates too much up front, a line could be drawn early in the
273 process and the group could end up with less mitigation than it expects.
274
275 Mr. Dorney asked if Mr. Wicker's idea could be a refinement of existing
276 potential alternatives. Mr. McLendon stated that it could, and he added that before
277 the next permit is written, the cadmium issue must be resolved, since it ties into
278 how the landscape will be restored when mining is finished. Mr. Smith asked if Mr.
279 Wicker's recommendation is viable in light of the reservations that had been
280 expressed by some of the agencies. Mr. Wicker questioned whether there is any
281 harm in looking at the option, regardless of whether it eventually is determined to
282 be viable. Mr. McNaught stated that the possible harm is that ultimately everything
283 will play out in an arena of laws, and this idea may be stepping out of the arena.
284 He noted that PTRF has tried for five years to negotiate such an approach with PCS
285 Phosphate with no success. Mr. McNaught further added that the process must
286 determine how best to avoid and minimize wetland loss. He expressed concern
287 that the group could wind up with far less mitigation than it should get if the extra
288 wetlands are given up at the start. Mr. McNaught encouraged the group to
289 maximize avoidance and minimize impacts while allowing PCS Phosphate to be
290 viable, but he urged the group not to negotiate too early in the process.
291
292 Mr. Wicker stated that the group cannot decide how profitable PCS
293 Phosphate should be. Instead, the group needs to devise something that is a better
294 deal for the company and for the environment. Mr. Wicker stated that the group
295 needs to decide now whether his suggested approach is possible. Mr. Furness
296 suggested that the group could review the approach as an alternative by evaluating
297 a straight line boundary with a reasonable pit width from both an environmental
298 and an economic standpoint. Ms. Matthews stated that she is not averse to
299 considering any alternative, but she reminded everyone that the group must treat
300 PCS Phosphate consistently with the way other applicants are treated. She noted
301 that Mr. Wicker's approach is not the normal way that Section 404 permitting is
302 conducted. Mr. McLendon confirmed that the group cannot make deals, but the
303 idea can be considered, even if not through the formal process. Mr. Wicker stated
304 that the endpoint of his idea is an alternative, not the permit. The preliminary
305 alternatives list on the board was modified such that the blank III became a
8
306 straight-line alternative with a full-width mining alignment.
307
308 The discussion then returned to whether the width of the straight-line
309 alternatives could be varied by varying the number of draglines that are operating
310 during the return sweep. Mr. Smith stated that PCS Phosphate cannot bring only
311 one dragline back. Mr. Dorney asked what width is required for three draglines.
312 Mr. Smith stated that they have run two at 2,500 feet, but this was on a short-
313 term basis. He added that the minimum width is 3,000 feet for three draglines,
314 and 3,500 feet is required to maintain long-term production. He summarized that
315 1,500 feet, 2,500 feet, and 3,500 feet are the necessary widths to operate one,
316 two, and three draglines, respectively. Mr. Lekson questioned whether these
317 widths are really necessary, and he asked about the width of the dragline's
318 footprint. Mr. Smith stated that the footprint is 65 feet and the swing radius is
319 255 feet. He added that the draglines cannot work right on top of each other
320 because of material side casting. Mr. Lekson said that PCS Phosphate needs to
321 explain why one dragline is not practicable. Mr. Smith stated that the ore supply to
322 the plant would be insufficient with one dragline.
323
324 Mr. Augspurger asked why, given that there is an alternative that
325 allows no draglines to mine back out of Hickory Point, there cannot be an
326 alternative with one dragline mining its way back out of Hickory Point. Mr. Smith
327 stated that it would be necessary to have the other two draglines working
328 somewhere else. Mr. Augspurger suggested two possible options. One option
329 involves using one dragline on Hickory Point and moving two elsewhere. The other
330 involves using two draglines on Hickory Point and moving the other somewhere
331 else. Mr. McLendon stated that some of the alternatives that involve mining small
332 areas of the NCPC Tract would not supply ore for a long-term mine planning period.
333 Mr. McNaught pointed out that these alternatives would involve mining in another
334 location in addition to the NCPC Tract, either simultaneously or sequentially. Ms.
335 Sawyer asked if machinery is available that does not require a 1,500-foot wide
336 space in which to operate. Mr. Waters answered that there is no such equipment.
337 He added that there are minimum width limits imposed by the stripping equipment
338 and the pit depth, as well as the limitations imposed by the draglines.
339
340 Mr. Furness commented that Alternatives III and VI are variations of the
341 same principle and should be combined. He suggested eliminating III and dividing
342 VI into three variations on the straight-line return sweep principle: a one-dragline
343 pit width, a two-dragline pit width, and a three-dragline pit width. Mr. Moye
344 agreed that consideration of a no further action alternative and a three-dragline
9
345 straight-line alternative necessitated consideration of alternatives in between; i.e., a
346 one-dragline and a two-dragline straight-line alternative. The alternatives were
347 revised accordingly and the list was moved up to fill the vacant III spot, such that
348 the final list was as follows:
349 I. PCS Phosphate's current proposal,
350 II. old Alternative B,
351 III. the NCDWQ mining exclusion boundary (significant wetlands) with
352 additional avoidance of streams and buffers as they are currently
353 defined,
354 IV. old Alternative D (CAMA, WASC avoidance),
355 V.a. a straight-line return sweep with one dragline,
356 V.b. a straight-line return sweep with two draglines,
357 V.c. a straight-line return sweep with three draglines, and
358 VI. no further mining on the NCPC Tract.
359
360 Mr. Furness noted that the avoidance areas contained in some of the non-
361 straight-line alternatives would result in pit widths and turn radii that cannot
362 accommodate three draglines. As an example, Mr. Smith noted that the NCDWQ
363 line would not allow a three-dragline operation. Mr. Furness stated that any
364 draglines) that are not operating on the NCPC Tract would need to be operating
365 somewhere else to maintain the supply of ore to the plant. Mr. Overton suggested
366 it might be possible for one or two draglines to start working in the new area while
367 the remaining machine(s) finish up in the current permit area. Mr. Smith reiterated
368 that the one-dragline and two-dragline alternatives would need to include, as part
369 of the alternatives, an area for the remaining dragline(s) to operate. Mr. Furness
370 added that PCS Phosphate still needs to evaluate whether it is economical to make
371 the return sweep in the NCPC Tract with one dragline. Mr. Baker stated that there
372 are many utility and support costs associated with moving a dragline. He noted
373 that PCS Phosphate currently has two pits open, and that the support costs went
374 up substantially when the second pit was opened. Mr. Smith stated that there
375 would be significant added pre-stripping costs associated with having two pits
376 open at once. The second pit would require either a second bucket wheel
377 excavator or pre-stripping by a dredge, which is very expensive.
378
379 Ms. Sawyer asked if importing ore would be evaluated as an alternative. Mr.
380 McLendon answered that it would, and added that the primary purpose for
381 evaluating it in the last EIS was to separate the processing operation from the
10
382 mining operation. Mr. Smith noted that the last EIS did not discuss what to do
383 with the gypsum produced by processing imported ore. PCS Phosphate's current
384 clay/gypsum blend reclamation method would not be possible because there would
385 be no clay to blend with the gypsum and no pit in which to put the material.
386 Therefore, importing ore would require PCS Phosphate to construct more gypsum
387 stacks. Mr. Moye asked if the gypsum could be used for wallboard. Mr. Furness
388 answered that it could not because of the phosphoric acid contained in it.
389
390 Mr. Baker asked to be provided a copy of the guidelines used during the last
391 EIS process to define Wetland Areas of Special Concern (WASC). Mr. Lekson
392 explained that the basic idea behind the WASC concept was to identify high quality
393 wetlands. Mr. McNaught stated that it is a good idea to use the WASC guidelines
394 in alternatives development. He noted that the WASC concept was used last time
395 to develop Alternative D, and he speculated that it might help identify an additional
396 alternative during the current process.
397
398 Mr. Moye raised the subject of the Public Trust Shoreline AEC, which is an
399 area of CAMA permitting authority that is new since the last EIS process. He
400 explained that the Public Trust Shoreline AEC is a continuous band that extends
401 landward 30 feet from the edge (mean high water or normal water level) of all
402 Public Trust Waters. Mr. Furness noted that this could require updating the old
403 Alternative B line that forms the basis for the CAMA avoidance alternative. Ms.
404 Sawyer requested that PCS Phosphate provide the group with a legible map of
405 alternatives when the locations of all of the NCPC Tract alternative boundaries
406 have been ascertained. Ms. Sawyer also noted the need to apply the NCDWQ
407 wetlands rating system to the Area South of Highway 33 so that the quality of
408 wetlands in this area can be compared to the quality of wetlands in the NCPC
409 Tract.
410
411 Mr. Furness stated that given a guideline such as avoid all WASCs, PCS
412 Phosphate could develop alternatives in other parts of the Project Area based on
413 that principle. Ms. Sawyer stated that avoidance of streams, buffers, and
414 significant wetlands would be a good guideline for development of avoidance
415 alternatives in the Project Area. Mr. Furness asked the group to clarify whether a
416 consensus had been reached to apply the WASC concept to develop avoidance
417 alternatives in other parts of the Project Area in addition to the NCPC Tract. Mr.
418 McLendon stated that that consensus had been reached. Mr. Lekson added that
419 the WASC guidelines should be consistent with those used during the last EIS
420 process to maintain comparability with WASCs identified previously. Mr. Lekson
11
421 offered to locate the documentation that defines WASC so that a copy of it can be
422 included with the minutes of this meeting. (A copy of the WASC guidelines is
423 enclosed with this memorandum.)
424
425 After a short break, Mr. McLendon directed the discussion to parts of the
426 Project Area other than the NCPC Tract, beginning with the Area South of Highway
427 33. Mr. Furness stated that the wetland delineation in that area is mostly done,
428 and Mr. Karriker pointed out the major features of the area on a preliminary draft
429 wetland map. Mr. Karriker pointed out several small streams that penetrate into
430 the area. Mr. Smith noted that an alternative similar to the NCDWQ stream
431 avoidance alternative discussed for the NCPC Tract would remove large portions of
432 the Area South of Highway 33 from consideration for mining. However, Ms.
433 Sawyer noted that impacts to the streams might be allowable with mitigation, and
434 Mr. McLendon added that the quality of the streams in the Area South of Highway
435 33 is lower than the quality of the streams in the NCPC Tract.
436
437 Mr. Smith went on to explain that the Area South of Highway 33 likely will
438 supply significantly fewer tons of phosphate per acre than the NCPC Tract. He
439 added that he is not sure that PCS Phosphate can mine the area fast enough to
440 maintain the phosphate production rate necessary to keep the mill supplied. Mr.
441 Moye asked if mining south of Highway 33 would require moving the mill. Mr.
442 Smith replied that PCS Phosphate will evaluate whether mining there would require
443 moving the mill, but he stated that the chemical plants would not be moved.
444
445 Regarding the evaluation of wetland functions and values in the Area South
446 of Highway 33, Mr. Smith stated that the group needs to establish evaluation
447 parameters and apply them consistently. Ms. Sawyer explained that NCDWQ will
448 screen alternatives in terms of which alternative has the least impacts on water
449 quality. Mr. McLendon stated that the impacts of each alternative must be
450 discussed in light of the quality of the resources to be impacted. He cautioned that
451 there may not always be a purely quantitative or objective way to evaluate
452 resource quality. Ms. Sawyer added that NCDWQ's stream evaluation system does
453 not evaluate the quality of a stream; it is designed just to distinguish streams from
454 stormwater conveyances.
455
456 Mr. Furness noted that NCDCM needs to make Public Trust calls on the
457 streams in the Area South of Highway 33 so that a CAMA avoidance alternative
458 can be developed for that area. Mr. McNaught suggested that the group does not
459 necessarily need to develop the same number of alternatives for each part of the
12
460 Project Area. It is possible that some sets of evaluation criteria will result in
461 alternatives that can be combined. Mr. McLendon agreed that the group should
462 not attempt to draw every possible line on each tract.
463
464 Mr. McNaught stated that the Bonnerton area also needs to be evaluated for
465 alternatives. Mr. Smith stated that PCS Phosphate has not yet calculated the tons
466 of phosphate available in the Bonnerton area, but he noted that the amount of
467 phosphate available there is significantly less than the phosphate available in the
468 NCPC Tract and would not be enough for a long-term mine plan. Mr. McNaught
469 expressed concern that PCS Phosphate has said that mining is not economically
470 viable outside the 30 mine ratio contour, and now appears to be saying that it is
471 not necessarily economically viable within it either. He said that PCS Phosphate
472 now appears to be trying to exclude Bonnerton and the Grace Tract on economic
473 grounds, and seems to be pushing toward the NCPC Tract as the only economically
474 viable area. Mr. Smith clarified that he was trying to make the point that
475 Bonnerton does not have enough phosphate to constitute a stand-alone alternative,
476 not that it is not viable in any form. Mr. McNaught noted that it may be possible to
477 use Bonnerton in combination with another area. Mr. Baker countered that PCS
478 Phosphate needs to proceed with mining in a logical sequence; splitting the
479 draglines up to mine multiple small areas does not fit into a logical mining
480 sequence. Mr. McNaught suggested that PCS Phosphate might use Bonnerton in a
481 temporal sequence, without splitting up the draglines, to make up for avoidance
482 areas on the NCPC Tract.
483
484 Mr. Smith asked whether each tract is going to be a detailed alternative, or if
485 there will be some limit on the number of alternatives to be evaluated in detail. Mr.
486 McLendon suggested that PCS Phosphate set up a matrix containing all of the
487 evaluation criteria for each tract. Such a matrix could facilitate discussions that
488 may allow some reduction in the number of alternatives to be considered in detail.
489 As a hypothetical example, he said that if the Grace Tract and the Area South of
490 Highway 33 turned out to be equal in all respects except higher transport costs for
491 the Grace Tract, then the Grace Tract could be eliminated from detailed
492 consideration. He added that he does not foresee alternatives on all of the tracts
493 being carried through for detailed analysis.
494
495 Mr. Smith stated that the USACE needs to establish some sort of summary
496 criteria for the preliminary evaluation, but he wondered if that is possible without
497 field visits by NCDWQ and NCDCM to establish stream and Public Trust limits. Ms.
498 Sawyer took the opportunity to clarify the difference between the NCDWQ mining
13
499 exclusion zone and NCDWQ jurisdiction. She noted that the mining exclusion zone
500 is based on high-quality resources, and that not all areas of NCDWQ jurisdiction are
501 necessarily high quality. Mr. Smith suggested that CZR do a preliminary evaluation
502 of NCDWQ stream origins and CAMA jurisdiction using aerial photos and ground
503 truthing. Mr. McLendon added that there is no need for a full field delineation of
504 wetlands and waters for the preliminary evaluation. Mr. Smith asked what criteria
505 would be used to map the natural resources for the preliminary evaluation. Mr.
506 McLendon said that he would need to consider the issue further before giving an
507 answer. As an example of the types of comparisons the preliminary evaluation
508 would involve, Mr. McLendon said that if the Grace Tract and the Edward area
509 turned out to be the same except for higher stream impacts in the Edward area,
510 then the Edward area could be eliminated from detailed consideration. Mr. Smith
511 asked what types of information were needed to make the comparisons in the
512 preliminary evaluation. Mr. McLendon answered that the preliminary evaluation
513 probably could be based on a synthesis of existing information and resources, and
514 that a qualitative discussion might suffice to eliminate those areas that obviously
515 have higher environmental impacts than others. Ms. Matthews suggested using
516 the DOT approach to alternatives analysis. Mr. McLendon replied that he has some
517 concerns about using that approach because it compares areas that have not been
518 evaluated at the same level of effort (e.g. wetlands flagged on some areas but not
519 on others). Ms. Matthews noted that for the preliminary evaluation, it probably
520 would be sufficient to use estimates of environmental impacts (e.g., stream
521 footage) that are based on the best currently available information. Mr. McLendon
522 and Mr. Karriker agreed to get together to talk about the parameters and methods
523 to use for the preliminary evaluation.
524
525 Mr. Lekson noted that waters and wetlands may not necessarily be the
526 factors that eliminate infeasible alternatives in every case. He pointed out that the
527 Edward and Bonnerton areas contain many residences, churches, etc., and may be
528 eliminated based on socioeconomic impacts.
529
530 Ms. Sawyer suggested that alternatives should not necessarily be limited to
531 the boundaries of the various tracts if a viable, stand-alone alternative cannot be
532 identified completely within a particular tract. As an example, she said that if the
533 Area South of Highway 33 does not produce a viable alternative by itself, perhaps
534 part of the Grace Tract could be added to it. Ms. Sawyer also noted that
535 NCDWQ's wetland rating system needs to be used in the Area South of Highway
536 33, and that the quality of the waters that would be impacted there needs to be
537 considered.
14
538
539 Mr. McKenna cautioned the group not to compare the NCPC Tract to the
540 other parts of the Project Area as a trade-off. He stated that PCS Phosphate plans
541 to mine the entire Project Area eventually, so the group needs to give them
542 alternatives that work in every tract, rather than trading off one block against
543 another.
544
545 Mr. Furness noted that a field delineation of wetlands and waters in the
546 Bonnerton area was done during the last EIS process, and that a similar field
547 delineation of the Area South of Highway 33 is nearing completion. He said that
548 the USACE now needs to decide on the level of effort for evaluating the Grace
549 Tract and the Edward area. He suggested an "office" delineation of the pertinent
550 environmental parameters, based on available information. This preliminary
551 evaluation could be used to determine which alternatives to drop on the first cut.
552
553 Mr. McLendon then redirected the discussion to the cadmium issue. He
554 stated that PCS Phosphate had sent a package containing reviews of the issue by
555 Drs. Terry Logan and Rufus Chaney, along with PCS Phosphate's proposal for
556 capping reclamation areas, to NCDLR, USACE, USFWS, and NCWRC. He then
557 opened the floor for discussion.
558
559 Mr. Augspurger asked Mr. Smith and Mr. Furness to explain their proposed
560 capping plan to the group. Mr. Furness began by reminding the group that for the
561 last several months, Drs. Logan and Chaney had been reviewing, independently of
562 each other, all of the studies, literature, and agency recommendations pertaining to
563 the cadmium issue at PCS Phosphate. Mr. Furness noted that Dr. Logan did not
564 review the main study report because he wrote part of it, but he did review the
565 earthworm study, pertinent scientific literature, and the recommendations that have
566 been made by the agencies. Mr. Furness further explained that Dr. Logan had
567 stated in his review that an 18 to 24-inch-thick cap would be more than adequate.
568 Mr. Wicker interjected that Dr. Logan had also stated that such a cap would need
569 to be managed intensively to keep the reclamation areas perpetually covered by
570 shallow-rooted plants such as Phragmites. Mr. Furness went on to explain that Dr.
571 Chaney had criticized the earthworm report and the agency recommendations that
572 were based on it. Mr. Furness stated that Dr. Chaney had concluded that there
573 currently is no unacceptable risk for wildlife exposure to cadmium. As possible
574 measures to reduce any perceived risk, Dr. Chaney suggested adding zinc to the
575 upper part of the reclamation substrate, adding lime to raise the pH, adding
576 manganese and iron oxides, restricting the growth of plants like willow (which
15
577 accumulated high levels of cadmium), or capping the reclamation areas. Mr.
578 Furness further explained that PCS Phosphate then looked at the Logan and
579 Chaney recommendations and the agency recommendations in light of the
580 equipment that is available to cap the reclamation areas. Based on these
581 considerations, PCS Phosphate proposes to cap all clay/gypsum blend reclamation
582 areas, starting with R-4 and all newer reclamation areas, and continuing with all
583 future clay/gypsum blend reclamation areas. The cap will be placed such that 70
584 percent of the surface area is covered with a cap that is an average of at least 2
585 feet thick.
586
587 Mr. Augspurger asked Mr. Furness to explain the source of the 70 percent
588 coverage proposal. Mr. Furness indicated that 70 percent is what PCS Phosphate
589 thinks it can reasonably achieve with their conveyor belt spreading equipment. He
590 noted that they cannot spread the cap material with bulldozers or other heavy
591 equipment because the surface of the reclamation areas is too soft. Mr.
592 Augspurger asked what PCS Phosphate means by an average cover of 2 feet. Mr.
593 Furness answered that the depth of coverage will range from 20 or 25 feet near
594 the conveyor to zero at the edges of the cap farthest away from the conveyor. He
595 further explained that the 70 percent coverage is based on PCS Phosphate's
596 logistical experience and is justified by Dr. Chaney's opinion that the uncapped
597 reclamation areas pose no risk to wildlife. Mr. Wicker noted that Dr. Chaney did
598 say he would not recommend growing crops on the reclamation areas.
599
600 Mr. Augspurger said he thinks that PCS Phosphate's proposal cherry-picks
601 Dr. Logan's and Dr. Chaney's reviews to obtain just the recommendations that
602 serve PCS Phosphate's interests. He noted that Dr. Logan said in his review that
603 he supports the USFWS and NCWRC recommendations. Mr. Augspurger also
604 noted that Dr. Chaney said that without further remediation, the reclamation areas
605 are not suitable for agriculture, and that cover soils would reduce exposure to
606 cadmium. Mr. Augspurger urged the group to keep in mind the backgrounds of Dr.
607 Logan and Dr. Chaney. He stated that both specialize in contaminants on small
608 areas of agricultural soils, and that neither is a wildlife toxicologist with experience
609 in landscape-level issues. He noted that Dr. Logan encouraged maintaining a
610 Phragmites monoculture in perpetuity, which illustrates a lack of understanding of
611 the local ecology and the scale of the management activity that would be involved
612 with such a proposal.
613
614 Mr. Augspurger expressed concern that PCS Phosphate had submitted its
615 proposal directly to NCDLR without including many of the other agencies in the
16
616 permit review group. Mr. Furness responded that he has never had a clear vision
617 of which agency ultimately will resolve the cadmium issue and how the issue will
618 be resolved. He and Mr. Smith further noted that PCS Phosphate was responding
619 to conditions of the existing USACE Section 404 permit and the existing NCDLR
620 mine permit, therefore they addressed the proposal to the agencies that are
621 responsible for enforcing those conditions (NCDLR and USACE in consultation with
622 USFWS and NCWRC). Mr. Augspurger asked if PCS Phosphate is just looking for
623 regulatory compliance in the context of the existing permit, or if it is trying to
624 achieve a long-term landscape solution to the cadmium issue. Mr. McLendon
625 stated that the next permit will not be issued without resolving the cadmium issue.
626 He added that the USACE will require PCS Phosphate to take mitigative measures
627 for the existing permit, and that those same measures likely will be required for the
628 next permit. Ms. Matthews noted that cadmium probably will need to be
629 addressed in the EIS in terms of secondary and cumulative impacts. Mr. McLendon
630 said that if the USACE approves PCS Phosphate's current proposal for dealing with
631 the cadmium issue in the context of the existing permit, the proposal very likely
632 will become the solution to the cadmium issue for the next permit also.
633
634 Mr. Augspurger then gave a summary of USFWS's views regarding PCS
635 Phosphate's cadmium capping proposal. He stated that if the ultimate goal is to
636 walk away from the reclamation areas with deep-rooted trees in perpetuity, the cap
637 needs to be thicker than 2 feet. He said that the PCS Phosphate proposal is
638 inadequate because it does not define the post-reclamation landscape, and because
639 70 percent coverage is not enough. He stated that USFWS will recommend to
640 NCDLR that the proposal is unacceptable. He further said that the Chaney and
641 Logan reviews and recommendations do not refute USFWS's earlier
642 recommendations, as claimed by PCS Phosphate. Dr. Chaney's review focused on
643 human health and did not address the issue at hand. Dr. Logan agreed with the
644 five points that USFWS made in their recommendations; the only issue he raised is
645 how thick the cap should be. Mr. Furness noted that Dr. Chaney told him verbally
646 that grain crops for human consumption could be grown on the uncapped
647 reclamation areas, which implies that if crops for human consumption can be
648 grown safely on the reclamation areas, there should be no unacceptable risk to
649 wildlife. Mr. Augspurger closed his summary by saying that PCS Phosphate's
650 proposal of 70 percent coverage is a start, and the USFWS will continue to work
651 with PCS Phosphate and the permitting agencies to develop an acceptable solution
652 to the cadmium issue.
653
654 The meeting resulted in the following tasks that need to be completed to allow
655 the alternatives analysis to proceed (not necessarily listed in the order in which
17
656 they will occur):
657
658 1. Based on currently available information, CZR, in coordination with the
659 USACE and PCS Phosphate, will conduct a preliminary evaluation of the
660 alternative tracts within the Project Area. This evaluation will include,
661 but not necessarily be limited to, technical and economic feasibility,
662 streams/non-wetland waters, CAMA jurisdiction, WASC, other wetlands,
663 and socioeconomic impacts. The products of this evaluation will include
664 a map of the Project Area depicting parameters evaluated, and a matrix
665 table comparing the potential impacts to each parameter among the
666 various tracts.
667
668 2. NCDWQ, PCS Phosphate, and CZR will complete stream origin
669 determinations on the NCPC Tract and the Bonnerton Area.
670
671 3. Upon completion of the stream origin determinations, NCDWQ will revise
672 their avoidance line for the NCPC Tract.
673
674 4. PCS Phosphate will evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of a
675 one-dragline and a two-dragline straight-line return sweep on the NCPC
676 Tract. This evaluation will include a conceptual evaluation of opening a
677 second pit to accommodate the dragline(s) that would not be used on the
678 NCPC Tract. A specific evaluation of costs and logistics associated with
679 a second pit cannot be conducted until the location of the second pit is
680 identified.
681
682 5. CZR will revise the NCPC Tract preliminary alternatives map to depict the
683 revised NCDWQ avoidance boundary, a revised "old Alternative B" that
684 accounts for the 30-foot-wide Public Trust Shoreline AEC, and any
685 technically and economically feasible straight-line return sweeps. The
686 legibility of the map will be improved.
687
688 6. NCDCM, in coordination with PCS Phosphate, will determine the upper
689 limits of Public Trust waters (according to the NCDCM definition) on the
690 Area South of Highway 33.
691
692 7. CZR will use the NCDWQ wetlands rating method on the Area South of
693 Highway 33 so that NCDWQ can develop an avoidance line for this tract.
694
695 8. CZR, in consultation with the USACE and PCS Phosphate, will develop a
696 map depicting possible alternatives for the Area South of Highway 33
697 (similar to the map for the NCPC Tract).
18
698
699 9. PCS Phosphate and USFWS will continue to work toward a solution to
700 the cadmium issue that is acceptable to both.
701
702 The meeting adjourned at approximately 1 p.m. If you feel that we have
703 omitted or inaccurately depicted any of the issues that were discussed, please
704 submit your comments to us in writing. Please list the appropriate page and line
705 number(s) in your comments.
706 Distribution
Mr. Scott McLendon
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Terry Baker
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. David Moye
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Guy Pearce
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Ms. Kathy Matthews
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Section-Region IV
Wetlands Management Division,
61 Forsyth Street Southwest
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Ms. Mary Alsentzer
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. William A. Schimming
Potash Corp.
P.O. Box 3320
Northbrook, IL 60062
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
19
Mr. David M. Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. William J. Biddlecome
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
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North' Carolina 27699-1638
Mr. Tom Augspurger
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Ms. Deborah Sawyer
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Jim Mulligan
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Roger Thorpe
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Ross Smith
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
20

Mr. Jerry Waters
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Pete Wind
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Floyd Williams
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Ms. Joan Giordano
Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuarine
Program
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. William Wescott
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Frank McBride
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
4552 Winstead Store Road
Nashville, NC 27856
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. David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road
Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Jimmie Overton
North Carolina Division of Water
Quality
ESB Lab
1621 Mall Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Ed Lynch
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
21

Mr. Tracy Davis Ms. Shannon Deaton
Division of Land Resources North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Land Quality Section Commission
North Carolina Department of 1721 Mail Service Center
Environment Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1721
And Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center Mr. James M. Hudgens
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 CZR Incorporated
140 Intracoastal Pointe Drive
Suite 301
Jupiter, Florida 33477-5064
22
C F-Y "
,Gn, V1;CORPORATED
Environmental Consultants
Mr. David Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer$
310 Main Street
Washington, NC 27889-4968
APR 8
1150 SOUTH U.S. HIGHNYAY,I I) E ?L?ND,S aj-?07 "l
SUITE 201 n° i!„Lily SEf i!!??.r
JUPITER, FL 33477.7236
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
15 October 1991
Re: Texasgul= Jurisdictional Wetlands - - Quality Criteria
Dear Mr. Lekson:
I am sending, at the request of Pate Moffett, a COPY of "Criteria £or
selection of High Quality Wetlands." The criteria reflects your discussion with
Pete Moffett, Jeff Furness, and Bruce Bolick, on Wednesday last. Two copies of
the jurisdictional wetland graphic are enclosed, highlighted by color, applying
the high quality wetland criteria and depicting the high duality wetland.
Please call Pete Moffett if you have any questions prior to your meeting
with Pete and Jeff Furness on Friday, 1S October 1991 to discuss the enclosed
criteria and mapping.
James?M. Hudgens
President
JHH-djs
cc: P.J. Moffett
T.J. Regan, Jr.
w.A. schimming
J.C. Burners
T.C. Younger, Jr.
0. W. House
V.R. Tinsley
O.G. Meekine
S:.neerea.3r.r-.
czx r>acoF.PORL.E
CP-0745.10

1.
Criteria for Selection of High Quality Wetlands
Natural (tp.incipally undisturbed) wetlands (creeks, brackish marsh complex,
bottomland hardwood forest, and pocosin-bay forest; also some hardwood
forest areas)
I
High value to wildlife and fisheries
Water quality or hydrological values, especially as filters and buffers
along major drainages
public or political perception of particular wetlands
Large tracts of undisturbed wetlands
Areas which will remair. jurisdictional wetlands under proposed manual
MAjor Areas in Additi5zn to Creeka, Brackish Marsh Complex,
nottgalland Hardwood 1?.orast, and Pocosin-ba.y 5`orest
Designated as High Quality Wgtla.nd in the TexAscnlf proiect Area
Hardwood forests adjacent to porter cre49
High quality due to proximity to bottomland hardwood forest; serve as
buffers and filters.
2. Hardwood forest in Northwestern Bart of the Western act
3.
4.
5.
6.
Largo, undisturbed tract bounding bottomland hardwood forest. Located
along they Suffolk Scarp.
Large hArgWood farmer tract adj acont to north aide of SR 1953 and east aid
of SE •1936
Large and relatively undisturbed, high level of vegetative diversity.
Borders upper Porter Creek,. Located along the Suffolk Scarp.
xardweod forest in the Central West__Rart of the Western Tract
Large, undisturbed tract bounding pocosin-bay forest along the Suffolk
Scarp.
Hardwood forests adiAcent_ tg an unnamed tributary to Pamlico River r:e$r
the Tex&scralf_ outfall aana.z
Relatively undisturbed hardwoods bordering bottomland hardwood forest and
brackish marsh. Act as buffer and filters.
Pine forest adjacent to Huddv Gut
A very wet pine forest contiguous to bottomland hardwood forest and
brackish marsh. High plant species diversity, with many typiral'pocesin
species.
i
I
?. Hudwood! forest north of SR 1945
This is o large, relatively undisturbed hardwood tract located in the upper
heudwate'rs of two drainages.
8. Hardwood forest area along upper Drinkwater Creek
This hardwood wetland area is interspersed with hardwood upland islands
along the upper reaches of Drinkwater Creek. It serves as a buffer and
filter to the crack and is fairly good wildlife habitat.
November 25, 1991
I
Regulatory Trench
Mr. P. J. Moffatt
rexasgulf, Inc.
Post Office; Box 4B
Aurora, North Carolina 27a06
Dear Mr. Moffetts
on Novefibae 15, 1991, we met with personnel from a number of the resource
agencies, ?almlico-Tar River Faundatian, Texasgulf, and Coastal Zone Resources
corporation to discuss, and come to an agreement on, guidelinea for developing
an additional alternative that provides for avoidance and minimization of
Section 404 wetlands. The primary purpose of tho meeting was to identify the
wetland areas that should be avoided in the development of a mining scenario
that Bati.sfias a wetland avoidance and minimization goal. A copy of the
meeting attendance list is enclosed.
eased on general consensus, certain wetlands, to bo called areas of
special concern, should be identified within the project area and carefully
considered in they development of a mining scenario that most reasonably avoids
and minimiies impacto to wetlands. This mining scenario should be called
Alternative D. The wetland habitat :reap that was previously developed at the
inception of this alternative and was preeented and discussed at thu moatins
should be used as a baeeline for identifying wotlands that should be included
as arraas of.opacial concern.. In addition, we requeat that the project area be
reviewed to'determine if there are additional areas that should be included.
This determination should identify thole wetland areas that most satisfy the
following criteria:
a. drainage basin integrity (water quality, filter, buffer, etc.)
b. large, or contiguous, or mature, principally undisturbed and/or
disturbed wetlands of highest value to fish or wildlife.
It becaris clear during the discussions that there was also the need to
expand the Ao-Federal-action (no parmit required) alternative to meet a twenty
year mine plan (i.h., mining uplands for as long as possible and then mining
wetlands with avoidance and minimization taken into consideration as per
alternativs'D. This expanded no-Federal-action alternative should be
evaluated and presented in the EIS.
:n
s
i
a
r
tea
a

-2-
Per previous discussions with Taxasgulf and CZR, Inc., we believe that t:.e
no action alternative (no permit required or permit denial) should be
discussed within the report and used as a baseline condition for comparing and
evaluating *11 of the alternatives. In addition, the no-Pederal-action (no
permit required) alternative has been generally dismissed by Texasgulf because
it does not allow for enough mining area to meet the company's underlying
purpose and need. Your position on this alternative, as well as for all
others, should be thoroughly discussed and all conclusions sufficiently
supported. ;The alternatives analysis developed for the EIS should be thorough
enough to u#e for both the public interest review and the 404(b)(1)
guidelines.]
We encourage you to review this guidance and consider how it can boat be
accomplished. We would like to meet with you soon to discuss approaches and
share ideas with you. If you have questions regarding this matter, contact
Mr. Hugh Heine, EIS Project Manager, at telephone [phone] or Mr. David
Franklin, Regulatory Project Manager, at telephone [phone].
MUSE FILE:TGS.ll
Sincerely, CESAW-CO-E/FRANKLIN/my
CESAW-CO-E/KINEFORDNE'R
CESAW-CO-E/WRIGxT/a
MAIL
CESAW,CO--E/FIEFS
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosures
i
i
innianr:•a caarii

it
0
Copy Furnished with enclosures
Mr. Bruce Bplick
CZR, Inc.
4709 College Acres Drive
University 81ace, Suite 2
Wilmington, NC 28403
-3-
Mr. David McNaught
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
Washington, North Carolina 27889
No. L.X. (M;ike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Pish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post office Box 33726
P.al.eigh, North Carolina 276:6-3726
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region IV
Wetlands Regulatory Unit
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. Dennis Stewart
North Carolina Wildlife
Resourcesi Commission
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27687
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Caroiina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post office Box 27667
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Ms. Deborah Sawyer
Water Quality Section
Division o° Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Of£ioe Box 1507
Washington, North Carolina 27869
Blind Copies Furnished (with enclosures):
CESAW-CO-EW/LEKSON
CESAW-PD-E/HEINE
Inn11nn•A aaari
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal. Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Sutural Resources
Post Office Box 1507
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Ma. Katy West
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of
Environment, health and
Natural Resources
post office Box 1507
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Larry Hardy
Habitat Conservation Division
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Pete Moffett
Texasgulf, Inc.
Post office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27606

00
Z

IL' ? ry

cam- lal?- h41? tv. I- --
- -------- - ---------

- _ - _ __ _--_-fir--- ? ?._ ?__? ?-? • ?, ?. ?.?
?? ? _cc,?c?___`?'?__ ?-1?..?=??u" --? ° end /?g1.3- • ? ?•?.1 v?.?- _?u,?- _?
t
?C ? /lre ?n? s1 a.5 0.?
--------------
6vv , . <<
_-IDi_uc- ---- CA m --- - ?fj- 9y` • G yam/ ----- - -
a------ _..-7?-Ge, - -- -- - -
-- -- - -- -- _ _-- -mss - $?7°
3 O-Zoi- __..------
-------_--- -?-- l ?r?___???-`?---------- --zG?-__??ir???c?.T?------- ??s-?`-` *-
y
3 15
? --
-Cgs
- y r n o- o5 5?t a.,J v:I /•?t err 919, 8 6f ,y5'z0- icr j
- - ------ - ?l° ?„ -- - ---j=- - - c?-w, . c c ' - - ?r r7 3 164 L
E 14 ?l a ? t"G? S f 7t ? f ',+J ? U f ? •?£sr s??.._- ----??-????? G ? ?,?? ?'?a ?.? ??
e, ZL
r •cr ? r t
Ar
River
Core Point
t' NCPC
Bonnerton
Area Permitted
l for Mining
Edward. - ---?
nttt South of Rt. 33
Grace Tract
Y
PCS Phosphate Mine
Continuation Project
Mine Development Project Area
Blecks (Aurora Area Outline)
- February 20, 2002
f' r
River
NCPC
Area Permitted
for Mining
011 1 !Fq. 414
?. PCS Phosphate Mine
Continuation Project
Mine Development Project Area
Blocks (Aurora Area Outline)
- - `- 4 .. - •r : - '• i' February 20, 2002
W
U U)
wm Q D
UN?1 ? N
m O Q (n
w Q U Z
LL p W
UO N o H Z
w
QQQU o Q W
U 3° w a?a O !L U) (L
N imo to Q o z ?
LL. J Q
° < I >- O N = m
e
(D
°zm N N
N??mmmma0z? a
Y Y NO Z Z Q
n W O
.-N M ?in tOnmOiO? N ? U ut
n W
n q q J N
n m
0
a U
N
m
b M M
q ^ ^
m tl
q m
n tl
^
m ^ n
a tl
r m
n
n
M 9 n
n
M
O r
b co
tl ^
^ ^
n ?w\ n
m r 0 m \
a 0^
m
q .I
n n
f
q q n
n n tl M
q m
^
n m
b tl
b q
n q
^ b ^
b
b n O n
n M n
^ ^
q q m
^ n m
m q q o a0
m .. n q
tl
b ^ :n n r tl ^ m
q n co tl a Q q a m ? b q q
n o 0 o n
q n tl ^ ? b tl b n m n O q n
^ ?V1 q
Ch b
n O
n r `n
M pp
q
n n o m ? n q a
b m b m N
r
n R co n M
M m m q
n b b a r
q
co
q m m q O M ..
q
6-53
e I ?
3
LEGEND e >
1 CREEKS a '? e
2 BRACKISH MARSH COMPLEX
+ s ?
3 BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD FOREST a
4 DISTURBED - HERBACEOUS ASSEMBLAGE 4 7 8 s
5 DISTURBED - SHRUB - SCRUB ASSEMBLAGE s e
> > s
6 PINE PLANTATION s a
7 HARDWOOD FOREST a 7 '
8 MIXED PINE - HARDWOOD FOREST 3 7 3 a
9 PINE FOREST 3 e I 3
10 POCOSIN - BAY FOREST s
11 SAND RIDGE FOREST s r? 3 ?a s
12 PONDS a
2
BPC BORROW PIT COMPLEX s e 3
47X W 47X WETLAND 4 s 4 s 3
s s z
b WETLAND 4 a
s
D UPLAND a
3 3 3 e 9 1
...... CANALS a o
PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY ) 4 ' s s
- - - - ALTERNATIVE A INDEPENDENT OF PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY > 4 9 3 a
8 3
--- ALTERNATIVE B INDEPENDENT OF PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY 4
- ALTERNATIVE A AND B INDEPENDENT OF PROJECT BOUNDARY 7 d 3 s
e ?
4 ??
4 5
> 8
S
8
D
$PC 9 ?? S e s 8 IB
r? 4
e 4 S 4
S 4
7 4 7 7
'? f2 a > qg f 4 8
s ?? / s a o e a ' o p A?F? e a r
/ 4 1 ? a? a \,\F B 4 I
,?? `u( \ 4?1 I I
S ? ? S D I
CJ ' 4 8 ?? O \? ? / 8
I
? 5 e s
4 ) y1 3 a S 12 4 ? e 100, 1 ? S ?/ S
e
47xW A P, 4 a s e a 2 a s 1 2 p
tPa 4 0 S
P/ s >1
/ ) 1 b r2s
r2
/ 06P \ 4 6 S 4
R/ r `? 1
?` 3 s ? 4 2
a ' S s 4 ` S ? S 2
3 \
r
I 1` S 4 4 3
I 4 /.01/
4
6 r2
J 44 I 2
3 4 ? 4
4 1 6
2' ?? s SECTION 404 JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
s 4 rz s 4 ?2r 2 s 4 2 a ALTERNATIVES A AND B
2000 4000
3 3 S 4a8I TEXASGULF MINE EIS
4 s SCALE IN FEET
3 a a > Scale: Date: Figure:
AS SHOWN AUGUST 1993 5-1
LEGEND
1 CREEKS (49 AC) 47% W 47% %7E-TLAND (61 AC) ° ? ?
2 BRACKISH MARSH COMPLEX (82 AC) WETLAND (2,530 AC) s J
8. >
3 BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD FOREST (117 AC) --? UPLAND (1.074 AC) r? )
B
4 DISTURBED - HERBACEOUS ASSEMBLAGE (219 AC) CANALS s )
J
5 DISTURBED -SHRUB -SCRUB ASSEMBLAGE (616 AC) ® PCS PHOSPHATE-AURORA MINE CONTINUATION (3,604 AC)
6 PINE PLANTATION (780 AC) ) s s )
7 HARDWOOD FOREST (191 AC) a + a
° ° 6 6
8 MIXED PINE - HARDWOOD FOREST (291 AC)
r
9 PINE FOREST (107 AC) J r
12 PONDS (17 AC) s ?
J
8
8 I
t E,?
a n
s s
8 S
d J S 9 J B
S S S V
f a
,Y
s
rt s s
? s ° )
9
4 ? Q
S 8
1 \( 1
7 7
B ? f B )?) 3 O f
B
< J ? ? b Q} a
(? S S B ?
) U S 1 r' °
r 7 S
?J ) f d0 7
< 8 ? 6
6 f S 9 t
J S s ? f I't +? S
r t
3 '
S t < S f 7
J O t• rJ ?? ATTACHMENT G
J < <'?' ? s s ' PCS PHOSPHATE-AURORA MINE CONTINUATION
f r2 l4t'W5 ; WETLAND DELINEATION
3 J f j,' ??tr t ° < ? B r PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
J °
1?.?t?v+?vF s <<e Job t I
s ° SCALE: AS SHOWw APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY. KPC
DATE: 6/12/2000 KSK FILE: F-WET
s 0 2000 4000
CP#1745.57
mow 4700 couECE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
SCALE IN. FEET WILM946TON, NORTH CAROLINA 28103
?l INCORPORATED TEL [phone]
DNWAMEWN. CWSLVXM FAX [phone]
Q
n
J
3
CD
P?

N
m ?
a
Ja
rn /
m
00 0
?

a ?
0
L
- co
to
00 1
V •:n:' m n N

0 m O
?

N m / N
m
C, N
m a
r
n m \ N 0° m n
\
m
m
N ^
M N n ?
A N
n C4
/
N N
N /
N .n N
m
i m m N
N ' ^ N N
> m
? m

p 'E
I ^
i
m N a :' N
s
\

"'••M;'i"'••"
m
m
- N
r,_
M
1 N

N N ^
m
m a

"

a
N V
co
to_ N M

Lf)

.•.
• 900

a
00

n
N ^
'?
• N n a ?
.n N N

^ N 7
,
m N
N

OD

y??JS
K
n
a
Z f"
z OZ Ul
m Q
w Pw U)
o ?Vy z m w
a V F: 0> Z m a
o J N G ZV? ¢ W U
j U O} z O Q J
Om (L 0 O m UQZ Z O
aoz wUW Q
0 0 0ui° m W Z wa J"MmM
z o m z y Q O g??aa
0 E
z a Q p w z Q li w (? m ?m2\\
o < o az? W 0 z W o V) W &??
Z z t z aOW ? < ?yQ F w Y u =W<
4
g g z g oW W o ?QC a 'o 0 0
n a ¢ w ?i on - QW- m z
a 3 M U a 3 z??¢ o w0 = d
Q L Q Y F
_• Z
QZQ3 0 Z 3
c J?
0=.WD d
0 TO\
' M y W
= Q v \ "
O
Q ? N4?
yam? o?
a
m
W
g ?
m
w VI
V) m w
ww z O
W O O (n 0
-1 0
a LZ w I o
O 0 ;
0 O m K 0
(~A Q
N _ o S
o I I Q l
z o o Z o z w
D) m co a 3 a° m g
Y Y
o o o w W o
W I p F; 1 w z x z o
O m m o o n. s a a
? N M a ? c0 n ro T ?
rE? 8
N 414
mm ?i
? rn
\ O
3
a
i
PCS NORTH
PLAKT SITE
?z
CmLlw P010
+ % + 43mm +
+ + + + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + + + + + +
?
1+ + + + + + + + +
+
+
,4 ,+++++
++++ r
+++++
+ + + + + + +
+ +
/ "I r +
/ ??
i
+ + +
+
+ +
+ + t/f
/ +
ALT B PERMIT
2,952 AC i ALT B BOUNDARY LIMIT
55 AC I1=1 ALT B CENTRAL PLUG
566 AC ALT B UTILITY CORRIDOR
67 AC r ALT B DL BOX CUTS
105 AC; ALT B EXCLUDED (LOST IN ALT E DECISION)
PAWM0 RNM
HIGHWAY 306
- - MF PLAN
'MRE: JW46_AL74 1-6-00 LA ALT B HATCH
MINE ADVANCE ALTERNATIVE B
BY, CBL PLOT DATE: 7-3-Ot SCALE: 1'=5000•
8
I
PAM= Rrim
peg wwmi-
+ +
c omim Poe 1 -F + + + T + T +
wt,f. .H + + f
RECLAIM AREA 2 4-
DI AREA 3
+ 4
+ +
a- p J + +
r?.ft
-or+?eaxa {' ?'? t i .tati's,
RECL*Mt AREA 5
2.540 AC _-i ALT NCDWQ BOUNDARY L mT
44 AC ALT NCDWQ CENTRAL, PLUG
723 AC ALT NCDWQ UMTPY CORMOR
84 AC _ ALT NCDWQ DL BOX CUTS
MGHWAY 306
- IMF PLAN
DWI?
0
.f vR
'+ r
-T__._?.,._..._....-_.. ,._.. .._. _....,_. ., .._. .._.. ..?.._._.__ _.?. __..-.-. ?. ....?..... .? L
?.?.?? ?i
., r t ii ,wt?l a???i?,. tq{:;
1
I
// W OZ
1 Y 00
1 \ \ Q 2 O
/ W
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I /
I;
I
I
I
I
i
I
I ?
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
l
1 v ?
/
11 O Q ? / i
1 F /'
1
/ Z • 0 //
gg ??
U ?
r
H
Z
O
O
U
U
ig
d
IL
0
Z
I
6d
/ ?0
?9
R
H
w E
4 L
U)
Z O co
I? s
Q)
V Q)
r_ 8
N
Z
x
0
W °
Q s
N
Q n
Z
cc d
W
c
O

C cm
3
W
/ L
O / c
V /
Y
_ /
W /
a / / LCO)
ac /
/ O

! 1
I
I
I F
/ W
/ W
Y
I
\ \ I O
?
/ W
/ f7
1
I
I
I
O
00£-
I
OZ
O?
?d
!
Z- 05Z-
' o
CV 47
I
I O
I
I ?h I
I
1
I
I
I C
I ?
?
I h
I '
o
? ?u
? Q
LL.
/
x= /
gg c
U ?
/
y0

Z

z O

s A

4

E
F ?
II
? L
N

q m
?
W6 O O o o°
N
CL M6

N
N
0
I
IM6 W
0
W
W o

O

?
O W
o

II ?
t
n
o
O ? ?
a
> ?/ z
.J Z -
u
L

6
z
0
O 0
,moo 0
d

m { - - . - - - - _ -N - - -
3
W
z
ui
v / o a
/ Y
z /
W /
a
Q /
/ O
i
I
/ W Oy
LLI
7O
Y
t W
bd d?
\ r `L V
1
W
i
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I 1
I
I /
I /
I /
I/
I `
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I `
1 \
1
it Z Q ? /
t
/
/ z • o /
W
W /
/
xz /
t
z ?
U ?

Y
z
n
O
V
c4 u
1
a
d

cc
a
cc
O
dv
d

to
z
O
W E
m
? m
J
? co
O U
s'
°o
N
N
0
a
L
d
W
O
a
\
& Lo
W -----N ---
W
Z
/ W
s
u
z /
W /
LO
Ic /
u /
CD-
;?,*16i:?+.?..l?r??•l?y?'•: ,t?.:4?,:: r t ? `s = f ':r .` r'::?.;q?;'?ati:s':'.^„v.+:1,)'y' ^T far ?. ry;, tr, r,. ,?5,.+..?r?,.
.r •- r"' ' , f ""Y' ;' tir 'ti,?. 4 - 4 n -1 _` r F"!(k. 3 t 1'n- Jr ti.{a' ?t r? 't. I, c•E°. .. f" y??:ltti.- x • F { `r Q '. '
W. c r• p?
a S •? r ? I I ? ? ,..Li '4 ? ky- L " .. 3?'?f .,' ^C?fi t ?,?/ ? 1? 'a
y
a41?-
'I ?-

_ b k ?¢aSI't ? 4.
_ 1 '?r f ?^yF?. ?_ t
s ?f ?h5 ((rl /l '
t i' I
t ??i•V t ? ? .. .- II

?
?
' , ,
)r
?
'•
I
t
P' ,`I
:.?
VS It
f •
-
f ?

40- A
•
L 4-
'
ti ?;.i t •
yy?,,,
I ?rl?
I r4?'
114
A

LL
,
-
e
'rt .. I
+• *'
-' {eID:7
f
2 0g0f,XYv1 UREA rDW-.VX
wrnAm
A 7 fQl?:4.L+ttJ 1YP:0 ICmS'
CCTU"P_P '- Tfl"Ai.:E41.15 !.E-S UjIALr

- EGTUMEO - .%tgkfS 71?ILR3 A f1tHl1+CS
q J " F Pltiti FT,W"fAYt7a1 ++?w?tt[te,tt? "-Put ,Lfy't,u -NWH 6.Yhrt'Ad
A
??1 1 ? l? Y
r-F O
K\'WNi: iCQT
!ti{G? ML •, >•#'fYs'T>: >C.:t:.:
I -•: •. - .1 'A'EiLAh? ,M+ Of °72•'CaAI C/rYx.Fi1 (?
L.. .'.
?? vj?
I r
• r I]
J P7NV, K_1ERW.IAT A W-NUAW
?
•)''?-
t --_ -- 41.0 Al1L?H4T1.F• P (Y7l4QMWf
It
_?y

H 'A'ETibM?J ARFA5 Ci SPECL&L coNct`.N
WlT
.
pl. > wr1 AVNDA.h&'Z F-TEgN47'JE a
Phos PHOSPHATE COMPANY, ING_
!r_tLC : A=: ?'r:'{.i df Fl 1,-PP2h'i0 Ri; GP.t,Nh 9Y- eFt
n av7Q 4.frfl DATE- 11 r`19 rI)1 K5K SAI: ^CG^hLT
-- - - 3 . ... . _. _ CV'#1745.57
W
CY ZR
INCORPORATED
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
czrwllmQaol.com

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
35
TO: See Distribution
FROM: Kent Karriker, Jeff Coward
DATE: 20 February 2002
RE: Minutes of the 17 December 2001 meeting for the PCS Phosphate
Mine Continuation permit application review
The fifth 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 17 December 2001. The
meeting began at approximately 10:00 a.m. The following people were in
attendance:
Scott McLendon - USACE
David Lekson - USACE
Bill Biddlecome - USACE
Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate
Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate
Bill Schimming - Potash Corp
Terry Baker - PCS Phosphate
Deborah Sawyer - NCDWQ
Tom Steffens - NCDWQ
John Dorney - NCDWQ
Bob Zarzecki - NCDWQ
Jim Overton - NCDWQ
Terry Moore - NCDCM
David Moye - NCDCM
21 Ed Lynch - NCDCM
22 Tracy Davis - NCDLR
23 Floyd Williams - NCDLR
24 Sean McKenna - NCDMF
25 Ron Sechler - NMFS
26 Mike Wicker - USFWS
27 William Wescott - NCWRC
28 Frank McBride - NCWRC
29 Shannon Deaton - NCWRC
30 David McNaught - ED
31 Mary Alsentzer - PTRF
32 Jim Hudgens - CZR Incorporated
33 Kent Karriker - CZR Incorporated
34 Jeff Coward - CZR Incorporated
1
140 INTRACOASTAL POINTE DRIVE • SUITE 301 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5064
TEL [phone] FAX [phone] cajup0mi.com
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
Mr. McLendon began the meeting with a recap of the progress made thus far
on the Purpose and Need Statement and definition of the Project Area. He
requested that the first part of the discussion be confined to these topics. He
reviewed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) letter to PCS Phosphate,
dated 26 November 2001, which reiterated the concerns of the agencies and
environmental groups and requested that PCS Phosphate remove open waters from
the mining proposal. He pointed out that the term "Public Trust" was intentionally.
avoided in the USACE letter, since that is a state issue and the USACE does not
want to involve itself in the definition of the term. Mr. McLendon also expressed
concern about the phrase "approximately 20 years" in the proposed Purpose and
Need Statement, stating that the Corps does not want this to preclude evaluating
alternative mining plans that may not last 20 years. Mr. McLendon noted that PCS
Phosphate's 10 December 2001 response gives the company's position on these
issues.
Mr. McLendon addressed the agencies' concerns over inclusion of "open
waters" in the Project Area boundary. He indicated that everyone's input will be
considered, but he does not want to make decisions on what areas are reasonable
to include before going through the permit process. He acknowledged that the
resources are important, but emphasized that the areas cannot be excluded on this
fact alone. He further explained that the Project Area is just a starting point for
alternatives, and he asked the group not to draw lines to exclude areas before
going through the public interest review process. He reiterated that everyone's
_f
concerns would be considered, and reminded everyone that if a practicable
alternative is revealed outside the Project Area, then it will be necessary to go back
and evaluate it.
Mr. McLendon asked Mr. McNaught if deleting the 20-year time frame from
the Purpose and Need would alleviate his concerns about the time frame. Mr.
McNaught agreed that it would be an improvement to remove the "approximately
20 years" phrase from the Purpose and Need statement. He added that the goal is
to get a decent "long-term" mining plan, and the inclusion of the phrase
"approximately 20 years" would limit alternatives only to those that are 20 years
long. Mr. McLendon agreed with this concern, and proposed removing the
"approximately 20 years" phrase from the Purpose and Need statement, leaving
"long-term" undefined. Mr. McNaught then asked if it would be appropriate to
include "environmentally enlightened" or some similar phrase in the Purpose and
Need Statement. Mr. McLendon felt this was a nebulous phrase that should not be
added to the Purpose and Need statement. After a brief discussion of the point,
Mr. McLendon and Mr. McNaught agreed that the "approximately 20 years"
statement should be deleted. Mr. McLendon asked if anyone in the group had any
2
78 objections to deleting "approximately 20 years" from the Purpose and Need
79 statement. There were no objections, but Mrs. Sawyer noted that the length of
80 NCDWQ's certification might disagree with the length of the USACE permit, stating
81 that the current NCDWQ certification is reviewed every five years to ensure
82 compliance with conditions. (Note: the current permit actually is conditioned such
83 that after the first 10 years, PCS Phosphate must demonstrate that no mining
84 methodology is available and economically feasible that would reduce impacts to
85 wetlands.)
86
87 Mrs. Sawyer and Mr. Dorney brought up the issue of isolated wetlands,
88 noting that NCDWQ permitting of impacts to isolated wetlands would be a parallel
89 process, if isolated wetlands exist in the Project Area. Mr. McLendon and Mr.
90 Karriker stated that the USACE has concluded that there are not likely to be any
91 isolated wetlands in the Project Area.
92
93 Mr. McLendon redirected the discussion to the subject of Project Area and
94 asked for thoughts or comments on the subject. Mr. McNaught stated that the
95 objective of the EIS is to examine a full range of reasonable alternatives, and he
96 asked that the decisions not be made based on only one variable. He further
97 explained that just as economics are considered to eliminate areas that are not
98 practicable, what is "environmentally practicable" and realistically permittable must
99 also be considered, and alternatives must be developed that address the full range
100 of variables. Mr. McLendon rebutted that it would not be a full range of
101 alternatives if we exclude areas that are not deemed "environmentally practicable."
102 Mr. McNaught responded that inclusion of the environmentally sensitive areas such
103 as the Pamlico River and South Creek in the Project Area creates the impression
104 that PCS is proposing to mine only a small part of what is available. Mr. Dorney
105 noted that a variance would be required by the EMC to impact these areas. Mr.
106 McNaught pointed out that there is no real likelihood a permit will be issued to mine
107 the river. He further stated that the EIS document creates a context for discussing
108 a range of alternatives, but this range becomes skewed if PCS appears to be giving
109 up the river. It creates the impression that PCS has made a huge sacrifice by
110 "excluding" the river and creeks from the proposed alternative. He also pointed out
111 that the environmental community has made a sacrifice by not forcing
112 consideration of areas outside of the 30 mine ratio contour. He then asked why
113 PCS insists on keeping unpermittable areas, such as South Creek and the river, in
114 the Project Area. Mr. McLendon reiterated that a full range of alternatives must be
115 examined, even if they're not likely to be permittable. Mr. McNaught stressed that
116 he wants to see the process start by creating a context that is proper, and not one
117 that is filled with a range of "false" alternatives. He asked if PCS could share why
118 they want to include the areas of open water in the Project Area. Mr. Wicker
119 interjected that the issue is very important and should not be dismissed as trivial.
3
120 He noted that the permit review team is not the decision-making body; the decision
121 is up to the USACE, and it has already been made. Mr. Wicker said that the
122 decision was made in direct opposition to much agency input, and it sets up a
123 process that is antagonistic. However, the decision has been made, therefore
124 continued discussion serves no useful purpose. Ms. Alsentzer stated that the issue
125 should be dropped, adding that she does not understand or agree with the decision,
126 and for the USACE to try to bring everyone along with the decision after the fact is
127 an insult.
128
129 Mr. McLendon asked if defining the Project Area as the Aurora Area (within
130 the 30 mine ratio contour) precludes any alternatives the group wants to see. Mr.
131 McKenna stated that it probably does, and he suggested a return to the original
132 proposal of the Aurora Phosphate District as the Project Area. He asserted that the
133 agencies had taken on faith that the 30 contour is a good representation of
134 economic practicability, but that the agencies' concerns about environmental
135 practicability were not taken on faith; therefore the Project Area should include the
136 entire Aurora Phosphate District for consideration of alternatives. Representatives
137 of NCDWQ, NCDCM, and NMFS voiced their agreement with Mr. McKenna's
138 suggestion. At this point there was some inaudible discussion among the group, so
139 other individuals may have expressed agreements or dissents that were not heard
140 by Mr. Karriker and Mr. Coward. Mr. McLendon stated that it has been the
141 intention all along to discuss the entire Aurora Phosphate District in the EIS.
142 Whether any alternatives from outside the 30 mine ratio contour will carry through
143 for detailed analysis is unknown, but the locations of the best reserves need to be
144 considered in determining which alternatives to carry through. Mr. Schimming
145 indicated that PCS does not have any economically feasible mine plans outside the
146 30 contour.
147
148 Mr. McLendon expressed concern about how much additional information
149 would need to be gathered to evaluate alternatives within the Aurora Phosphate
150 District. Mr. McBride interjected that the information should be gathered and that
151 the agencies will evaluate it. Mr. Smith stated that the group needs to determine
152 the scope of what will be evaluated. He stated that it had been proposed earlier
153 that each of the three phosphate districts would be evaluated in a preliminary
154 fashion, and PCS provided information on those. The group then narrowed the
155 proposed Project Area to the 30 contour within the Aurora Phosphate District, and
156 evaluated this area. Mr. Smith stated that the group needs to define what level of
157 evaluation it needs. Mr. Furness added that technically all three phosphate districts
158 could be included in the Project Area if they are discussed and eliminated in the
159 EIS. There was some discussion among the group about the presence of ore
160 outside the 30 contour. Mr. Smith cautioned the group on the use of the term
161 "ore" since the term includes economics in its definition, and the phosphate outside
4
162 the 30 contour is not economically recoverable by current methods. Mr. McBride
163 asked if the cost of reclamation in the river makes this an uneconomical alternative
164 for PCS.. Mr. Smith indicated that reclamation costs would need to be evaluated in
165 the process.
166
167 Mr. Wicker stated his concern that the capital outlay for the recent plant
168 upgrade could be used as a lever to force permitting mining near the current plant
169 site so that the investment does not go to waste. Mr. Schimming said he does not
170 understand Mr. Wicker's use of the term "levering." He stated that PCS is just
171 trying to stay alive in a tough business, citing a depressed market and recent
172 layoffs. He added that the DFP plant construction and PAP plant expansion were
173 undertaken to make the business more profitable. Mr. Wicker stated that PCS is a
174 public company, and that reading the economic information on PCS does not
175 necessarily give the same impression as what is said in the meetings.
176
177 Mrs. Sawyer pointed out that the group has no jurisdiction to tell PCS where
178 to propose mining, but what is proposed may not produce an alternative that is
179 permittable. She encouraged PCS not to propose areas that would be
180 unpermittable. Mr. McKenna stated that if all three districts are included in the
181 Project Area, then they can be looked at, discussed briefly, and dismissed in the
182 EIS.
183
184 Mr. McNaught stated that the group is trying to do something on good faith,
185 and unfortunately, good faith is fragile. He mentioned that the last EIS process
186 produced many comments that if Alternative B was not permitted, PCS would go
187 out of business, but this proved to be untrue. The Corps has convened a process
188 that requires making many decisions, and it is a pity that good faith is breaking
189 down so early in the process. He stated that the environmental community prefers
190 a focused scope that gets to the point of what is practicable on Hickory Point,
191 which is an objective that was not accomplished during the last EIS process. Mr.
192 McNaught further stated that the environmental community will agree that some
193 areas are not practicable to mine, but PCS needs to realize that some areas are
194 inviolate and should be taken off the table as well. If starting with a larger scope is
195 all we can get, then throw it all on the table and move on.
196
197 Mr. McBride asked if PCS intends to seek a permit to mine the river. Mr.
198 Smith stated that PCS intends to evaluate it as an alternative. Mr. McBride again
199 asked if PCS intends to pursue a permit to mine the river. Mr. Smith indicated not
200 at this time. Mr. McNaught asked if PCS still holds the leases for the river bottom.
201 Mr. Smith and Mr. Furness indicated that PCS does. Mr. Smith then pointed out
202 the sentence in the response letter PCS sent to the Corps dated 10 December
203 2001, which states, "...PCS Phosphate is willing to delay detailed consideration of
5
204 this alternative if other suitable alternatives can be identified." Mr. Wescott asked
205 who is responsible for identifying alternatives. Mr. Smith indicated that it is the
206 responsibility of the Permit Review Team. Mr. Wicker mentioned that PCS has an
207 economical reserve right beside the river that will keep them going for a while, and
208 that the idea of mining the river bottom does not embrace what the group has been
209 talking about. Mr. Schimming noted that the river was only dealt with in passing
210 during the last EIS. He asked if anyone thinks the current process will result in
211 PCS mining the river. Mr. Dorney answered no, and Mr. Schimming added that too
212 much time has been spent on the topic already. Mr. McKenna and Mr. McBride
213 then asked if there was any reason to leave the river in the Project Area, given that
214 no one expects the process to result in a permit to mine the river. Mr. McLendon
215 stated that all alternatives need to be examined, good and bad. Mr. McNaught
216 stated that this puts the group back to Mr. McKenna's suggestion of using the
217 entire Aurora Phosphate District as the Project Area. Since neither economics nor
218 environmental factors can be used as a driving factor in the process, and it cannot
219 be agreed upon to use both, then the Project Area should go back to encompassing
220 the whole Aurora Phosphate District. Mr. Wicker expressed his concern that many
221 influential people will put their stamp on this process before its complete. He
222 stated that these people do not have time to deal with the details, and not knowing
223 much about wetlands, they will think it is reasonable to let PCS mine all the
224 wetlands on land if PCS gives up the river. Mr. Dorney stated that all the
225 arguments have been heard and are interesting, but the group can move on and
226 allow the Corps to make the decision on the Project Area.
227
228 Mr. McLendon mentioned that the EIS will discuss the economics of the
229 entire Aurora Phosphate District. He stated that he is not sure if that level of detail
230 will satisfy everyone, adding that if the group is talking about carrying through
231 alternatives outside the 30 contour, they will be carried through for consideration if
232 they are practicable. He stated that he anticipates that Alternatives for detailed
233 consideration will be within the Aurora Area on Hickory Point and in the area south
234 of NC Highway 33. He noted that there may be confusion over what constitutes
235 an alternative and how much it must be evaluated. He stated that the part of the
236 Aurora Phosphate District outside the 30 contour will be discussed in terms of the
237 phosphate that is present and why it is not economically feasible to mine it. The
238 group may not have all of the financial data at present, but that is what we know,
239 based on what PCS has told us. Mr. Wicker reiterated his discontent with the
240 Corps making their decision on Project Area in opposition to the group's input. He
241 stated that he will accept it, but he does not have to like it. He requested that the
242 Corps say their decision is made and get on with the proceedings.
243
244 Mr. Wescott stated that current mining technology and techniques make the
245 area outside the 30 contour not feasible, and likewise make the river not feasible.
6
246 He asked why the land outside the 30 contour is excluded while the river is not.
247 Mr. Smith said the economics of mining the river have not been discussed, and that
248 PCS has a preliminary plan to mine in the river with a dragline. He added that it is
249 economically viable to mine there. Mr. McBride asked if reclamation in the river is
250 viable. Mr. Smith answered that it is viable to mine in the river. Mr. Baker pointed
251 out that PCS is not asking to mine in the river.
252
253 Mr. Moye stated that the intention of the meetings is to get everyone
254 together to expedite the process, but everyone does not have to agree. Mr.
255 Schimming agreed with Mr. Moye and seconded Mr. Dorney's request to move on.
256 Mr. McLendon asked the group to do so. Mr. Moye asked if the Aurora Phosphate
257 District could be defined as the "Study Area," with the Aurora Area called the
258 "Project Area". Mr. McLendon stated that essentially that is the approach that the
259 group is taking.
260
261 Mr. McLendon redirected the discussion to alternatives, asking the group if
262 everyone had reviewed the CZR graphic depicting possible alternatives on Hickory
263 Point. Mr. Wescott asked Mr. McLendon if the lines depicted on the graphic are
264 now officially considered alternatives. Mr. McLendon stated that they are potential
265 alternatives. Mrs. Sawyer asked what the three alternatives are. Mr. McLendon
266 explained that they consist of the current PCS proposal, the old Alternative B from
267 the last EIS, and the avoidance line produced by NCDWQ during the last EIS
268 process. He suggested that they not be called alternatives at this time, stating that
269 they are three possible options for mining Hickory Point. Mr. Furness stated that
270 they would be alternatives eventually, in some form or another. Mr. McNaught
271 requested that the old Alternative D from the last EIS process be added to the map,
272 pointing out that it is a less radical consumption of the peninsula than any
273 alternatives that are currently on the graphic.
274
275 Mr. Wescott then asked how much acreage is incorporated into the current
276 PCS proposal. Mr. Smith indicated there is a total of 3,422 acres, which consist of
277 2,394 acres of wetland and 1,028 acres of upland. The group then took a short
278 break.
279
280 Upon returning, Mr. McLendon asked Mr. Dorney to explain the NCDWQ
281 avoidance line. Mr. Dorney explained that different types of wetlands have
282 different values. NCDWQ used its wetland evaluation system to classify the
283 wetlands in the area and used the results of this evaluation to draw a line that
284 avoids "Special Concern" wetlands. He added that NCDWQ tried to give some
285 consideration to economics. For example, some bottomland hardwood forest was
286 included in the area around Huddles Cut to help keep the mine plan economically
287 feasible. He further explained that NCDWQ had the N.C. Natural Heritage Program
7
288 look at one large Special Concern hardwood flat in the northeastern part of the
289 NCPC tract. It was determined not to be unique, therefore, NCDWQ allowed this
290 area to be included in the mine area. Mr. Dorney pointed out that the impact
291 acreage tables (produced and distributed by CZR) show that the NCDWQ line
292 avoids most of the bottomland hardwood forest. He then noted that the Tar-
293 Pamlico Buffer Rules are now in effect, so the line may have to be moved to
294 exclude stream origin points. Mrs. Sawyer stated that the basis of the exclusion
295 zone was to protect wetlands. She added that the NCDWQ now has different
296 stream criteria, which may exclude more area. Mr. Smith asked that these points
297 be determined and added to the exclusion line, so that there is only one NCDWQ
298 line. Mr. Dorney stated that the applicant can appeal to the Director of NCDWQ if
299 they do not accept the stream origins as called, and added that further appeals
300 would be directed to the Office of Administrative Hearings.
301
302 Mr. Furness stated that he would like to get to the point where CZR and the
303 Corps could start setting alternative boundaries based on avoidance input from the
304 group. He mentioned the old alternatives B and D as options, but stated he cannot
305 imagine more than four alternatives on Hickory Point resulting from the process.
306 Mr. McNaught said there could be a fifth alternative, one that allows for no more
307 mining on the Hickory Point peninsula after completion of the currently permitted
308 Alternative E. That would require moving on to the next most viable option,
309 probably the area south of Highway 33.
310
311 Mr. McNaught stated a need to develop a meaningful way to relate the range
312 of alternatives to each other. He emphasized that alternatives should be similar
313 enough to each other to be compare in a valid manner, and that a mechanism
314 needs to be devised to look at abbreviated alternatives as legitimate alternatives.
315 He stated that one way to focus the Project Area is to limit it to the NCPC tract,
316 and examine alternatives there. He then listed the following possible alternatives:
317 1) complete consumption of the peninsula, 2) the current PCS Phosphate proposal,
318 3) old Alternative B, 4) the NCDWQ avoidance proposal, 5) old Alternative D, and
319 6) no action on the peninsula. Mr. McNaught added that he is not proposing this
320 focus on the NCPC tract alone, because it forces consumption of the peninsula.
321 Mr. McLendon stated that he has felt all along that the group would look at
322 Alternatives off of the NCPC tract, adding that this is the collective wish of the
323 group.
324
325 Mr. Wicker stated that mining should occur in a straight line, instead of
326 attempting to skirt the creeks, which ruins the watershed anyway. He added that
327 it is an incorrect assumption that wiggling around the creeks would protect the
328 water quality. He suggested that if mining in the NCPC tract occurs, then it is
329 preferable to mine a few watersheds fully and mitigate for them, instead of
8
330 impacting all watersheds on the peninsula. Mr. Lekson stated that something
331 similar to the 1000' Alternative E land trade proposed by PCS Phosphate in 2000
332 could be used as an alternative that would embrace that concept.
333
334 Mr. McNaught asked about the environmental features of the Bonnerton area
335 and the area south of Highway 33. He also asked what the remainder of the 30
336 contour area looks like if areas that make sense to mine are isolated. Mr. Smith
337 showed him a graphic from a previous meeting, which illustrated the early possible
338 alternatives within the 30 contour. Mr. Karriker mentioned that the delineation is
339 not yet complete for the area south of Highway 33. Mr. Smith and Mr. Karriker
340 stated that in the Bonnerton area, streams are currently being examined by
341 NCDWQ, and wetlands have been delineated. Mr. McLendon then stated that the
342 area south of Highway 33 and the Bonnerton area will be considered in some form,
343 adding that not much acreage remains in the Bonnerton area. Mr. McLendon also
344 remarked that the group has talked about potential alternatives, but a decision
345 needs to be made, as a group, on what needs to be considered, and that there
346 should be some limit on variations. Mr. Smith asked if he should discuss the area
347 south of Highway 33 and show the locations of the areas of environmental
348 concern. He stated that there will be some alternatives there and the group should
349 know what is in the area. Mr. Karriker then used an aerial photo to give a brief
350 overview of the Southern Area boundary, as well as the wetlands, streams, and
351 other features contained therein.
352
353 Mr. Wicker asked if alternatives and mitigation packages can be considered
354 together, so the endpoint of the process can be seen. He stated that it is known
355 the environment will be degraded, but just how much is not known. He added that
356 he fears the degradation will be awful. Mr. McLendon mentioned that it is
357 appropriate to consider mitigation options, but mitigation is not an appropriate
358 factor to consider in the selection of the avoidance alternative. He added that the
359 feasibility of using the reclamation and capping process to restore some semblance
360 of a watershed to the creeks needs to be a part of the discussion, and that the
361 long-term condition of Hickory Point needs to be considered. Ms. Alsentzer stated
362 that the price tag for mitigation should be part of the evaluation of economic
363 viability as well. Mr. McLendon added that capping is part and parcel of the
364 discussion, and that Hickory Point will have to be left in some productive use after
365 mining has been completed.
366
367 Mr. McNaught noted that the alternatives are the most critical part of the
368 document, and he expressed concern that the group was getting a little ahead of
369 itself by looking at potential alternatives. He explained that this was a point of
370 extreme frustration during the last EIS because many of the things presented as
371 alternatives last time were not legitimate. He urged the group to start with a
9
372 focused area, then within that area look at what is proposed and how to extend it
373 to plan mining for the rest of the Project Area, following the same environmental
374 protection principles. Several alternative principles could be carried through the
375 entire Project Area. For example, the principles of environmental protection
376 followed in the current PCS proposal could be applied to the entire Project Area to
377 determine how much of it would be mined. This process could then be followed
378 using different principles (i.e., the NCDWQ exclusion line, or other principles,
379 including the "no action" principle). This would give a range of alternatives where
380 each is comparable to the others. Mr. McNaught urged the group to be patient in
381 the development of alternatives and not to come up with a group of alternatives
382 based on a biased approach such that one alternative automatically makes more
383 sense than the others.
384
385 The meeting concluded with a brief discussion of the cadmium issue. Mr.
386 Wicker passed out two handouts pertaining to cadmium capping. He stated that
387 the USFWS's research on the matter yielded a range of cap depths that could be
388 appropriate. He noted that the USFWS made recommendations in the handouts.
389 He also noted that PCS and the agencies involved need to think about what types
390 of vegetation should go on the cap. Mr. Wicker then concluded by saying that the
391 paper outlines the information available in the literature, and it is time to make a
392 decision. Mr. Furness mentioned that PCS is still waiting for input from Dr. Rufus
393 Chaney (one of the two experts hired by PCS to research the issue concurrently
394 with the USFWS research). Mr. Wicker urged PCS to put pressure on Dr. Chaney
395 for the input. Mr. Furness noted that PCS and Dr. Terry Logan (the other expert
396 hired by PCS) have been pressuring Dr. Chaney for his input, so far to no avail.
397
398 The meeting adjourned at approximately 12:15 p.m. If you feel that we
399 have omitted or inaccurately depicted any of the issues that were discussed, please
400 , submit your comments to us in writing. Please list the appropriate page and line
401 numbers in your comments.
10
Distribution
Mr. Scott McLendon Mr. William A. Schimming
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Potash Corp.
Wilmington District P.O. Box 3320
Post Office Box 1890 Northbrook, IL 60062
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Terry Baker
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Ms. Kathy Matthews
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Section-Region IV
Wetlands Management Division,
61 Forsyth Street Southwest
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Ms. Mary Alsentzer
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
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. 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
Mr. David M. Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. William J. Biddlecome
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
11
J
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Mr. Tom Augspurger
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Ms. Deborah Sawyer
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Jim Mulligan
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Roger Thorpe
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Ross Smith
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Floyd Williams
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Ms. Joan Giordano
Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuarine
Program
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
12

Mr. William Wescott
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Frank McBride
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
4552 Winstead Store Road
Nashville, NC 27856
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. David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road
Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Jimmie Overton
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Ed Lynch
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tracy Davis
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Ms. Shannon Deaton
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1721
Mr. James M. Hudgens
CZR Incorporated
140 Intracoastal Pointe Drive
Suite 301
Jupiter, Florida 33477-5064
13

l
rfztes?
Sko-nnay
FCnvl Fie,% to C
BaLh-
7e
c
??? Cow
Ste-
t
, ( ,
A 11
9t --
?eC; ? sp w^E
P65 ?*JrP;07r
F-
F'W, f?.? 64AO--
N CAN r< ,c
NcwR(-
?jC W'Rc_
-pe's PKosplok
XINF - 11GD
,?Cm_
.vG1n

?2-11 ??/ib /
L?v,P- -
Asa J-2a $oZe-ID
R?fta -7211
?19- FYI--z60!
gigl X33- 3(, 3 3
'951 9iu - VIS 1
a5-2-4571 -as 4
2' ;L - `3,-zR - 3
o2.sa 7.2l 6-a 96
Z.?3z- q4I.---
E bli? i*') I (o -- ZS l H TZS'
(2,1,2-
Nea,9/i,?2v
CZR
QQS-2),?i(6-6wl xzrl
C?I Y,gZ - T2S3
FSZ ?7y/ iyel x-,,33,'

2 !- i Y(. -6 - N f
-"t19 - 733-99(o 0

PCS
Phosphate A U R O R A
PCs PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
P.O. BOX 48, AURORA, NC U.S.A. 27806 DIRECT [phone] FAX: [phone]
February 21, 2002
William T. Cooper, Jr. Federal Express
General Manager Phosphate Operations
Aurora Division
Mr. Charles Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director, Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Re: PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Mine Permit 7-1
Blend Reclamation Modification Request
Response to NCWRC Memo Dated 8/16/01 on Cadmium Issue
Dear Mr. Gardner:

The issue of cadmium in relation to PCS Phosphate's gypsum/clay blend reclamation areas has
been discussed for several years, with major studies performed to scientifically determine if there
is any risk to wildlife utilizing these reclaimed lands. Previously you received copies of the
December 1999 report entitled "Final Report for the Cadmium and Other Metals Study On or
Adjacent to PCS Phosphate Reclamation Areas R-1, R-2, R-3 and the Charles Tract", and the
April 2000 report entitled "The Bioaccumulation of Cadmium in Earthworms Exposed to Soil
Taken from PCS Phosphate Reclamation Areas".
In a letter to you, dated June 27, 2001, PCS Phosphate requested approval of a modification to
Mine Permit 7-1 to allow the placement of a layer of bucketwheel spoil on top of the gyp/clay
blend of the R-4 Reclamation Area. A response was received from Tracy Davis in a letter dated
August 24, 2001, stating that more information was needed to continue processing the permit
modification. The information DLR requested included reviewing the contents of an August 16,
2001 memo from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and issuing a
detailed response to the issues raised in the NCWRC memo.
PCS contracted with Dr. Rufus Chaney of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) in
Washington, DC, and Dr. Terry Logan, recently retired from Ohio State University, both
recognized experts in the field of cadmium and heavy metal risk assessment and.remediation.
They were asked to review the NCWRC memo and an April 2001 draft report done by the
Raleigh office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) entitled "Significance of
Cadmium in the Terrestrial Environment On and Adjacent to PCS Phosphate Mine Reclamation
Lands".
Enclosed is a copy of Dr. Logan and Dr. Chaney's reports. Please consider pages 28-35 of Dr.
Chaney's report as the PCS required response to the issues raised in the NCWRC memo. In
IV] E a. D
F .'--R 2 2 2002
summary, Dr. Logan concludes that the hazard quotients of 5 or 6 determined by the USFWS in
their risk assessment are too high,, and should be closer to 1, and the NCWRC's recommendation
of a three to four foot cap of overburden is not scientifically based. However, he does state that
long-term exposure of wildlife to gyp/clay blend would likely result in the accumulation of
cadmium to levels above background. Dr. Chaney concludes that the high initial concern about
risks from vermifore (earthworm-eating) wildlife was based upon approaches to risk evaluation
which are recognized to contain flaws, and that the field data do not indicate that wildlife are at
risk from soil cadmium on the PCS sites.
Both Drs. Chaney and Logan offer some alternatives for PCS to consider in order to minimize
any perceived cadmium risk in the future. Based upon these alternatives, and after reviewing the
recommendations from various environmental agencies and considering the logistics of our
operation, PCS Phosphate proposes to cap gypsum/clay blend reclamation areas with
overburden, beginning with R-4, such that at least 70% of the surface of each subsequent
reclamation area will be covered with an average of two feet of overburden. This should provide
an excellent margin of safety for any perceived risk to wildlife. Again, Dr. Chaney concludes
that the levels of soil cadmium currently present at the surface of the reclamation areas are not
high enough to indicate risk to wildlife.
In addition, in a June 20, 2001 letter to you from Scott McLendon of the Corps of Engineers,
Scott requested coordination with DLR to determine an appropriate course of action that will
address the cadmium issue to both agencies' satisfaction. It is anticipated that this PCS proposal
will be acceptable to both DLR and the Corps, and will allow for a coordinated response.
If you have any questions on this matter, please call Jeff Furness at [phone] or Ross
Smith at [phone].
Sincerely,
William T. Cooper, Jr.
WTC/jcf
Enclosures
pc: (all w/enclosures)
Tracy Davis, NCDLR
Scott McLendon, USACOE
Tom Augspurger, USFWS
Mike Wicker, USFWS
William Wescott, NCWRC
Frank McBride, NCWRC
Floyd Williams, NCDLR
12-04-001-56
15-04-006-08
e-mail: T.J. Regan, Jr.
W.A. Schimming
J.A. Podwika
T.L. Baker
R.M. Smith
J.M. Waters
J.C. Furness
D.J. Millman
K. Muron
I.K. Gilmore
G.W. House
UAWW Personal Files\FURNESS\Gardner\DLR Cadmium Response.doc
CERTIFIED MAIL
December 10, 2001
Mr. Scott C. McLendon
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Re: Response to letter of November 26, 2001
Dear Mr. McLendon:
We have received and reviewed your letter of November 26, 2001.
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. ("PCS Phosphate") has considered your request to remove
open waters from the project area and to accept the definition of Public Trust waters
advanced by several state agencies. PCS Phosphate continues to believe the definition of
Public Trust waters advocated by these agencies is without basis in law. PCS Phosphate
will endeavor to resolve this dispute; however, PCS Phosphate does not believe that this
dispute over the proper interpretation of a state law issue should delay the processing of
the permit application. With regard to the alternative of mining the open waters of the
Pamlico River, PCS Phosphate believes that this alternative should be identified as being
within the Project Area and analyzed in the NEPA documents; however, PCS Phosphate
is willing to delay detailed consideration of this alternative if other suitable alternatives
can be identified.
PCS Phosphate maintains that the Project Area should be defined as the un-mined portion
of the Aurora Area (mine ratio 30 contour). The Aurora Area has been defined based on
ore characteristic data obtained from actual geologic sampling. The Aurora Area is of
sufficient size to provide the opportunity to evaluate other alternatives as determined
through the EIS process.
PCS has considered the issue you have raised regarding the parenthetical phrase
("approximately 20 years") in the proposed Purpose and Need. Due to the size of the
investments in property, personnel, and equipment, it is essential that a long-term
systematic and cost effective mine advance is provided through this permitting process.
However, PCS does not believe there is any problem considering other long-term
alternatives which may be more or less than 20 years.
PCS Phosphate requests that the Corps make a determination of "Purpose and Need" and
"Project Area," regardless of whether consensus on these matters can be achieved, and
then proceed with the development of alternatives for evaluation. Please continue to
communicate through Ross Smith (252-322-8270) or Jeff Furness (252-322-8249) during
this permitting process.
Sincerely,
William T. Cooper, Jr.
General Manager, Phosphate Production
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Mr. William T. Cooper
Vice President/General Manager
Phosphate Production
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc
Post Office Box 48 _
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Dear Mr. Cooper:
As you are aware, the Corps of Engineers, in cooperdon with interested State and Federal
resource agencies and various environmental organizations have participated in several scoping
meetings where the purpose and need and project area for the proposed PCS mine continuation
was discussed. By e-mail dated September 24, 2001 we solicited agency comment and
concurrence on these two threshold items critical to the NNEPA decision making process. As you
are no doubt aware, a great deal of concern has been expressed by the agencies regarding PCS
Phosphate's determination of the limits of Public Trust and the inclusion of open waters in the
proposed project area. That concern was reflected in the response to our request. We share their
concern that the interpretation by PCS Phosphate of the limits of Public Trust is not consiswnt
with interpretation of this rule by the State of North Carolina and that this issue will impede the
progress of the current discussions regarding your proposal including bringing closure to
definition of project area.
Accordingly, we suggest that you consider removing open water areas, as defined by the
State of North Carolina, from your proposal such that the project area would include all areas
inside the limits of the 30-contour (the Aurora Area), with the exception of open water areas in
the Pamlico River, South Creek and its tributaries. We strongly feel that this definition would
facilitate the review of your proposal while not affecting the alternatives that may be considered
in the EIS.
=z
We have also reviewed the purpose and need statement for the proposed project that was
provided in the application dated August 13, 2001.
-2-
As you may be aware, concern has also been expressed over th e 20-year time frame as described
in the purpose and need statement. We note that potential alternatives on Hickory Point that
avoid open waters may not provide enough reserve to last 20 years. Although a 20-year mine
plan appears to be reasonable, in the event that including this time frame within the purpose and
need statement unreasonably limits available alternatives, we will consider expanding that
element of the purpose and need statement
If you have any questions or comments regarding this correspondence, please do not hesitate
to contact me in the Wilmington Regulatory Division Office at 910-251-4725.
Sincerely, -
Scott McLendon
Regulatory Project Manager
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Ross Smith
Manager, Public Affairs
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mrs. Kathy Matthews
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Section-Region IV
Wetlands Management Division
61 Forsythe Street, SW
Atlanta Georgia 30303
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726 -
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. John Domey
Div' ion of Water Quality
V'?C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650

. r-
-3-
Mrs. Deborah Sawyer ?&,
WffUmm Wescott
Division of Water Quality ,
N.C. Wiikdlife Resources Commission
N.C. Department of Environment N.C. Dint of Environment
and Natural Resources and Nadal Resources
943 Washington Square Mall 943 Weston Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889 Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Terry Moore Mr. David Naught, Senior Policy Analyst
Division of Coastal Management Enviro ai Defense
N.C. Department of Environment 25M BI= Ridge Road, Suite 330
and Natural Resources Raleigh North Carolina 27607
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889 Mr. Kent -ricker
CZR lncaied
Mr. Floyd Williams : 4709 Cope Acres Drive, Suite 2
Division of Land Resources Wilmington, -North Carolina 28403
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources Mr. David Rackley
943 Washington Square Mall National -Marine Fisheries
Washington, North Carolina 27889 Spice. -tOkA
219 Fort Johnson Road
Mr. Sean McKenna Charleston, South Carolina 29412-9110
Division of Marine Fisheries
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
[Fwd: FW: Response to letter of November 26, 2001]
Subject: [Fwd: FW: Response to letter of November 26, 20011
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 200108:18:16 -0500
From: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
Organization: DENR
To: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>, Tom Steffens <[e-mail]>,
John Dorney <[e-mail]>
Looks like PCS has dug their heels in on the project area issue. The
meeting on 12/17/01 will probably be "bloody".
See ya,
Deborah
Subject: FW: Response to letter of November 26, 2001
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:21:28 -0600
From: "McLendon, Scott C SAW" <[e-mail]>
To: "Alsentzer Mary (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Biddlecome, William J SAW" <[e-mail]>,
"David Moye (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Deborah Sawyer (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Floyd Williams (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Jeff Furness (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
John Dorney <[e-mail]>, "Karricker Kent (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Kathy Matthews (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Lekson, David M SAW" <[e-mail]>,
"McNaught Dave (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Mike Wicker (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Ron Sechler (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Ross M. Smith (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Sean McKenna (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
Terry Moore <[e-mail]>,
"William A. Schimming" <[e-mail]>,
"William Wescott (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>
To All:
Attached is the response from PCS to our letter dated November 26, 2001 regarding Purpose and Need and Project Area.
Please review prior to our meeting in Washington on Monday.
Scott McLendon
-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 1:52 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Response to letter of November 26, 2001
1 of 2 12/13/019:39 AN
[Fwd: FW: Response to letter of November 26, 20011
Scott:
We have received and reviewed your letter of November 26, 2001.
Our response is attached. The original signed document will be forwarded
to you via postal carrier.
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Thanks.
Ross
(See attached file: WTC response to COE letter 112601.doc)
Name: WTC response to COE letter
112601.doc
.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document
(application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
2 of 2 12/13/019:39 /
CERTIFIED MAIL
December 10, 2001
Mr. Scott C. McLendon
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Re: Response to letter of November 26, 2001
Dear Mr. McLendon:
We have received and reviewed your letter of November 26, 2001.
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. ("PCS Phosphate") has considered your request to remove
open waters from the project area and to accept the definition of Public Trust waters
advanced by several state agencies. PCS Phosphate continues to believe the definition of
Public Trust waters advocated by these agencies is without basis in law. PCS Phosphate
will endeavor to resolve this dispute; however, PCS Phosphate does not believe that this
dispute over the proper interpretation of a state law issue should delay the processing of
the permit application. With regard to the alternative of mining the open waters of the
Pamlico River, PCS Phosphate believes that this alternative should be identified as being
within the Project Area and analyzed in the NEPA documents; however, PCS Phosphate
is willing to delay detailed consideration of this alternative if other suitable alternatives
can be identified.
PCS Phosphate maintains that the Project Area should be defined as the un-mined portion
of the Aurora Area (mine ratio 30 contour). The Aurora Area has been defined based on
ore characteristic data obtained from actual geologic sampling. The Aurora Area is of
sufficient size to provide the opportunity to evaluate other alternatives as determined
through the EIS process.
PCS has considered the issue you have raised regarding the parenthetical phrase
("approximately 20 years") in the proposed Purpose and Need. Due to the size of the
investments in property, personnel, and equipment, it is essential that a long-term
systematic and cost effective mine advance is provided through this permitting process.
However, PCS does not believe there is any problem considering other long-term
alternatives which may be more or less than 20 years.
PCS Phosphate requests that the Corps make a determination of "Purpose and Need" and
"Project Area," regardless of whether consensus on these matters can be achieved, and
then proceed with the development of alternatives for evaluation. Please continue to
communicate through Ross Smith (252-322-8270) or Jeff Furness (252-322-8249) during
this permitting process.
Sincerely,
William T. Cooper, Jr.
General Manager, Phosphate Production
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
S
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
! ZR
SUITE 2
INCORPORATED WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
czrwilmOaol.com
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
MEMORANDUM t r x
See Distribution NOV
Kent Karriker, Jeff Coward
26 October 2001
Minutes of the 28 August 2001 meeting for the PCS Phosphate Mine
Continuation permit application review
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
The fourth 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 the Environment and Natural Resources on 28 August
2001. The meeting began at approximately 10:10 a.m. The following people were
in attendance:
Scott McLendon - USACE 18
David Lekson - USACE 19
Bill Biddlecome - USACE 20
Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate 21
Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate 22
Bill Schimming - Potash Corp 23
Terry Baker - PCS Phosphate 24
Deborah Sawyer - NCDWQ 25
Tom Steffens - NCDWQ 26
Jim Mulligan - NCDWQ 27
Terry Moore - NCDCM 28
Floyd Williams - NCDLR
Sean McKenna - NCDMF
Ron Sechler - NMFS
Mike Wicker - USFWS
William Wescott - NCWRC
Frank McBride - NCWRC
Joan Giordano - APNEP
David McNaught - ED
Mary Alsentzer - PTRF
Kent Karriker - CZR Incorporated
Jeff Coward - CZR Incorporated
Kathy Matthews of USEPA participated via telephone.
Mr. McLendon called the meeting to order and gave a brief summary of
topics on the agenda. Mr. Smith handed out a detailed map of the revised
proposed mine continuation and a map showing the general location of the
proposed mine continuation.
1
140 INTRACOASTAL POINTE DRIVE • SUITE 301 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5064
TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • czrjup0aol.com

37 The discussion began with a progress update on the reclamation area
38 capping issue. Mr. Smith informed the group that the bucket wheel excavator
39 (BWE) is now discharging pre-strip material onto R-4. The pre-strip material will
40 serve as a cap to isolate the cadmium-enriched blend material that was used to
41 reclaim R-4. Mr. Smith noted that a crescent-shaped area around the northern
42 boundary of R-4 likely would not get covered with pre-strip material because of
43 limitations of the equipment being used to place the material. Mr. McLendon asked
44 ' how big the non-covered area is and whether it can be fine-tuned. Mr. Smith said
45 that it depends on the angle of repose of the pre-strip material and the consistency
46 of the underlying blend. Mr. Smith handed out a copy of an aerial photograph
47 showing the locations of the various R-areas, and pointed out the current location
48 of the spreader on the dike between R-4 and R-5 (south side of R-4). Mr. Smith
49 explained that the cap material moves northward at its normal angle of repose from
50 the spreader location. The material does not move far enough to cover areas along
51 the northern boundary of R-4. An initial concern was that the cap material would
52 push the blend material up and out in front, but fortunately that has not been the
53 case. Mr. Wicker inquired about the thickness of the cap. Mr. Smith responded
54 that it is 30 to 40 feet thick at the spreader location, and gradually thins out as
55 distance from the spreader increases. Mr. Wicker asked what depth the cap
56 material comes from. Mr. Furness responded that it comes from 0 to 35 feet deep,
57 which is the depth of the pre-strip section. Mr. McLendon asked if it is possible to
58 spread the cap material with heavy equipment. Mr. Smith said that right now, the
59 material is not firm enough to support heavy equipment, and that PCS Phosphate
60 must wait until the placement of the material is complete to see if the material will
61 firm up enough to spread it. Mr. Furness added that this is a new process, and
62 PCS Phosphate is learning from it. Other methods may be used in other places. R-
63 4 presented a good opportunity to learn because the equipment was in the right
64 place at the right time, which is why PCS Phosphate asked for approval to use pre-
65 strip material on R-4, and for comments from the agencies on cap thickness,
66 methods, etc.
67
68 Mr. McBride indicated that the NCWRC cannot concur with any additional
69 mining until PCS Phosphate figures out how to go back and cap R-1, R-2, and R-3.
70 Mr. Furness expressed a desire to continue working on Project Area issues
71 associated with the current permit application so that alternatives selection and EIS
72 document preparation can get going. He indicated that resolution of the cadmium
73 issue (relative to the last permit) can proceed concurrent with review of the current
74 permit application. Mr. Wicker added that the group needs to be careful to ensure
75 that devising a solution to the cadmium problem does not cause additional
76 problems!, and that the group needs to be flexible in solving the issue. Mr.
77 McLendon indicated that he did not want the cadmium issue to be a hang-up for
2
78 the current permit review process. Mr. Wescott reminded the group that the
79 agencies and PCS Phosphate have been working on the cadmium issue since 1995;
80 it needs to be resolved before moving on to another permit.
81
82 Mr. McNaught asked the PCS Phosphate representatives to review the three
83 alternative capping procedures. He stated his recollection that two of the three
84 methods were not practical, and asked Mr. Furness and Mr. Smith to confirm
85 ` whether this is the case. Mr. Furness said that that was not necessarily the case.
86 Mr. Smith reviewed the three methods: 1) BWE/conveyor/spreader system, which
87 is being used right now in R-4, 2) hydraulic transport (i.e., pumping through
88 pipelines), and 3) hauling with trucks, pans, or other transport vehicles. Mr. Smith
89 indicated that the hauling option is the most cost-prohibitive. He also said that the
90 BWE system is being used now because R-4 is adjacent to the active mine, and it
91 is easy for the BWE system to dump the pre-strip material into R-4. Right now, no
92 other parallel processes are being tested. The BWE or other equipment must feed a
93 hydraulic transport system, and none of that equipment is in the proper position to
94 feed a hydraulic system right now. Mr. Furness added that R-8 is very far from the
95 mine and cannot be capped using the BWE system. Therefore, hydraulic transport
96 may have to be used for capping R-8.
97
98 Mr. McNaught asked the PCS Phosphate representatives to give a brief
99 overview of the reclamation process. Mr. Smith summarized the following steps:
100 1) prestripping using the BWE, 2) removal of the remaining overburden and mining
101 of the ore using draglines, 3) constructing a dike of sand tailings around the pit to
102 an elevation of about +40 feet MSL and filling of the pit with the clay/gypsum
103 slurry to about original grade. Mr. Furness added that there is some variation in the
104 final elevation of the blend; R-4 was filled to near normal ground elevation (about
105 +10 feet MSL), but R-5 likely will be more elevated (about +50 feet MSL). The
106 cap on R-4, as it is currently being applied with the BWE system, will result in a
107 final elevation of about + 10 feet MSL (cap of zero thickness) farthest from the
108 spreader, up to a final elevation of about +40 feet MSL (30-foot-thick cap) nearest
109 the spreader.
110
111 Mr. Smith noted that the sands tend to settle out closest to the spreader,
112 while finer-textured materials spread farther out. This differential settling has the
113 potential to create habitat diversity on the capped areas. Mr. Smith reiterated that
114 the current capping process will leave a crescent-shaped uncapped area around the
115 northern edge of R-4, and that it is not known how long the material will have to
116 consolidate to allow equipment access for spreading the material. Mr. Furness
117 added that PCS Phosphate has had internal meetings about how to tailor
118 reclamation area plantings to the habitat diversity created by the differential settling
3
119 of the cap material. Research needs identified include soil sample transects and
120 vegetation studies to determine which plant species grow best in which areas of
121 the capped reclamation areas. Mr. Wicker noted that the current (uncapped)
122 reclamation areas are very homogeneous, and that the prospect of creating habitat
123 diversity on the capped reclamation areas is good. He added that he is interested
124 in getting most of the area fixed, and that this is not the type of problem that
125 necessarily requires that every square inch be covered. Mr. McNaught asked how
126 ' PCS is going to get topsoil on top of the pre-strip material that is used for the cap.
127 Mr. Smith responded that they are not putting topsoil on the cap. Mr. Wicker
128 noted that capping with a mixture of materials from the top 35 feet of the
129 overburden will result in a diversity of fertile and non-fertile sites. He is glad that
130 PCS Phosphate is interested in working with the habitat diversity that results from
131 the capping process, but he noted that habitat diversity is not necessary for solving
132 the cadmium problem. Any kind of physical barrier will solve the cadmium
133 problem. Mr. Furness indicated that PCS Phosphate could use GPS technology to
134 delineate and map sandy areas and clayey areas, and that this information could be
135 used in planning how to revegetate the reclamation areas. Mr. McLendon recalled
136 that a portion of R-1 had an experimental topsoil plot on it, and he asked if that
137 was similar to what currently is being done on R-4. Mr. Furness and Mr. Smith
138 answered that the type of topsoil application that was done on a small part of R-1
139 is not what currently is being done on R-4.
140
141 Mr. McLendon indicated that the USACE position probably will be that the
142 cap material must be spread out to cover the entire reclamation area to a minimum
143 thickness of 3 feet. Mr. Furness said that PCS Phosphate would like to see some
144 information to back up the 3-foot thickness. Mr. Smith added that 3 feet was a
145 preliminary discussion number that needs to be further refined and justified. Mr.
146 Wicker noted that 3 feet was an "off the hat guess." He said that the required cap
147 thickness should be based on the rooting depth of the dominant vegetation, and he
148 offered for the USFWS to perform a literature search on the issue. Mr. McLendon
149 noted that if the USFWS is willing to do it and PCS Phosphate is comfortable with
150 it, then he is comfortable with the USFWS researching the cap thickness. Mr.
151 Wicker was charged with researching the issue and providing results to the group.
152
153 Mr. McLendon asked what the state position is on the capping issue, and he
154 further inquired whether anyone had spoken to Charles Gardner (Director of
155 NCDLR) about it. Mr. Wescott quoted a passage from the NCDLR mining permit
156 that stated that remedial action will be taken to remedy the cadmium problem.
157
158 Mr. Schimming stated that everyone knows that cadmium is elevated in the
159 blend, but that there still is a need to know what that means in terms of problems
4
160 with the food chain. Mr. Wicker mentioned the presentation that Tom Augspurger
161 (USFWS toxicologist) gave during the 18 April 2001 meeting, and asked Mr.
162 Schimming if the presentation did not present an adequate case that cadmium is a
163 problem. Mr. Mulligan stated that Mr. Augspurger's presentation had addressed
164 the issue well enough to identify a problem, and the issue now is what level of
165 effort is necessary to solve the problem. Mr. Schimming noted that the Charles
166 Tract, which is the area of land that has been reclaimed for the longest period of
167 time, appears to be teeming with wildlife, and no one has presented evidence that
168 the wildlife is ill. Mr. Wicker countered that just because an area has a high
169 density of wildlife, it does not necessarily mean that the wildlife is healthy. Mr.
170 Wescott stated that the cadmium study commissioned by PCS Phosphate just
171 looked at cadmium concentration in the organs, and did not consider whether the
172 concentrations were causing any damage to the animals. Mr. Mulligan said that
173 Mr. Augspurger used conservative estimates in his risk assessment and still gave a
174 convincing case that there is a problem with cadmium. Mr. Wicker said that he
175 thought the group had already identified the problem and had moved on to
176 determining how to solve it. Mr. Schimming indicated that the group needs to
177 review the extent of the problem, e.g., are there problems in deer, shrews, etc.?
178 Mr. Wicker said that USFWS could bring Mr. Augspurger back to review the issue
179 again, but that such an action would be going far back to a part of the process that
180 the group thought they had already settled. Mr. Schimming reminded the group
181 that capping is expensive, and he noted that certain N.C. State University scientists
182 have shown that most of the biological action in the soil profile is in the top 6
183 inches. Mr. Wicker indicated a willingness to consult with and listen to academic
184 experts on the subject. He indicated that he does not want to base management
185 actions on conjecture.
186
187 Ms. Alsentzer asked how long the USFWS literature review would take. Mr.
188 Wicker stated that it would take a few weeks to a month. Mr. McLendon asked
189 Mr. Wicker to review the available literature and information on plant uptake and
190 soil depths, which Mr. Wicker agreed to do. Mr. McLendon emphasized that he
191 does not want the group to get into a circle of trading conflicting reports back and
192 forth -- we should look at the current state of the knowledge and make a decision.
193 Mr. McBride brought up the case of a site in New York that he is familiar with that
194 is contaminated with cadmium at 100 times background levels. EPA is cleaning up
195 that site at taxpayer expense, an outcome that Mr. McBride would like to avoid
196 here.
197
198 Mr. McLendon pointed out that we have an issue with the Alternative E
199 permit that says cadmium must be addressed, but we also have to deal with
200 cadmium in the context of the current permit application. Mr. Lekson added that
5
201 this issue is not just related to the old permit; it could hang up the current process.
202 Mr. Wicker stated that the USFWS is looking for a technically defensible cap -- they
203 are not trying to make the cap thicker just to cost PCS Phosphate more money.
204
205 Mr. McLendon asked the group if enough existing information is available to
206 make a decision, or if we need to consider studying the issue further and collecting
207 additional data. Mr. Wescott and Mr. Wicker answered that enough existing
208 information is available to make a decision.
209
210 Mr. McLendon asked Mr. Williams about the status of PCS Phosphate's
211 requested mine permit change to allow capping of R-4 and subsequent areas with
212 pre-strip material. Mr. Williams responded that the request is under review and
213 that Charles Gardner had given approval via e-mail to begin capping R-4. He
214 further stated that NCDLR had sent out the permit modification request for
215 comment, had received comments from NCWRC, and had sent those comments to
216 PCS Phosphate with a request to address them. Mr. McLendon requested that
217 NCDLR copy the USACE on all correspondence related to the cadmium issue. Mr.
218 Baker reminded the group that when the mine permit modification request was
219 made, the BWE spreader was in a good position and it made good sense from a
220 materials balance standpoint to cap R-4 in that manner. He emphasized that this
221 method is not the only possible choice for capping future areas.
222
223 Mr. McLendon then asked if anyone had any cadmium issues to discuss
224 relative to the aquatic environment. Mr. Wicker said the USFWS has gotten the
225 aquatic information together and still needs to look at it in totality to be sure, but
226 their current feeling is that there is no problem with groundwater, surface water, or
227 sediment. He added that their review should be complete in a month or so. Mr.
228 McNaught asked under what circumstances there is not a problem. Mr. Wicker
229 stated that the level of cadmium in the groundwater is not problematic. Mr.
230 McNaught asked how it is possible to assess runoff when we are not sure what
231 kind of landscape the water will be running off of. Mr. Wicker indicated that Mr.
232 Augspurger was surprised there is not more aquatic information available, but that
233 he feels there is enough information to assess the issue. Mr. Sechler stated that he
234 had spoken with an expert on cadmium in estuarine systems (David Engle, retired
235 from NMFS), and he was not sure there would be a problem with cadmium in the
236 aquatic system. Ms. Sawyer stated that there are two aquatic issues that need to
237 be addressed: toxicity due to cadmium in the water column, and toxicity due to
238 bioavailability in the food chain. Mr. Furness reminded the group that the study
239 commissioned by PCS Phosphate had an entire aquatic component to it that
240 studied metals in the surface water, ground water, sediments, and aquatic
241 organisms. Mr. Mulligan said that the reason the USFWS pursued the terrestrial
6
242 side of the issue was because the aquatic cadmium numbers were not very high.
243 Mr. McNaught brought up Dr. Stanley Riggs' (ECU) report that showed high levels
244 of cadmium in the estuary. Mr. Furness stated that Mr. Augspurger has that report
245 and is considering it. Mr. Furness reminded the group that the cadmium
246 enrichment noted in Riggs' report likely was related to aspects of the milling
247 process that have changed in recent years, and thus are no longer contributing to
248 cadmium enrichment. Mr. Wicker noted that the conclusion that cadmium is
249 ' present does not necessarily translate into a problem with the estuary. Ms.
250 Sawyer stated that toxicity problems are harder to quantify in the estuarine
251 environment because of the high mobility of the animals that live there. Mr.
252 Karriker responded that the PCS Phosphate study had included Rangia clams,
253 which are sedentary and have the opportunity to accumulate any cadmium that
254 they are exposed to.
255
256 The discussion then turned back to the mine permit modification request to
257 allow PCS Phosphate to cap using pre-strip material. Mr. Wescott noted that
258 NCDLR gave PCS Phosphate permission to begin capping R-4 before the other state
259 agencies had an opportunity to review and comment on the request. Mr. Williams
260 responded that Mr. Gardner's e-mail response to PCS Phosphate was a preliminary
261 response, and that it stated that a formal response will be given after formal state
262 review of the request. Mr. Baker added that the request had to be processed
263 quickly because the equipment was in the right place to allow capping on R-4. Mr.
264 Lekson expressed concern that the capping moved ahead without the thickness
265 issue being completely settled, and that the 30 to 40-foot depth of the cap could
266 be wasting valuable cap material that could be used elsewhere.
267
268 Mr. McLendon then steered the discussion toward Project Area issues. Mr.
269 Smith handed out a booklet containing nine graphics depicting the information that
270 PCS Phosphate uses to assess ore characteristics and determine areas that are
271 feasible for mining. The graphics had been sent via e-mail to the group prior to the
272 meeting, but many group members did not receive them or were unable to open the
273 files. The first graphic showed the three phosphate districts, as were shown on
274 graphics handed out in earlier meetings. Mr. Smith stated that the group had
275 eliminated the two districts in the Atlantic Ocean from detailed consideration.
276
277 The second graphic showed the Aurora Phosphate District and the Aurora
278 Area overlaid on a USGS base. Mr. Smith noted that the Aurora Phosphate District
279 covers approximately 270,000 acres, while the Aurora Area covers approximately
280 70,000 acres. For comparison, he noted that the Project Area for the last EIS
281 process was 14,200 acres. Mr. Wescott asked how much land PCS Phosphate
282 controls. Mr. Smith said that he does not know.
7
283
284 The third graphic presented showed a scatter plot of drill holes (geologic
285 sample locations) in the Aurora District. The greatest density of drill hole locations
286 is in the Aurora Area, but there are other drill holes scattered throughout the
287 Aurora Phosphate District.
288
289 The fourth graphic showed the depth of the phosphate ore relative to the
290 ground surface; it showed that the ore is most deeply buried in the eastern and
291 southeastern portions of the Aurora Phosphate District.
292
293 The fifth graphic displayed ore grade contours. Ore grade is defined as
294 percent P2O5 times ore thickness in feet. A higher ore grade means more available
295 P2O5. Mr. Smith pointed out that the best grade ore is under the Pamlico River, and
296 the next best grade is under the NCPC Tract and South Creek. Mr. McLendon
297 asked if the small 5-contour near the south end of the Aurora area is the Reserveco
298 Tract. Mr. Furness indicated that it is.
299
300 The sixth graphic showed mine ratio contours. Mine ratio is mine depth
301 divided by ore thickness times grade times density. Mr. Smith said that lower
302 numbers on this graphic indicate more economical conditions for phosphate mining.
303 The 30 contour on this graphic defines the Aurora Area. Within the Aurora Area,
304 the graphic depicted areas that already have been mined or currently are permitted
305 for mining. Mr. McLendon asked about the significance of the 30 contour. Mr.
306 Smith responded that the 30 contour represents the limits of any area that could
307 possibly be economical to mine in the foreseeable future using any currently known
308 mining method. Mr. Furness added that the 30 contour considers only the
309 characteristics of the ore itself; it does not consider other economic factors such as
310 overburden characteristics and transport distance to the mill, both of which can
311 greatly affect the economic feasibility of a mine alternative. Mr. Smith stated that
312 the 30 contour is a very liberal assessment of economic feasibility, and that there
313 are areas within that contour that currently are not economically feasible to mine.
314 Mr. McNaught asked for clarification on whether the mine ratio calculation is
315 related to the location of the plant. Mr. Smith responded that it is not. He further
316 explained that the mine ratio is a resource evaluation only. When PCS Phosphate
317 investigates the economics of mine alternatives, they must account for transport
318 distances and overburden characteristics. Mr. McNaught asked if PCS Phosphate
319 controls much land beyond the 30 contour. Mr. Furness and Mr. Smith responded
320 that they likely control some land beyond the 30 contour, but not very much. Mr.
321 McLendon asked if it would be feasible to mine in Hobucken if the processing
322 facility was located there. Mr. Furness responded that it would not, because the
323 ore is too deeply buried.
8
324
325 The seventh graphic showed a close-up view of the outline of the Aurora
326 Area, along with the areas that have already been mined or are currently permitted
327 for mining. The eighth graphic showed the tons of P2O5 per acre in situ in the
328 Aurora Area. Red represents the highest amounts of P2O5 per acre, while green
329 represents the lowest. Mr. Smith noted that some of the best ore left is on the
330 NCPC Tract, which is why PCS Phosphate is interested in mining it.
331 `
332 The ninth graphic showed ore transport distances from the plant overlaid on
333 the Aurora Area outline. Mr. McLendon asked how much it costs per mile to pump
334 ore to the plant. Mr. Smith could not remember the exact numbers, but stated that
335 they are contained in the minutes from a previous meeting.
336
337 Mr. Smith indicated that his purpose for presenting all of the information
338 contained in the graphics was to enable the group to take the next step and define
339 the Project Area, and he indicated that he would like to entertain a discussion of
340 the Project Area. Mr. McNaught indicated that he would like to exclude all areas of
341 surface water from the Project Area, and he asked how much of the 70,000-acre
342 Aurora Area would be left. Mr. Smith responded that he did not know how much
343 of the Aurora Area is covered by surface waters. Mr. Furness stated that about
344 10,000 to 12,000 acres of the Aurora Area is occupied by the plant site, the active
345 mine and currently permitted areas, and reclamation areas. Thus the portion of the
346 Aurora Area that has not already been mined is approximately 58,000 to 60,000
347 acres. Mr. McNaught reiterated that he would like to get surface water areas off
348 the table now. Mr. Mulligan reminded the group that wetlands are considered
349 surface waters. Mr. McNaught indicated that he is trying to help define the Project
350 Area by eliminating actual water bodies; wetland avoidance will be a later step in
351 the process. Ms. Sawyer asked how much of the prospective Project Area is open
352 water, wetlands, etc. Mr. Smith replied that it is not yet known because the
353 wetlands and waters delineations are ongoing. He indicated a desire to define
354 alternatives first, then quantify the possible impacts of those alternatives. Mr.
355 Smith further explained that what PCS Phosphate has applied for is only a small
356 portion of the prospective Project Area, and that significant other areas remain to
357 be evaluated. He stated that the area south of Highway 33 would be one of those
358 areas. Mr. McLendon asked if the area south of Highway 33 is bigger than the
359 Hickory Point proposal. Mr. Furness responded that the area south of Highway 33
360 is larger because the ore is poorer, therefore they would have to mine a larger land
361 area to produce enough concentrate for a long-term mine plan.
362
363 Mr. Smith then handed out a graphic depicting the following possible mine
364 continuation alternatives: 1) the NCPC Tract, which contains about 80 million tons
9
365 of concentrate in the currently-proposed mine plan, 2) the area south of Highway
366 33 which contains about 55 million tons of concentrate, 3) the area west of the
367 existing mine (remainder of Alternative C from the last EIS), which contains an
368 unknown tonnage of concentrate that is likely to be significantly less that the area
369 south of Highway 33, 4) the Pamlico River lease, which contains about 50 million
370 tons of concentrate, and 5) the Reserveco property, which contains an unknown
371 tonnage of concentrate. Mr. Wescott inquired about concentrate tonnage in the
372 Reserveco Tract. Mr. Smith responded that the concentrate tonnage for the
373 Reserveco property probably could be estimated from existing data. Mr. Smith
374 then emphasized the need to define the Project Area before exploring alternatives.
375 Ms. Sawyer asked if PCS Phosphate has proposed or intends to propose the above
376 possibilities as alternatives. Mr. Smith and Mr. Furness responded that these are
377 possibilities, but they have not been proposed yet. Mr. McLendon indicated a
378 desire to consider additional alternatives within the NCPC Tract, as well as multiple
379 alternatives within the other tracts. Ms. Sawyer stated that the area south of
380 Highway 33 appeared to include many areas of prior-converted cropland and
381 otherwise drained land, the implication being that this area may be a good wetland.
382 avoidance alternative. Ms. Sawyer also suggested that PCS Phosphate look back
383 at NCDWQ's avoidance map for the NCPC Tract, which was produced during the
384 last EIS process. Ms. Sawyer had copies of the avoidance map made, which were
385 distributed to the group later in the meeting. She suggested overlaying it on the
386 current proposal to see how it compares. Mr. McLendon and Mr. Smith
387 acknowledged that such a line may be considered as an alternative. Mr. McLendon
388 brought up the issue of importing ore, and said that he recalled Mr. Smith saying
389 that it would be evaluated in the EIS. Mr. Smith said that it would, but the Project
390 Area needs to be defined first.
391
392 Mr. McLendon said that when the Project Area is defined, alternatives are
393 limited to that area, and he is not ready to shut the door entirely on the Project
394 Area issue. He added that the current proposal of the Aurora Area as the Project
395 Area seems reasonable, but perhaps a disclaimer to allow other considerations in
396 the future would be appropriate. Mr. Wicker noted that a disclaimer could result in
397 alternatives being defined outside the Project Area later in the process. Mr. Sechler
398 asked the group if it is reasonable to include the Pamlico River and South Creek in
399 the Project Area when alternatives in these waters are unpermittable. He added
400 that as far as NMFS is concerned, these waters are off-limits. Mr. Smith asked
401 whether NMFS disapproval of mining in open waters is based on policy or law,
402 considering the possibility that this project may be water-dependent. Mr. Sechler
403 indicated he would have to talk to his superiors before answering that question.
404 Mr. Wicker stated that mining in the river is not a viable option, and that the group
405 needs to get on with the process. There are many legal issues that could be
10
406 addressed, but the group needs to move forward in good faith.
407
408 Mr. McNaught acknowledged PCS Phosphate's vision of the Project Area as
409 the Aurora Area, and then offered an alternative: 1? exclude the Pamlico River and
410 South Creek, and 2) extend the boundary in the remaining areas outward by 2
411 miles. The 2-mile extension is intended to prevent exclusion of possible
412 alternatives simply because a certain area is too narrow.
413
414 Mr. Schimming asked Mr. Furness if the river was included in the Project
415 Area for the last EIS. Mr. Furness responded that it was not. Mr. McBride asked
416 how PCS Phosphate could mine the river without doing serious irreparable damage.
417 Mr. Furness said that during the 1980s, PCS Phosphate had developed a plan to
418 mine the river using a system of cofferdams. He added that this plan prompted the
419 formation of PTRF. Mr. McBride asked how the river would be reclaimed. Mr.
420 Furness said that they probably would fill the pit with sand tailings, then let the
421 river cover it. Mr. Smith added that PCS Phosphate does not know exactly how
422 they would mine the river, just as they do not know how to mine the area south of
423 Highway 33. Mr. Wicker indicated a desire to limit the process to the
424 consideration of reasonable alternatives, which would be a better use of time. Mr.
425 McNaught responded that such limitations could exclude huge areas of the Aurora
426 Phosphate District from consideration.
427
428 Mr. Smith explained how he envisioned the Project Area definition process
429 proceeding. First, the begins with consideration of all three phosphate districts.
430 This large area of initial consideration is narrowed down through evaluation and
431 discussion. Areas outside of the Aurora Area are considered, but are eliminated
432 because of feasibility problems. Mr. McNaught said that he will agree that the
433 group is not considering Frying Pan Shoals, and he will agree that the group is not
434 considering economically infeasible alternatives. However, he also is looking for
435 agreement that the river is not feasible.
436
437 Mr. Schimming asked Mr. McLendon if it is possible to leave the meeting
438 today with a Project Area defined. Mr. McLendon responded that a final definition
439 of the Project Area at this meeting is not likely, though we do have a good idea
440 where the Project Area issue is going. He added that the EIS must address
441 reasonable alternatives. The river may be reasonable to PCS Phosphate, but not to
442 the rest of the group, while the area south of Highway 33 may be reasonable to
443 the group, but not to PCS Phosphate. He further stated that the group cannot say
444 it is not going to look at an alternative, but at the same time it should not waste
445 time evaluating alternatives that are not economically feasible. Ms. Sawyer
446 responded that Alternative A was evaluated in the last EIS, even though it was not
11
447 likely to be permitted. (Alternative A was a maximum ore recovery alternative that
448 involved mining through several tributaries to South Creek and the Pamlico River.)
449 Therefore, seemingly unfavorable alternatives do not have to be excluded from
450 evaluation.
451
452 Mr. McLendon stated that the group needs to be comfortable looking at
453 alternatives within the area shown in the map package handed out by Mr. Smith.
454 He then asked what problems the group has with the current Project Area proposal
455 (Aurora Area). Ms. Matthews asked what the orange area is at the bottom of the
456 graphic that displays possible alternatives. Mr. Furness responded that the orange
457 area is the Reserveco property. Ms. Matthews asked if PCS Phosphate owns the
458 Reserveco property. Mr. Furness and Mr. Schimming responded that they do not.
459 Ms. Sawyer asked if PCS Phosphate can purchase the Reserveco property. Mr.
460 Schimming said with enough money, probably so.
461
462 Mr. Lekson encouraged the group to get back to the decision point. He
463 stated that ultimately, the group must make a decision. Once the decision is made,
464 going back is counter-productive. Mr. Schimming asked if everyone around the
465 table could agree to an area and finalize the Project Area today. Mr. McNaught
466 asked PCS Phosphate to prepare a graphic showing their land ownership and/or
467 control in the area. He reasoned that if the impracticability with the Reserveco
468 property is the land cost, then the group needs to know what other viable
469 alternatives exist in other areas. Mr. Schimming responded that PCS Phosphate
470 can provide information on the percentage ownership of the various alternative
471 blocks. Mr. McNaught suggested starting with a large area, such as the Aurora
472 Phosphate District, and looking at what PCS Phosphate owns or otherwise controls
473 within that area. The land ownership/control pattern could be used to help draw
474 the Project Area boundary. Mr. Baker interjected that the general complaint about
475 the Project Area for the last EIS was that it was too narrow, so this time PCS
476 Phosphate has tried to make it bigger. Mr. McNaught countered that there is no
477 point in including areas that are not practicable from an economic or environmental
478 standpoint. He added that the land ownership/control information would allow
479 evaluation of his 2-mile expansion proposal. He indicated that after such an
480 evaluation, he would be willing to make an agreement on a Project Area.
481
482 Mr. Mulligan suggested to PCS Phosphate that if they want to come up with
483 a Project Area today, NCDWQ's NCPC Tract avoidance map would be a good place
484 to start. Mr. Schimming responded that PCS Phosphate does not agree with the
485 NCDWQ avoidance line becoming part of the Project Area definition. Mr. Mulligan
486 cautioned that if PCS Phosphate wants a permit in a reasonable time, they should
487 not put up targets that ensnare them in a vicious back and forth debate over
12
488 whether areas can be considered. He suggested that they exclude from the Project
489 Area any sensitive areas that they do not really intend to mine. Mr. Schimming
490 stated that it is logical to put forth a Project Area proposal that has some scientific
491 basis in mining, such as the 30 mine ratio contour that defines the Aurora Area.
492 He asked if an agreement could be reach if an acceptable Project Area proposal is
493 on the table. Mr. Furness added that the process is stalled until the Project Area is
494 defined. Ms. Alsentzer expressed concern over including environmentally
495 'unacceptable areas in the Project Area. She stated that if such areas are included
496 in the Project Area, they become part of an alternative, which could put the group
497 in the position of having to choose one of several alternatives that all contain
498 environmentally sensitive areas. Ms. Sawyer stated that the group can still develop
499 additional alternatives within the Project Area. Mr. Furness added that it would be
500 unlikely for the USACE to allow a situation where none of the alternatives
501 contained adequate avoidance of sensitive areas. Mr. McLendon said that the
502 USACE cannot arbitrarily tell PCS Phosphate to stay out of particular areas. Such
503 directives get into the realm of alternatives analysis, not Project Area analysis.
504
505 Mr. Schimming asked the group if anyone thinks that the process will result
506 in a permit to mine South Creek. Mr. McNaught responded that he does not. He
507 further indicated that he is willing to narrow the Project Area to the Aurora Area if
508 the Pamlico River is excluded. Mr. Wicker added that he will not approve a Project
509 Area with the river in it. Mr. McLendon suggested that everyone take a lunch
510 break to digest and consider all of the information regarding Project Area that has
511 been presented and discussed.
512
513 The group broke for lunch from 12:25 a.m. to 1:35 p.m. Due to a prior
514 commitment, Mr. Wicker was not able to rejoin the group after lunch.
515
516 After lunch, Mr. McLendon indicated his intention to sol.icit written
517 comments concerning the Project Area. He stated that the USACE. would consider
518 those comments for approximately a month, then render a decision. Mr.
519 Schimming asked if there was something the group could look at this afternoon
520 that would be useful in reaching a decision on the Project Area. Mr. McLendon
521 responded that much information has been presented, and that the Project Area
522 already has been narrowed down quite a bit. He stated that his personal
523 preference is to get comments in writing. Mr. Schimming said that he does not like
524 the four to six week delay, but PCS Phosphate will go along and will submit
525 comments along with everyone else.
526
527 Mr. Lekson asked why the 30 mine ratio contour was used to define the
528 Aurora Area, rather than some other contour, such as the 40 or 50. Mr.
13
529 Schimming stated that he would be more willing to go along with a Project Area
530 based on the 40 contour than one that includes an arbitrary 2-mile extension
531 beyond the 30 contour. He and Mr. Smith added that the 30 contour represents
532 the outer boundary of anything that is possibly economically feasible to mine in the
533 foreseeable future. However, if the USACE decides to go to the 40 contour based
534 on group input, then that is where the Project Area line is, and PCS Phosphate will
535 evaluate it. Mr. Smith stated that PCS Phosphate would have to prove in the
536 alternatives analysis that the 40 contour is not economically feasible. Mr.
537 McLendon stated that he would prompt everyone with an e-mail and would like to
538 have everyone's comments within a month.
539
540 Mr. Schimming took the opportunity to clarify an exchange regarding
541 cadmium he had earlier with Mr. Wicker. Mr. Schimming stated that he
542 understands that cadmium has an impact and that capping of the reclamation areas
543 is needed. He further stated that PCS Phosphate will, through its consultants,
544 conduct a literature review concurrent with the USFWS literature review on the
545 proper cap thickness. Mr. Schimming explained that PCS Phosphate needs to be
546 comfortable with the final cap thickness because of the expense involved with
547 capping.
548
549 The discussion then moved to the revised permit application. Mr. McLendon
550 asked PCS Phosphate to explain the location of the revised proposed mining
551 alignment and the rationale behind it.
552
553 Ms. Sawyer stated that NCDWQ cannot accept the application until the
554 NEPA process has been completed. Mr. Moore indicated that NCDCM also cannot
555 accept the application until the NEPA process has been completed. However, Mr.
556 McLendon stated that the USACE cannot issue a Record of Decision and permit
557 until NCDWQ issues a 401 Water Quality Certification. He acknowledged that
558 there is some disagreement between the Corps and NCDWQ about when the
559 permit processing time limit starts. Ms. Sawyer stated that 401 Certification for
560 the last (Alternative E) mine advance was not issued until the USACE permit was
561 issued. However, Mr. Furness stated his recollection that the 401 Certification
562 was issued in May 1997, while the USACE permit was issued in August 1997.
563
564 Mr. Smith then explained the revised permit application cover letter and the
565 associated map showing the revised proposed mining alignment (copies of the map
566 were handed out to the group). Mr. Smith stated that the new mining alignment
567 boundary was based on avoidance of Public Trust Waters, and that the upper limits
568 of Public Trust Waters had been determined in the field by PCS Phosphate. Mr.
569 Smith noted that the cover letter contains language for the Purpose and Need
14
570 statement. Otherwise, the permit application has not changed, except for
571 differences in impact acreages due to the Public Trust Waters avoidance areas.
572 Mr. Lekson asked if the revised application includes any open water. Mr.
573 McLendon answered that it includes 4 acres of open water, and Mr. Smith pointed
574 out the table of impact acreages on the map of the revised proposed mining
575 alignment. Ms. Sawyer asked how open water areas were determined, since
576 determinations of the upper limits of streams have not been completed yet. Mr.
577 Karriker explained that open water areas were mapped from an aerial photograph
578 during the last EIS process, thus they include only open waters that were visible on
579 aerial photographs. Ms. Sawyer noted that NCDWQ considers all stream channels
580 to be open water. Mr. McLendon asked how navigability was determined. Mr.
581 Furness responded that a 16-foot-long johnboat with a 25-horsepower outboard
582 motor was driven up each creek until it bottomed out. The point where it
583 bottomed out was chosen as the upper limit of navigability. Mr. McKenna noted
584 that the NCDCM definition of navigability is different. Mr. McLendon stated that
585 the difference potentially could be significant, and asked how far the PCS
586 Phosphate-determined limits are from the NCDCM-determined limits. Mr. Furness
587 explained that it was not possible to determine the exact difference on all creeks
588 because the upper limits of Public Trust waters (as defined by NCDCM) have not
589 been surveyed and monumented on some creeks. Mr. McLendon asked if there are
590 differences on any creeks. Mr. Furness responded that the PCS Phosphate-
591 determined limits differ from the NCDCM-determined limits on all creeks, and that
592 the differences range from less than 200 feet on some creeks to approximately
593 1000 feet on others.
594
595 Ms. Sawyer reminded the group that NCDWQ will require stream impacts to
596 be quantified as linear footage in addition to acreage. She also stated that a
597 distinction must be made between impacts to perennial streams and impacts to
598 intermittent streams.
599
600 Mr. Furness and Mr. Smith noted that the Public Trust avoidance areas in the
601 revised proposed mine advance reduced the total concentrate tonnage from
602 approximately 93 million tons to approximately 80 million tons.
603
604 Mr. McNaught stated that he liked Ms. Sawyer's idea of overlaying the
605 NCDWQ NCPC Tract avoidance map on the revised proposal as a way of defining
606 avoidance areas. He also indicated that other layers depicting possible avoidance
607 areas, such as Wetland Areas of Special Concern (WASC), could be overlaid on the
608 current proposal. Mr. Smith indicated that the USACE needs to tell PCS Phosphate
609 which layers to overlay. Mr. Lekson reminded the group that other special concern
610 areas likely would need to be identified and evaluated in other parts of the Project
15
611 Area. Ms. Sawyer noted that the NCDWQ NCPC Tract avoidance map was
612 developed before the Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules were implemented, and that any
613 proposal based on the avoidance map may require stream buffer mitigation.
614
615 Mr. McLendon asked Mr. Sechler if the revised proposal still involved
616 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) concerns. Mr. Sechler responded that it does, but he
617 is not sure of the extent. At a minimum, all areas that NCDM has claimed
618 jurisdiction over are EFH, and there probably are other areas as well. Mr.
619 McLendon asked if the majority of the open water impacts are in Huddy Gut and
620 Huddles Cut. Mr. Furness responded that most of the open water impacts are in
621 Huddles Cut, and that the CAMA impacts in Huddy Gut mostly are brackish marsh.
622 Mr. McLendon indicated that the revised proposal has not eliminated concerns over
623 the Public Trust Waters issue. Mr. Sechler asked if a freshwater (i.e., inland)
624 Primary Nursery Area (PNA) has a defined upper limit. Mr. McBride and Mr.
625 McKenna answered that an inland PNA includes all of the open water area of the
626 specified creek, and does not have a well-defined upper limit. Mr. McLendon asked
627 if the revised proposal still includes the Project Area I mitigation site. Mr. Furness
628 said that it includes part of Project Area I, but it avoids all of Project Area Il.
629
630 Mr. Smith asked Mr. McLendon when the Public Notice for the revised
631 permit application would come out. Mr. McLendon said that it should come out the
632 following week. Mr. Sechler asked if it would be out for a 15-day or 30-day
633 review. Mr. McLendon indicated that it would be a 30-day review. Mr. Moore
634 asked Mr. McLendon if the USACE endorses PCS Phosphate's interpretation of
635 Public Trust Waters. Mr. McLendon stated that the USACE does not endorse that
636 interpretation.
637
638 Mr. McLendon told the group that he wants to ensure that the public is
639 aware of the scoping process in a formal way. He indicated that USACE does not
640 intend to have a public meeting on the scoping process, but they need to put out a
641 notice of intent to publish an EIS, which is supposed to precede the scoping
642 process. He indicated that the USACE probably will issue more Public Notices
643 when major issues come up (e.g., alternatives). These Public Notices are intended
644 to ensure that the USACE does not make decisions without allowing adequate
645 opportunity for public input. Mr. McLendon stated that while nothing is final until
646 the permit is issued, keeping the public informed may help facilitate agreement as
647 the process progresses, thereby avoiding hang-ups later.
648
649 Mr. Schimming asked if the Public Notice on the revised permit application
650 would mention the decrease in total ore recovery from 93 million tons to 80 million
651 tons. Mr. McLendon answered that it could. Mr. Furness stated that the Public
16
652 Notice should explain the major changes from the original permit application, and
653 the decrease in ore recovery is a major change. Mr. McLendon indicated that a
654 Public Notice generally does not provide a great deal of detail; it identifies the
655 proposed project, summarizes the impacts, and asks for comments.
656
657 Mr. McNaught noted that wetland impacts in the current proposal added to
658 wetland impacts authorized by the last permit (Alternative E) total 3,657acres. He
659 further noted that Alternative B from the last EIS process, which included much of
660 the same land area as Alternative E and the current proposal combined, would have
661 impacted 3,069 acres. He then asked what accounted for the extra acreage in the
662 current proposal plus Alternative E. Mr. Smith answered that the best way to
663 illustrate the difference is to overlay Alternative B on the current proposal. Mr.
664 McNaught added that he is not suggesting an "Alternative B" as an alternative to
665 the current proposal, rather, he just wants to understand how the current proposal
666 relates to past requests.
667
668 Mr. McLendon suggested that PCS Phosphate begin looking at
669 environmentally sensitive areas in other parts of the Project Area, and begin
670 drawing possible alternative lines now. He reasoned that this would help expedite
671 the process when alternatives analysis begins. Mr. Smith replied that a Project
672 Area boundary needs to be defined first. Mr. Furness added that wetlands
673 delineations, biotic communities mapping, and other resource inventories need to
674 be completed in other parts of the Project Area before sensitive areas can be
675 identified. Mr. Smith suggested that perhaps mapping or other information that is
676 already in the public domain could be used for a preliminary identification of
677 sensitive areas. Mr. McLendon agreed that in terms of a landscape level
678 delineation, much can be done with existing resources. Mr. Furness that PCS
679 Phosphate and CZR have a good idea of the resources in the area south of
680 Highway 33, but that resources in other parts of the potential Project Area are not
681 well-known. Mr. McLendon asked the group if anyone had thought about
682 alternatives in addition to those potential alternatives that had already been brought
683 up. He asked the group members to consider the question and let him know their
684 ideas.
685
686 Mr. McKenna asked who will work on the definition of navigability, noting
687 that the current application is not consistent with the law. Mr. McLendon said he
688 is not making a statement on that issue. Right now, the USACE will just say that
689 the current proposal is what PCS Phosphate wants to do. Mr. McKenna asked if
690 the Public Trust issue would be left up to the courts to decide. Mr. McLendon
691 responded that he does not like the current proposal, because he believes the
692 Public Trust dispute will slow down the process; however, he is not sure how to
17
693 resolve the issue. Mr. Moore said that the state Attorney General's office has
694 given a definition of navigability; will we go to the Attorney General and say that
695 PCS Phosphate has its own definition of navigability? Ms. Sawyer asked where the
696 johnboat that PCS Phosphate used to determine navigability came from. Mr. Smith
697 responded that it is an interpretation of the law, just like the hypothetical canoe
698 used by NCDCM. Ms. Sawyer stated that the Public Trust issue needs to be
699 resolved before permit review begins. Mr. McLendon said that he will ask the
700 USACE's legal counsel whether they can entertain the proposal knowing that there
701 are Public Trust issues. He further stated his belief that they probably can. Mr.
702 McLendon then read a passage from CEQ's "40 questions" document that stated
703 that a potential conflict of local and federal law does not render an alternative
704 unreasonable, but such conflicts must be considered. He then said that if the
705 agencies cannot agree with PCS Phosphate's proposed alternative and there are no
706 other viable alternatives, the permit must be denied.
707
708 Mr. McBride said that it is hard to consider another permit when cadmium
709 issues on R-1, R-2, and R-3 have not been resolved. Mr. McLendon stated that R-
710 1, R-2, and R-3 were not covered by the existing USACE permit, therefore the
711 USACE has no authority over those areas. Mr. McNaught read a passage from the
712 Alternative E permit that said that, regarding cadmium, PCS Phosphate would take
713 any remedial action directed by the USACE. Mr. McLendon reiterated that the
714 USACE can only consider what was authorized under that permit. R-1, R-2, and R-
715 3 did not require a USACE permit. Mr. Smith and Mr. Furness added that R-4 and
716 R-5 did not require USACE authorization, either, but PCS Phosphate plans to cap
717 those areas voluntarily. Mr. Wescott asked Mr. Williams how, in good conscience,
718 the state can issue additional mine permits without the cadmium issue being
719 resolved. Mr. Williams stated that Charles Gardner would have to resolve that
720 issue.
721
722 Mr. Wescott noted that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
723 (RCRA) and Superfund address cadmium, and he asked Ms. Matthews if EPA is
724 involved with the cadmium issue at PCS Phosphate. Ms. Matthews said that she is
'725 not aware of any EPA involvement with the PCS Phosphate cadmium issue. Mr.
726 Wescott indicated that he believes EPA has the authority to get involved and force
727 a cleanup. Ms. Matthews said it depends on where the cadmium is and what the
728 levels are. She stated that there are different criteria for human health versus
729 aquatic toxicity. Ms. Sawyer asked if mining overburden is considered a waste
730 according to RCRA and Superfund. Mr. Schimming stated that EPA had studied
731 mining extensively in the 1980s, and as a result of those studies, all mining in the
732 United States is regulated under RCRA. Ms. Matthews indicated that she would
733 follow up with the RCRA and Superfund people to see whether they are able and/or
18
734 interested in getting involved.
735
736 Mr. McKenna asked if PCS Phosphate plans to cap R-4 and all subsequent
737 reclamation areas. Mr. Smith answered that they are capping R-4 as previously
738 described, and they are continuing to develop methods for capping other areas.
739 Mr. Wescott asked when ,the group can have a meeting to discuss and settle the
740 cadmium issue. Ms. Sawyer suggested that it could be done at the next group
741 1 meeting. Mr. McLendon cautioned again that the group needs to understand the
742 USACE's authority in the process -- many areas are not covered by the USACE's
743 permitting authority. Mr. McKenna stated that if mined land cannot be reclaimed
744 adequately, then there is no reason to consider the next permit. Mr. McBride
745 agreed. Mr. Schimming countered that solving the cadmium problem is what the
746 group just charged USFWS with researching. He suggested allowing USFWS to
747 complete their literature review, then have a meeting to settle the issue. Mr.
748 Wescott stated that the meeting also needs to address R-1, R-2, and R-3. Mr.
749 Lekson suggested that Mr. Wescott's supervisor discuss the issue with Mr.
750 Williams' supervisor to see how far the R-1, R-2, R-3 issue can be pursued. Mr.
751 Schimming again stressed the need to obtain the scientific information before
752 meeting to resolve the cadmium issue. Mr. Furness emphasized the need to
753 consider the level of risk. If there is some cadmium left at the surface, the process
754 needs to consider whether that presents enough risk to worry about. Mr.
755 Schimming indicated a desire to separate the cadmium issue from the review of the
756 current permit application. He stated that there are other issues in the current EIS
757 process that can proceed parallel to the cadmium process.
758
759 Ms. Alsentzer asked whether the information from USFWS would be
760 distributed prior to the next meeting or presented during the next meeting. Mr.
761 McLendon said that he is not sure of USFWS's time frame. Mr. Lekson suggested
762 that he send USFWS a formal letter requesting the literature review.
763
764 Mr. McLendon asked for clarification of whether PCS Phosphate intends to
765 cap from R-4 on through all other reclamation areas. Mr. Schimming stated that
766 PCS Phosphate is looking for direction from the USACE. He added that PCS
767 Phosphate does not want to commit to a specific remedy until there is a scientific
768 basis for it. Mr. Lekson stated that the next permit would have a condition
769 regarding cadmium that is more specific than the condition in the last (Alternative
770 E) permit. Mr. Baker stated that PCS Phosphate has complied with reasonable
771 conditions regarding reclamation before. As an example, he cited the clay capping
772 of R-2 and R-3, which was required as a condition of PCS Phosphate's mine permit
773 (administered by NCDLR).
774
19
775 The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:55 p.m. No date was set for the
776 next meeting. If you feel that we have omitted or inaccurately depicted any of the
777 issues that were discussed, please submit your comments to us in writing, prior to
778 the next meeting, with a copy to each person on the distribution list. Please
779 reference the appropriate page and line numbers in your comments.
20
Distribution
Mr. Scott McLendon Mr. William A. Schimming
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Potash Corp.
Wilmington District P.O. Box 3320
Post Office Box 1890 Northbrook, IL 60062
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Terry Baker
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Ms. Kathy Matthews
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Section-Region IV
Wetlands Management Division,
61 Forsyth Street Southwest
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Ms. Mary Alsentzer
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. David Moye
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mail
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
Mr. David M. Lekson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. William J. Biddlecome
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
21
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Mr. Tom Augspurger
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Ms. Deborah Sawyer
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Jim Mulligan
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Roger Thorpe
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Ross Smith
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Floyd Williams
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Ms. Joan Giordano
Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuarine
Program
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
22
Y
Mr. William Wescott
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Frank McBride
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
4552 Winstead Store Road
Nashville, NC 27856
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. David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road
Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Jimmie Overton
Division of. Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
23
ZR
INCORPORATED`
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
,M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TO: See Distribution
FROM: Kent Ka( A, Jeff Coward
DATE: 7 August 2001

RE: Minutes of the 30 May 2001 meeting for the PCS Phosphate Mine
Continuation permit application review
The third 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 the Environment and Natural Resources on 30 May 2001.
The meeting began at approximately 9:20 a.m. The following people were in
attendance:
Scott McLendon - USACE
Deborah Sawyer - NCDWQ
Bob Zarzecki - NCDWQ
Jimmie Overton - NCDWQ
Tom Steffens - NCDWQ
Tom Augspurger - USFWS
William Wescott - NCWRC
David Moye - NCDCM
Sean McKenna - NCDMF
Floyd Williams - NCDLR
Charlie Adams - PTRF
David McNaught - ED
Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate
Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate
Bill Schimming - Potash Corp.
Kent Karriker - CZR Incorporated
Jeff Coward - CZR Incorporated
Kathy Matthews of USEPA participated via telephone.
Mr. McLendon called the meeting to order and began with the announcement
that David McNaught of Environmental Defense (ED) has joined the review team.
Mr. McLendon requested input for future meeting agendas from the various
agencies represented.
Mr. McLendon asked Ms. Sawyer for an update on the stream
determinations made on the NCPC tract during the 29 May 2001 field meeting
r ?? n. +? 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
ai SUITE 2
WILMIY?N, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
czrwllm0aol.com
1
140 INTRACOASTAL POINTE DRIVE • SUITE 301 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5064
TEL [phone] FAX [phone] • czrjup®aol.com
26
27
28
29
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
between NCDWQ, PCS Phosphate, and CZR. Ms. Sawyer stated that wetness
conditions were not too different from normal and that DWQ's upper limits were
not much different than the limits CZR had flagged. She added that a relocated
tributary to Jacob's Creek, which had caused some confusion during the field
meeting, would be claimed as an intermittent stream. Mr. Karriker then gave a
brief overview of areas covered and areas yet to cover. Mr. Zarzecki asked to see
the wetland delineation of the NCPC Tract. Mr. Karriker pointed out to him the
wetlands map in the last EIS. Ms. Sawyer suggested that there have been
hydrologic changes since this delineation, and that the USACE may wish to re-
assess some areas. Mr. McLendon said they might re-visit areas on a case-by-case
basis if there were significant impacts, but he is not interested in pursuing very
small changes.
Mr. McLendon requested an update on the revised application for the PCS
Phosphate Mine Continuation permit. Mr. Smith said the revisions were not ready
yet because scheduling and equipment problems have hindered Public Trust waters
calls from being made. When Public Trust calls have been made, a project line can
be established, CZR can determine impacts, and the revised permit can be
submitted. Mr. Smith said the revised permit is probably at least a month away, if
all goes well.
Mr. McLendon asked Mr. Moye if NCDCM needs to be involved in the Public
Trust calls early on. Mr. Moye said they have offered to help. Mr. Moye also
pointed out that only on Jacobs Creek and Tooley Creek were the upper limits of
CAMA jurisdiction established by the upper limits of coastal wetlands. On all other
creeks, the upper limits of CAMA jurisdiction were determined by the upper limits
of Public Trust waters. He thinks these calls are still accurate and stands by them.
The need to look at Jacobs and Tooley and set Public Trust limits was emphasized.
Mr. Augspurger asked if PCS Phosphate had done the research to determine
a "case law" definition of Public Trust (i.e., navigable waters). Mr. Furness said
they did not find a definition, but PCS Phosphate's counsel feels the current
regulation is not supported by the statute. He stated that the call depends on the
definition of navigability, but the type of craft the lawmakers had in mind when the
statute was written was not defined. Mr. Augspurger asked what craft is an
alternative to a canoe. Mr. Furness suggested the average pleasure or fishing craft
of approximately 16-17 feet in length with an outboard motor.
Ms. Sawyer asked Mr. Moye if Public Trust calls were consistent along the
coast. Mr. Moye answered yes, stating that the "canoe test" has been the
standard. Mr. Augspurger noted that the use of a boat with an outboard as the
2
67 standard for navigability would likely make a big difference in the Public Trust call.
68 Mr. Moye stated that PCS Phosphate had agreed to the Public Trust limits in the
69 last EIS and NCDCM is asking them to stand by that agreement. NCDCM will
70 stand by their calls and definitions, but he added that PCS Phosphate is welcome
71 to challenge them. Mr. Furness made the analogy to an old policy that once
72 defined Public Trust waters as waters subject to the "ebb and flow of the tide".
73 He stated that this was a long standing policy, but it was struck down. Just
74 because a policy is long standing does not mean it is correct.
75
76 Mr. Moye said he will make a call on Public Trust in Jacobs Creek and
77 Tooley Creek, but it does not remove the Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
78 associated with coastal wetlands upstream of Public Trust waters. Mr. Adams
79 asked if case law mentions a boat with an outboard. Mr. Furness replied no, and
80 Mr. Smith added that case law does not mention a canoe either.
81
82 Mr. McLendon asked about the time frame for the revised permit application.
83 Mr. Smith indicated that it would be at least a month.
84
85 Mr. Adams asked when calls on Public Trust waters in Jacob's Creek and
86 Tooley Creek would be made. Mr. Moye and Mr. Furness agreed to meet on-site to
87 make those calls within the next two to three weeks, when their schedules would
88 allow.
89
90 Mr. McLendon redirected the discussion to cadmium issues. Mr. Smith
91 mentioned Mr. Augspurger's two risk analysis presentations. He explained that
92 PCS Phosphate has made a preliminary evaluation of capping methods, and
93 described three possible methods for distributing the cap materials. The first
94 method involves conveyor transport used in conjunction with the bucketwheel
95 excavator, or a modification thereof. This is essentially a "dry" transport method.
96 The second method described was hydraulic transport. This method requires a
97 dredge, the bucketwheel excavator, or the dragline to feed the hydraulic system.
98 The material would be put in place in a slurry form. The third method involved
99 transporting the dry materials with trucks, pans, scrapers, etc. Mr. Smith indicated
100 that a long-term plan could be a hybrid of these three methods, with adjustments
101 to fit particular areas and timing. During the previous meeting, two different
102 capping scenarios were discussed. One was a cap one foot deep using topsoil.
103 The other was a three foot cap using material from the pre-stripping process. Mr.
104 Smith indicated that the one foot cap of topsoil was not a likely option, and that
105 PCS Phosphate is exploring options to develop a two to three foot cap composed
106 of pre-strip material. He noted that the final decision on thickness of the cap
107 would be up to the USACE.
3
108
109 Mr. Smith said PCS Phosphate is exploring options to cap future reclamation
110 areas. PCS Phosphate is not exploring options to cap areas that have trees
111 planted. R4 and later reclamation areas could be capped. Mr. Wescott asked how
112 much area R1, R2, and R3 cover. Mr. Furness indicated 1,700 acres.
113
114 Mr. Augspurger asked from what level the cap material will come. Mr. Smith
115 said the top 35 feet, if the capping process can be incorporated into the production
116 cycle. If not, then the cap material likely would come from shallower depths. Mr.
117 Smith stated that materials balance will be a concern, and pointed out that it is
118 necessary to consider the clay, gypsum, and sand materials stream.
119
120 Mr. Smith also noted that by volume, mining generates more material than
121 the volume of the hole (gypsum is low density). Mr. Smith also stated that the
122 process of capping must consider the water management system, which would
123 have to be altered to accommodate hydraulic transport of capping materials.
124 Another problem is equipment requirements and availability. If PCS Phosphate can
125 not use the production equipment, they would have to bring in other equipment.
126 He also stressed the importance of scheduling. Blend placement and settling would
127 have to be completed before capping could occur. Capping adds another step to
128 the reclamation process and will affect the reclamation plan. PCS Phosphate would
129 also have to look at the economics to see what makes the most sense from a
130 business perspective.
131
132 Mr. Furness added that from a biological perspective, the top 35 feet of
133 substrate has different layers, and will create a diversity of habitats, depending on
134 what layers are used. He said they (PCS Phosphate) would need to sample and
135 delineate the different substrate types and tailor planting accordingly. Mr. Smith
136 explained that in hydraulic transport, diversity is also created by the fact that sand
137 and heavier materials settle out around the point of discharge more rapidly, while
138 the clays continue to the center of the reclamation area.
139
140 Mr. Adams asked how much swell is present in the blend materials and how
141 long it takes for this swell to subside. Mr. Smith indicated approximately 20
142 percent swell. Trying to cap a reclamation area before the swell subsides could
143 push blend material up to the surface in the center of the reclamation area. Mr.
144 Smith indicated that there is a significant time period when reclamation areas will
145 have water on them. The area can not be capped during this time. He assumes
146 there is not a risk of the cadmium exposure during this time. Mr. Augspurger
147 stated that the aquatic cadmium data need to be reviewed. Mr. Karriker stated
148 that elevated levels of cadmium were found in surface waters and sediments on
4
149 the actual reclamation areas, but not in the waters around them. Ms. Sawyer
150 inquired as to where the reclamation areas will drain. Mr. Furness answered that
151 they will eventually drain out to the creeks, but while the areas are in development,
152 the water will be recycled internally. Mr. McLendon asked if the caps should be
153 thicker near drainage outlets to prevent water from cutting through the caps and
154 into the blend. Mr. Furness responded that reclamation plans to date have called
155 for using blend farthest away from the creeks, and using bucketwheel excavator
156 spoil closer to the creeks. Mr. Smith stated that in areas away from the creeks,
157 PCS Phosphate will plan to put in more material to account for the 20 percent swell
158 factor (i.e., the reclamation area will end up above grade). Nearer to the creeks,
159 less material will be used so that those areas end up at or near grade. This
160 arrangement will reduce the probability of erosion through the cap.
161
162 Mr. Moye asked if any topography will be established in the reclamation
163 areas. Mr. Smith indicated they may have the opportunity, depending on what
164 transport methods are used. Mr. Furness stated that the overall look of reclaimed
165 lands will probably be comparable to current reclamation sites. Mr. Smith stated
166 that topography is generally higher near the hydraulic discharge point, and lower
167 away from it. Mr. Furness added that there is some differential settling in
168 reclamation areas that often is not visible from the road. Mr. Moye asked if PCS
169 Phosphate was looking at re-establishing the natural ridge and swale system. Mr.
170 Furness responded that the Whitehurst Reclamation Area has a little of that
171 topography, and that PCS Phosphate can consider this issue. He added that overall
172 reclamation is relatively flat, but near the creeks they may be able to address
173 topography case-by-case.
174
175 Mr. Wescott then asked about the status of R1, R2, and R3. Mr. Furness
176 indicated that R1 is planted in trees. R2 will be planted in the winter of 2001-
177 2002. R3 is split into two halves. The northern half will be planted this year, and
178 the southern half is being used as a mine water clarification area for internal
179 systems. Mr. Adams asked if PCS Phosphate could cap R2 and R3. Mr. Furness
180 answered that PCS Phosphate does not want to cap over the trees and have to re-
181 do everything.
182
183 Mr. Wescott asked what tree growth is like on bucketwheel excavator spoil.
184 Mr. Furness said that this is not well-known because not much reclamation has
185 been done with bucketwheel spoil. He stated he is talking to Dr. S.W. Broome
186 about fertility work with wetland and upland vegetation on bucketwheel spoil. Mr.
187 Furness went on to say that spoil from a dredged area near Porter Creek was sent
188 to reclaim a pit in the southwest corner of the mine. At present it is too wet to get
189 on, but it could be used in the future for soil and vegetation research. Additionally,
5
190 he stated that the Porter Creek Wetlands Creation Areas (west of R1 and R3 along
191 the shore of Porter Creek) were planted on dredge spoil in the early 1990s. The
192 sites now have 10-year-old cypress trees that are 15 to18 feet tall. Mr. Furness
193 also added that in one area a mound of bucketwheel spoil was planted with loblolly
194 pines, which are growing well.
195
196 Mr. Wescott expressed concern with leaving 1,700 acres of reclamation
197 areas (131, R2, and 133) uncapped with high levels of cadmium. Mr. Augspurger
198 commented that the trees, which have already been ordered, could be planted at
199 high density in a small area, leaving more area open for capping. Mr. Furness
200 stated that the permit condition says that dealing with the cadmium issue is a
201 USACE regulatory decision. PCS Phosphate presented their ideas, now the solution
202 is up to the USACE. Mr. McLendon said the USACE has not decided on a final
203 solution. Ms. Sawyer asked if the agencies present would be allowed to comment.
204 Mr. McLendon indicated that this was likely, and that USFWS comments would
205 have the most weight.
206
207 Ms. Sawyer then asked if PCS Phosphate would need to coordinate with
208 NCDLR. Mr. Williams remarked that any reclamation modification would have to go
209 through them. Mr. Wescott asked if the State (NCDLR) could sign off on
210 reclamation if they know the area is harmful. Mr. Williams said that the decision
211 was up to Charles Gardner (Director of NCDLR).
212
213 Mr. Smith requested the agencies let PCS Phosphate know as issues arise in
214 order to maximize efficiency. He then mentioned that PCS Phosphate is already
215 moving forward and making appropriate changes that will allow R4 to be capped,
216 because equipment currently is in a location that allows it. Mr. Augspurger asked if
217 a time limit of a couple of weeks could be set on the comments for the capping
218 process.
219
220 Mr. McLendon asked Mr. Augspurger if cadmium would be isolated on the
221 current reclamation areas, over time, as leaf litter and organic debris build up on
222 the surface. Mr. Augspurger indicated that over geologic time this would occur,
223 but not over a reasonable amount of time. Mr. McLendon asked when R1 was
224 planted. Mr. Furness indicated from 1991 to 1995.
225
226 Mr. Adams asked if PCS Phosphate was favoring the use of bucketwheel
227 spoil to cap reclamation areas, since they have decided to cap R4 in this manner.
228 Mr. Smith said PCS Phosphate can cap R4 in this way without significantly
229 affecting production. If PCS Phosphate waited, this would not be the case.
230
6
231 Mr. Furness brought up an issue concerning NPDES permitting for the
232 reclamation areas. He said historically, reclamation areas have discharged through
233 NPDES-permitted outfalls. However, low gradient areas near creeks will not be
234 able to go through an outfall structure. Eventually, PCS Phosphate wants to
235 remove the NPDES outfalls and let the reclamation areas drain naturally to the
236 creeks. This will require coordination between DWQ (401 and NPDES groups), and
237 DLR. Mr. Zarzecki asked if PCS Phosphate is proposing any new NPDES outfalls or
238 ditches into existing outfalls. Mr. Furness stated that PCS Phosphate wants to
239 start putting water from reclaimed land into the Whitehurst Creek and Bailey Creek
240 relocation channels. He emphasized that the 401 Certifications require re-
241 establishment of drainage into these creeks. Mr. Furness identified a need for a
242 joint discussion with NCDWQ personnel about how to meet the 2003 restoration
243 mandate on Whitehurst. His main concern is whether the NPDES group will require
244 an outfall structure. He explained that this would be difficult because the channel
245 was constructed at a very low grade to allow wind-tide flooding. The low elevation
246 of the drainage outlet will not allow a weir for NPDES monitoring. A weir also
247 could impede movement of fish and benthic organisms.
248
249 Mr. Zarzecki stated that the ditch leading to the NPDES outfall for the NCPC
250 Tract, which DWQ examined on 29 May 2001 near Jacobs Creek, is having an
251 effect on the hydrology of the creek. Any similar new ditches need to be
252 evaluated. Mr. Furness indicated that the areas in question will be mined, and that
253 there are no plans to put in new ditches outside the permitted mine area.
254
255 Mr. Zarzecki asked if there were any groundwater concerns with cadmium.
256 Mr. Augspurger responded that fixing the terrestrial problems will fix any surface
257 aquatic problems, and the data have shown no big problem with groundwater. Mr.
258 Augspurger added, however, that there still needs to be a more thorough review of
259 the aquatic data.
260
261 Mr. McLendon asked what it would take to cap R2 and R3. Mr. Smith
262 indicated that PCS Phosphate has not researched that question. Mr. McLendon
263 asked if there is a long-term (10-15 year) materials balance problem. He also asked
264 whether there would be a source for reclamation materials when PCS Phosphate
265 finishes up the last mine blocks-. Mr. Smith answered they would only blend for as
266 long as clay is produced, which is limited by how long ore is produced. When
267 mining stops, clay production stops, blending stops, and there is nothing else to
268 cap. Mr. Furness added that this discussion concerned closure of the mine. This is
269 an issue that will arise far into the future and will have to be dealt with at that
270 time. It is possible that PCS Phosphate may have to permit additional acres just to
271 strip for capping purposes.
7
272
273 Ms. Sawyer handed out copies of a sediment metals study done by Dr. S.R.
274 Riggs, which included a few samples near PCS Phosphate. Mr. Augspurger pointed
275 out that the PCS Phosphate metals study (CZR/Dr. J.T. Trefry) collected and
276 analyzed extensive sediment samples around PCS Phosphate. Mr. Furness added
277 that Dr. D.W. Stanley has done some sediment work also.
278
279 Mr. Augspurger commended PCS Phosphate for going ahead with capping
280 plans and not waiting for an agency mandate. Mr. Smith asked the USACE to be
281 the clearing house to filter and coordinate agency comments on capping plans. 1
282 July 2001 was set as the deadline for comments on the cadmium issue. It was
283 clarified that comments are to be submitted on capping for Alternative E, capping
284 for the new permit, and reestablishing watersheds in light of the cadmium issue.
285
286 Ms. Sawyer asked if future reclamation areas would be used for wetlands
287 mitigation. Mr. Furness indicated that PCS Phosphate would like to. Ms. Sawyer
288 expressed concern about the potential for cadmium on mitigation areas draining
289 into streams. Mr. Augspurger stated that we are looking for ways to design that
290 possibility out of the system.
291
292 Mr. McLendon reiterated Mr. Wicker's (USFWS) statement from an earlier
293 meeting that they (the agencies) are looking for a long-term restoration of Hickory
294 Point to something that is useful. He then asked if the Alternative E watersheds
295 will be reclaimed as flats. Mr. Furness responded that they will be high flats. He
296 added that PCS Phosphate has not proposed wetlands mitigation on Alternative E
297 reclamation sites. The focus is to maximize blend storage on the Alternative E
298 portion of the NCPC Tract so that there will be no blend used near the creeks. Mr.
299 McNaught stated the environmental community wants the landscape to be
300 restored. He expressed concern with the high elevation of reclaimed land (45-60
301 feet), and the need for a more comprehensive resolution to the Hickory Point
302 peninsula.
303
304 After a short break, Mr. McLendon opened a discussion of the Project Area
305 boundary. He stated that identifying a specific Project Area could limit alternatives,
306 which would not be desirable. Considering the entire Aurora Phosphate District as
307 the Project Area does not necessarily mean looking at many different alternatives
308 within that area.
309
310 Mr. Smith then handed out a package to the attendees. The first graphic
311 showed the location of the three phosphate districts in eastern North Carolina. The
312 second graphic showed the elevation of the top of the Pungo River Formation Unit
8
313 in the Aurora Phosphate District. Mr. Smith explained that these graphics were
314 formed from composite data taken from the mid-1960s until the present. The
315 depth graphic showed that the unit gets much deeper toward the east and
316 northeast. In the northeast corner, beyond the -250 contour, there is no phosphate
317 ore. The third graphic in the handout showed contours based on the product of ore
318 grade times ore thickness. Mr. Smith explained that the higher the number
319 associated with each contour, the better the ore characteristics. Much of the
320 district has no contours because the product of ore grade and ore thickness is less
321 than one. A product of less than one can be caused by a negligible phosphate
322 concentration or a very thin layer of ore. Mr. Smith stated that the best ore is in
323 the middle of the Pamlico River, the next best is under the NCPC property, followed
324 by the Reserveco property. PCS Phosphate does not own the Reserveco property.
325 The fourth graphic displayed contours resulting from the division of mine depth by
326 the product of ore grade times ore thickness. Mr. Smith explained that a lower
327 number here indicates better ore characteristics. However, this does not consider
328 the characteristics of the overburden, which can complicate ore recovery. He
329 further explained that some lines were missing in the outer areas of the Aurora
330 Phosphate District because the numbers get very high. If there is very little P205,
331 the denominator becomes very small. Mr. Smith stated that the Aurora Area
332 roughly follows the 40 contour because this is considered the outer extreme of
333 anything that could conceivably be mined economically. Mr. McNaught asked if
334 everything beyond the 40 contour is not practicable to mine today. Mr. Smith
335 answered that this was the case, in general. Mr. McNaught asked if price
336 fluctuations could make a difference in the practicability of mining these areas. Mr.
337 Smith stated that it would not change the threshold significantly. Mr. McNaught
338 asked if PCS Phosphate owns a considerable amount of land outside the 40
339 contour. Mr. Smith replied that they do not.
340
341 Mr. Zarzecki asked about the economics of mining in the river. Mr. Smith
342 answered that it is actually more economical than mining on land, but it causes a
343 material balance problem, assuming that blend material cannot be put back into the
344 river. Mr. Zarzecki asked if anyone was mining in the water. Mr. Smith indicated
345 he was not aware of anyone doing so. He said if there was a competent layer
346 above the phosphate, it could be possible to go in under it, but that this is not
347 possible here. Mr. McNaught stated that he did not want to seriously consider
348 mining in the river.
349
350 Mr. Zarzecki asked if PCS Phosphate will ever plan to mine South Creek
351 itself. Mr. Smith indicated that this is not being considered right now. Mr.
352 McNaught asked if PCS Phosphate has a lease on South Creek at present. Mr.
353 Smith said they do not.
9
354
355 Mr. Adams asked Mr. Smith to clarify the location of South Creek on the ore
356 quality map. Mr. Adams then asked if the next area to be considered is to the
357 west of the current mining area. Mr. Smith said that it could be the next area to be
358 considered, but it contains the Bonnerton community, and human impacts are a
359 concern in this area. He added that Hickory Point, Bonnerton, south of Highway
360 33, the Reserveco property, and the Pamlico River are all of the parts of the Aurora
361 area that have not already been mined.
362
363 Mr. McKenna asked where test drilling was done, since the figure appears to
364 show no data in some areas. Mr. Smith remarked that there are data in the blank
365 areas, but the phosphate unit does not exist. Lack of a contour line means the unit
366 does not exist or there is no phosphate in it.
367
368 Mr. Smith suggested using the Aurora Phosphate District as the Project Area
369 during the initial evaluation, then reducing it down to a more reasonable area for
370 alternatives development.
371
372 Mr. Overton suggested the need for another map, showing location features
373 within the Aurora Phosphate District and Aurora Area, with the 30 and 40 contours
374 overlaid on it.
375
376 Mr. McLendon asked if the 40 contour is the limit of economically
377 recoverable ore. Mr. Smith stated that it is the limits of anything conceivably
378 economical in the future, not necessarily today. Mr. Zarzecki asked if anything
379 within the 30 contour is feasible today. Mr. Smith responded that this was a
380 reasonable assumption, noting that the 30 contour has already been mined in
381 places, and the NCPC tract, the river, and the Reserveco property are in the 30
382 contour. He reminded everyone, however, that high transport costs or facility
383 moving costs would have to be considered for any proposed mining in the
384 Reserveco property. Mr. McKenna replied that the permit is only about mining, not
385 about processing, and processing costs cannot be considered. Mr. Smith answered
386 that the definition of "mining" does include milling and production of concentrate,
387 and therefore does include these costs.
388
389 Mr. McNaught stated that the environmental community disagreed with the
390 last Project Area and scope. It (the last Purpose and Need) stated "mine for 20
391 years in this area", making a no action alternative impossible. This resulted in a
392 flawed EIS process. The environmental community is looking for a project that
393 considers various alternatives for whatever range of the future we want to look at.
394 The environmental community would approach the issue from a standpoint of
10
395 environmental consequences. He suggested defining alternatives by overlaying a
396 map of areas where mining is environmentally acceptable on the ore quality
397 graphic.
398
399 Mr. McLendon asked if the contours on the ore quality graphic are accurate
400 enough to overlay on a map of environmental resources for use in developing
401 alternatives. Mr. Smith indicated that this was possible.
402
403 Mr. McLendon asked how the old Alternative B relates to the 40 contour.
404 Mr. Smith said the mining operation has to consider the configuration of
405 alternatives as well as ore contours. Mining a strip 50 feet wide by three miles
406 long might fit within a favorable contour, but would not be practical to mine.
407
408 Mr. McLendon stated he likes the idea of overlaying environmental
409 constraints on the ore contours map. Mr. Smith indicated he would enlarge the
410 yellow area (Aurora Area) on the ore graphic and overlay it on USGS quad maps.
411
412 Mr. Furness stated that the initial hurdle is everyone being comfortable with
413 the Project Area. The group agrees the districts in the ocean are not practical. He
414 suggested the Project Area be refined to the Aurora District, which could be further
415 narrowed, based on the ore contours, to ,a study area from which alternatives
416 would be chosen. He asked the group to develop a consensus that the range of
417 alternatives to be considered would be located in the yellow area on the ore map
418 (the Aurora Area). Ms. Sawyer asked if this could be done when PCS Phosphate is
419 mandated to show minimization. Mr. Furness answered that minimization is the
420 next step after the Project Area and alternatives have been defined. Mr. McLendon
421 said practical alternatives have to be defined for the applicant first. Mr. Furness
422 listed the Pamlico River lease, the NCPC tract, the area south of Highway 33, and
423 the 7,300 acres of Reserveco property as possible alternatives.
424
425 Mr. McLendon inquired about the relationship between PCS Phosphate and
426 Reserveco. Mr. Furness said there is none; they are different companies. Mr.
427 Schimming explained that Reserveco was formed when Elf Aquitaine sold part of
428 their reserves to PCS Phosphate, but decided to keep some for themselves.
429 Reserveco was formed to hold these reserves that were retained by Elf Aquitaine.
430
431 Mr. Smith asked if the USACE can define an alternative in which the
432 applicant has no land ownership. Mr. McLendon stated the property has to be
433 "available", but "available" is hard to define. Mr. Smith stated that at present, PCS
434 Phosphate does not have access to the Reserveco property, and if access can not
435 be obtained, the property can not be evaluated. Mr. McLendon indicated that the
11
USACE feels that Reserveco needs to be discussed in the EIS. If the property is
not available, it will not be evaluated in detail. Mr. Smith and Mr. Zarzecki
suggested a general evaluation could be done using USGS maps, soil maps, aerial
photos, NWI maps, etc. Mr. Furness mentioned that part of the Reserveco
property is ditched. The existence of wetland hydrology is questionable, and
determining whether it exists would be difficult using maps.
Mr. Schimming added that a key issue with Reserveco is economics.
Because Elf paid a high price for Texasgulf in the early 1980s and took some write-
downs while they owned it, they are valuing the Reserveco property at a high
price, probably well above market value.
Mr. Zarzecki stated that the proposed permit.would require a major variance
for the Tar-Pamlico buffer rules. There must be a "no practical alternative"
analysis. He suggested PCS Phosphate could compare Reserveco to NCPC using
soils and USGS maps to see how buffer features compare, developing an
adjustment factor based on NCPC site-specific data. He added that DWQ has done
some work in the upper coastal plain and the piedmont to determine map accuracy.
Ms. Sawyer added that the combination of soil maps and USGS maps gives
approximately 90 percent accuracy in stream determinations.
Mr. Adams asked Mr. Smith if he was certain about denial of access to the
Reserveco property. Mr. Smith stated that he is certain that PCS Phosphate does
not have access to it at this time. Mr. Adams stated that it is reasonable to
assume Reserveco would grant access to the property if PCS Phosphate is
interested in buying it. Mr. Moye asked if PCS Phosphate had entered the property
since Texasgulf was sold to PCS Phosphate. Mr. Smith said not that he was aware
of.
Mr. Augspurger stated he would like to see a graphic showing the density of
test holes used to develop ore contours. Mr. Smith indicated that PCS Phosphate
could do that.
Mr. McLendon asked how the group feels about using the Aurora Area as the
Project Area. Mr. Wescott indicated he needed to talk to higher levels of his
agency before answering. Mr. Moye said he likes the idea of looking at the Aurora
Phosphate District, then narrowing to alternatives in the Aurora Area. Mr.
McKenna stated he needs to see the distribution of test holes, then he would agree
to looking at the Aurora Phosphate District and narrowing to the Aurora Area. Ms.
Sawyer and Mr. Zarzecki agreed to the approach. Mr. Adams asked if everyone
agreed to look at the Aurora Phosphate District and further refine it to determine
12
477 alternatives. The group responded yes. A list of information needs was developed
478 for Mr. Smith to finalize the Project Area agreement. The list was composed of a
479 drill hole density figure, a total mine depth figure, placement of landmarks on the
480 graphics, and an explanation of the methodology used for mapping. Mr. Smith said
481 he would get the information together by the next meeting.
482
483 Mr. McLendon stated that the EIS will need to discuss all three districts
484 briefly, then briefly discuss how we got to the final Project Area. Mr. Schimming
485 asked what permits would be required for the ocean districts. Mr. McLendon
486 indicated Section 10 and Section 13 (ocean dumping). Mr. Moye indicated for
487 areas outside of three miles, no CAMA permit was needed. Ms. Sawyer added
488 that a CAMA Consistency Determination and State review would be necessary.
489
490 Mr. Zarzecki asked if the area south of Highway 33 is within the 30 contour
491 on the ore map. Mr. Smith answered it is within the 40 contour. The area also
492 has overburden problems. The overburden will not stack well and ore recovery
493 likely would be low (50-60 percent vs. the normal 85 percent). Mr. McLendon
494 asked why the overburden will not stack. Mr. Smith indicated that because of
495 particle size and clay content, the material slumps back into the pit.
496
497 Mr. Furness stated that he would like to get the revised ore graphics out
498 prior to the next meeting. Mr. Moye indicated that he would like for PCS
499 Phosphate to get the revised permit application with accompanying plat work out
500 before the next meeting. Mr. Smith requested that the next meeting be scheduled
501 approximately six weeks to two months away to allow time to complete this work.
502
503 The next scoping meeting was set for 17 July 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the
504 DENR office in Washington, NC. {Note: this meeting subsequently was cancelled
505 and likely will be rescheduled for the last week of August 2001.}The meeting
506 adjourned at approximately 12:50 p.m.
507
508 If you feel that we have omitted or inaccurately depicted any of the issues
509 that were discussed, please submit your comments to us in writing, prior to the
510 next meeting, with a copy to each person on the distribution list. Please reference
511 the appropriate page and line number(s) in your comments.
13
Distribution
Mr. Scott McLendon
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Ms. Kathy Matthews
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Section-Region IV
Wetlands Management Division,
61 Forsyth Street Southwest
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Charlie Adams
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
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. William A. Schimming
Potash Corp.
P.O. Box 3320
Northbrook, IL 60062
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
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
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Mr. Tom Augspurger
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
14
Ms. Deborah Sawyer
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Roger Thorpe
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Ross Smith
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Floyd Williams
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. William Wescott
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
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. David McNaught
Environmental Defense
2500 Blue Ridge Road
Suite 330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Jimmie Overton
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
15
1.1 F t_.,, d i, --1 ;,bio,,."t:aA � ;

.._sco` j G? _ _ CoY __ S?v.eers - 1-,v,?
-D?SA-
ci)
J ?c-zec tit
?ZA
12 L.??bo ra. , w IL t
Jew/mm
R--INC. _??ILf- r.r1G r?N
poems ?o?P 1???`132ovc iL
//-", 4, ?

__-_ ??-?- _ ???z?'?? ?a?i - (??S?ICc? j,.?,?o _to-__ ?r???;e --- ----- - ?1r?:5L??jkss , ??S --
_-__
Cie cs/ -Jame -° ,? -? c?7--
-cy
---- ---- -- - -- _- _ ---_ ---- __ _ ? --- - -- - < ?'?- ??'.?.r/_ _ lam- _?? -
az?
- -- - --- - - - - Iii - .. ?- - _.
-- -- _ - -- _ _-?L - - - - - - UL) ?
imZ
------
J
71
375-

y J \

LA
5
`a!l>yyo ! T?i?iJ/? 3_- SSA /C? c,J,-Oc?__ _
76° 49' 0.0 11 W 76° 48' 0.0 " W 76° 47' 0.0?" W1 1 76° 46' 0.0 " W 76° 45' 0.0?" W P76-1 44' O.OQ" W
yy u t
6
J 4
J
6.,)
AF fo

6 :z

a
o , . 4 ??/
I? N
N
I

.- l of N.`ft _
w

.

Z 71
Z

Cl)

?
f
O
O
a
a
'J
L
Aj"

y? v
7,
11
1 q -
_
- - •ti- r_~m/ " - ? ' \ ? E`er ? ? -r^?`.? tv?••'S?''?'c n

f
k N
J

a _.
?r

? 1 aC' R
n G1ini
?
. i
Z r
1 r ? T Z

O
_ 0 11

80
r
O
Cl)

O

t

,916
_ _ ti` J

E O

M
O
vme RatEel eu ctd.t
?il.
S
91 w
76 49' 0.0 " 76 48' 0.0 76 47' 0.0 76 46' 0.06" 76 45' 0.06" 76 44' O.Ob" W
Name: AURORA Location: 035° 20,10.3" N 076° 46' 32.0" W
Date: 2/19/101 Caption: PCS Mine Advance
Scale: 1 inch equals 4000 feet
Copyright (C) 1997, Maptech, Inc.
5
k
Ztrc:x;:?.'„j Ri
?g W.
:L q? 9V?' ?J4r:
ymlX ` G:. ,
u tia• !:
"
Al
3

1
r?
t ? ? f r
47'30"

AURORA QUADRANGLE
NORTH CAROLINA- BEAUFORT CO.
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) 4av
350'22-
14
35422'3Tt' onrrvr?rnv s.r m?. 4260",?
943 34 413
345
`? ? ? ? ? .???~ ..yq? '9+L F ?,.v ' ?'t ?? r? ?,F M? •,. - °"? i a i1y9 Wp ? ? 1 a? ? ?
$' s 1:. a a i-t"' s Ra''sv'?y"Y`Pq Ia, a "7??•,?y+.?`AWY"
t ..? ?, x r f r ihS? ?Szv ? ?:fy. ??S??`,,• ?i?G ?+r??i
r t ) ??3e ra ?t uiPC ` a
fi u
>^?,
r' 3r ?' Ir"".? ? ? Rt ??? ??? >`?:?" ? ,? ? t fit,{ • l 2 1 ??b'??
i?fyi? ? fi fi` A ? r,. "lL ? - ? f ? ^. a`(''' _ `1 '?• ?,S•; ..$q?.
'ss d ,
?IS004 M 0,
? ?, k•. f ? ? A x"x' x H vk d 3 :H-'wr L '? .. ? '?'14' y _ ?-
"?
io s ?c . :. ?z C!', 1_-. -- .;d ire .±? E???,s ??? . ( x ? ? r ? .? •
h
+t e 5 ;?..' '~ `? .<a`.''>?f? •s• ?",? >juy ?` :kp,, ,r ti ?fx J4'YrS°.r? .a xaz?'`
)`Flyf
.F ? ,ew py h v?c"T Vv J g.. ?2x $? < . ? .,µ, ? ? ?? ?Y9Y"¢ o"G?•.?;y? ?x Mf
?..,, x _ t•`'?s i??t ?'Y ?yfw°'yyK -,.w,? 13€? v. ?? ??'?? ? '' ? ,?c*..,§ e ? t? .?-Yr ? ,'?'k? -
t1f'.. ¢?,: t••. ,a `?, •,?k.R r..fc0 ?.`Txi??`k}.tiy C'? 1'? il? ?:,. ???'n ,"y3?"Y??•i4,?''? +d ?? ? $
i\ 1 ?t
? fit" ^3a,,,?,,R <c ? ? x vp E tn>•f`a?"'?`t?? >°-l?.in `s. x
r,
a5,'4??... -.ms. R
'. .. , ... _ .:..;,n .. _' - r ls`L.f ..2.i? , •,.tti -.. ??? :'y'.?+?,-? ?,'??`x?#.?? d?.N ?l?.x. ,.?..,s! lk
-MI3
5
,fir s? "1 .r M NAY .
?..
4
3 MA
11
'I )
uY's ) `? xS 3
29 .h
?. s
1
g 1
X20 ? s •.
f ? 7 Y
Mrs S0
one MI
NS'?6 ?? 1 5 I
now
sS
r r ti ti?
i ?L x
L ya xF :
1
"I
.j
5. - ha
- ®r
? q
ab?, a k? r ?a?3'
'PT
DRAFT April 02, 2001
1
Significance of Cadmium in the Terrestrial Environment on and Adjacent
to PCS Phosphate Mine Reclamation Lands
Introduction
1 Concern has been expressed by environmental review and permitting agencies over the
2 potential for adverse ecological effects from elevated cadmium associated with the operations
3 of the PCS Phosphate mine in Aurora, North Carolina. PCS Phosphate's Aurora facility
4 mines phosphate-containing deposits on the south side of the Pamlico River in Beaufort
5 County. Carbonate-apatite is strip mined at a rate of about 13 million tons per year; mining
6 and processing operations result in three byproducts including sand tailings, 2.5 million tons
7 of clay tailings and 6 million tons of gypsum annually (Markland 1996). Because cadmium
8 is concentrated in the ore, cadmium is enriched in these process residuals. Historically, clay
9 tailings were de-watered in large settling ponds. The reclamation process now includes
10 mixing clay tailings with gypsum to replace mined substrate. Typically soils in the
11 reclamation areas are made with a blend of 2 to 4 parts gypsum to 1 part clay. For example,
12 the PCS Phosphate reclamation site designated as R-1 received a blend of 2 parts gypsum to
13 1 part clay. Reclamation site R-2 contains soils made from a 4 parts gypsum to 1 part clay
14 ratio. There is concern that cadmium in reclamation area soils, made from mining process
15 wastes, may be harmful to biota.
16
17 At the request of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the U.S. Fish and
18 Wildlife Service (Service) conducted a preliminary risk evaluation of cadmium at the PCS
19 facility (USFWS 1996). That document had two major conclusions: 1) hazard quotients
20 indicated risks to wild birds and mammals, particularly worm-eating species such as
21 woodcock and short-tailed shrew; and, 2) the very limited amount of soil cadmium data and a
22 literature-derived bioaccumulation factor drove the magnitude of the risk. From that late
23 1996 evaluation, it was recommended that a more robust data set be developed for cadmium
24 in soils and site-specific cadmium bioaccumulation.
25
26 PCS began their own assessments of soil cadmium concentrations and cadmium
27 accumulation in site fauna in March 1997. In August 1997, the cadmium bioaccumulation
28 studies became a requirement under a Special Condition in the Department of the Army
29 Clean Water Act Section 404 permit issued to PCS Phosphate (Action ID 198800449).
30 Recent reports on the results of implementing this special condition include the following:
31
32 The Bioaccumulation of Cadmium in Earthworms Exposed to Soil Taken From PCS
33 Phosphate Reclamation Areas, Volumes I and II (Aqua Survey, Inc. 2000); and,
34
35 Final Report for the Cadmium and Other Metals Study on and Adjacent to PCS Phosphate
36 Reclamation Areas R-1, R-2, R-3, and the Charles Tract (CZR, Incorporated et al. 1999).
37
DRAFT April 02, 2001 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
The Service has reviewed the terrestrial resources portions of those investigations. The intent
of this review is not to summarize what was done; the cited documents provide concise
overviews. Our intent is to interpret the significance of the findings and offer
recommendations for addressing this issue.
Findings
1) Cadmium is significantly elevated in mining byproducts and in the
reclamation soils made from these byproducts. Reclamation area soils have
cadmium concentrations exceeding 300 times those of background and they
exceed published soil screening values for environmental protection.
Limited analyses by TVA indicate cadmium concentrations of 21, 14, and 6 mg/kg dry
weight (part per million), in the clay, gypsum, and sand tailings, respectively (Wakefield
1980). The new data generated by PCS are generally consistent with these data; from
attachment A of CZR et al. (1999), cadmium concentrations in the clay, gypsum, and sand
tailings were between 3.5 and 21.8 mg/kg dry weight..
More importantly, cadmium is significantly enriched in the reclamation area soils made from
these byproducts. In the risk evaluation performed by the Service (1996), we used an average
soil cadmium concentration of 15 mg/kg dry weight and a worst case scenario of 21 mg/kg
dry weight. All the new data from attachment C to CZR et al. (1999) and Aqua Survey, Inc
(2000) confirm that cadmium concentrations in reclamation soils are actually slightly greater.
Instead of an average of 15 mg/kg dry weight, average values in the reclamation sites were 18
to 23 mg/kg dry weight:
Site Soil
Composition
Background native soils
(near Bath, NC)
Average Cadmium
Concentration
(mg/kg dry weight)
R-1 blend of 2:1 gypsum to clay
R-2 blend of 4:1 gypsum to clay
Clay Ponds various
0.06
18.2
22.7
18.7
Maximum Cadmium
Concentration
(mg/kg dry weight)
0.08
21.7
26.9
28.0
DRAFT April 02, 2001
1 Taken as a whole, these data indicate that average cadmium concentrations in the reclamation
2 areas are in excess of 300 times those of background. Reclamation area soils exceed many
3 guidance values for soil quality (Appendix A)
4
5 2) Cadmium is accumulating in site fauna at levels exceeding dietary toxicity
6 reference values indicating potential adverse effects in birds and mammals.
7
8 In order to determine the uptake of cadmium by earthworms, an important food source for
9 birds and small mammals, worms were exposed to site soils then subsequently measured.
10 Cadmium concentrations in worms following 140 days of exposure to site soils were 32.9 to
11 88.9 mg/kg dry weight. These concentrations are 3 to 8 times greater than dietary toxicity
12 reference values for birds (12 mg/kg dry weight) and small mammals (10 mg/kg dry weight)
13 (Appendix B) indicating that adverse effects are predicted in worm-eating species. Two
14 factors increase the significance of this finding.
15
16 First. the earthworm tests did not reach a steady state because cadmium was continuing to
17 accumulate in both species of worms even at 140 days of exposure. Cadmium is known to
18 take a long time to reach equilibrium in worms because it is depurated slowly (Honeycutt et
19 al. 1995; Sheppard et al. 1997; Spurgeon and Weeks 1997). Because of this fact, the standard
20 28-day bioaccumulation test was extended to 140-days, but there was still no steady state
21 concentration achieved and it is reasonable to expect that concentrations in the worms would
22 have been greater if the test period was extended. Mathematical models exist that can be
23 applied to predict the steady state concentration in worms if the test had gone beyond 140
24 days (which would be a better representation of the real world long term exposure).
25 Application of published models for cadmium accumulation in worms (Neuhauser et al.
26 1995) yields predicted cadmium concentrations between 110 and 140 mg/kg dry weight for
27 worms growing in the R-1 and R-2 reclamation areas and 130 to 160 mg/kg dry weight for
28 worms growing in the clay pond soils. These concentrations are approximately 10 to 15
29 times the avian and mammalian dietary toxicity reference values (Appendix B) for adverse
30 effects in sensitive species. Because R-2 employs the reclamation residuals blending process
31 to be used in the future, the earthworm tests at that site can be thought of as producing the
32 type of results expected in newly reclaimed lands.
33
34 Second, worms in the test were depurated (i.e., allowed to pass ingested soil prior to
35 analysis) which is a standard test procedure. However, worm-eating birds and mammals will
36 eat worms with ingested soils so depurated worms provide an underestimate of field
37 exposure. Linder et al. (1998) indicate that worm gut content can be as much as one-half of
38 the total cadmium in a worm (i.e., the measured concentrations could have been twice as high
39 in worms with ingested soil).
40
41
DRAFT April 02, 2001 4
1 3) Cadmium is a priority pollutant with no known biological function and a host
2 of known adverse effects, including mutagenicity, teratogenicity, and suspected
3 carcinogenicity.
4
5 Cadmium is a naturally-occurring metal which can become enriched in certain areas as a
6 result of anthropogenic activities. The main sources of cadmium as a pollutant are cadmium
7 refining, copper and nickel smelting, and fuel combustion (Wren et al. 1995). The metal has
8 no known biological function (Cooke and Johnson 1996) and has been associated with subtle
9 to severe biological effects, the latter including mutagenicity, teratogenicty, and suspected
10 carcinogenicity (Eisler 1985). Cadmium is known to bioaccumulate. Tissue levels of
11 cadmium increase with the age of the vertebrate organism, are largely accumulated in the
12 liver and kidney, and eventually act as a cumulative poison. Because it is an element, it
13 exhibits conservative behavior in the environment; it will not degrade with time or become
14 less toxic. Appendix B has a more detailed discussion of the avian and mammalian toxicity
15 literature for cadmium.
16
17
18 4) Because R-2 employs the mine byproducts blending process to be used in the
19 future, elevated cadmium in R-2 soils and worms grown in R-2 soils is a concern
20 for future actions at PCS. The reclamation process should be altered to cap high
21 cadmium content blended soils to isolate them from wildlife.
22
23 The risks described in Findings 1 and 2 above and calculated specifically for area R-2 in
24 Appendix C are significant, and the soils in R-2 were placed by a process that is proposed for
25 future use. There are more complex models for evaluating risk, some specific to cadmium
26 (Pascoe et al. 1996; Traas et al. 1996; Jongbloed et al. 1996) and simpler approaches (Burger
27 et al. 1997), but it is our experience from applying these models that the results would be
28 largely similar to that reported here. Once the soil concentrations exceed 10 mg/kg dry
29 weight and any significant bioaccumulation is noted, the models are likely to indicate on-site
30 risks to terrestrial wildlife.
31
32 Mechanisms to deal with soil-enriched cadmium on a landscape level are few. Most methods
33 are intended for application on a small scale. For this reason, capping the soils appears to be
34 the most practical mechanism for reducing wildlife risks from cadmium exposure.
35
36
37 5) A topsoil cover of the blended areas would have significant ecological
38 restoration benefits in addition to the toxicological benefits of isolating soils with
39 elevated cadmium.
40
41 Although covering cadmium-rich soils with any substrate low in cadmium will provide a
42 benefit to wildlife, using the top layer of soils from adjacent areas about to be mined would
DRAFT April 02, 2001
5
1 provide additional ecological benefits. The topsoil will have more organic matter, more
2 nutrients, more seed sources, and less compaction than the clay:gypsum blends of the
3 reclamation areas. In wetlands restored with a layer of topsoil, these attributes have resulted
4 in better restoration from the standpoint of vegetation survival and diversity (Clewell 1981;
5 Erwin et al. 1984; Erwin and Best 1985). As mining advances at PCS, new areas will be
6 cleared which provides the opportunity to utilize the topsoil from these areas as a cap for
7 cadmium enriched soils.
8
DRAFT April 02, 2001
6
1 Appendix A. Comparison of PCS Soil Data to Published Screening Values
2
3 Reference Endpoint [Cadmium]
4
(mg/kg
dry weight)
5
6 1 PCS - Maximum concentration in clay ponds 28
7 2 PCS - Maximum concentration in reclamation area R2 26.9
8 1 and 2 PCS - Average concentration in reclamation area R2 22.7
9 1 PCS - Maximum concentration in reclamation area Rl 21.7
10 3 Dutch Soil Clean-up Act - Immediate clean-up level 20
11 1 and 2 PCS - Average concentration in clay ponds 18.7
12 1 PCS - Average concentration in reclamation area RI 18.2
13 4 Lowest observed adverse effect level for Eisenia (earthworm) 10
14 3 Dutch Soil Clean-up Act - Moderate contamination 5
15 5 New Jersey interim soil action level 3
16 6 Canadian interim remediation criteria for agricultural soil 3
17 7 USA maximum allowed in sewage sludge treated soil 2
18 8 Eastern Europe - critical level for protection of all landuses 2
19 7 Germany maximum allowed in sewage sludge treated soil 1.5
20 8 Ireland - critical level for protection of all landuses 1.0
21 9 Average level in non-contaminated USA agricultural lands 0.1 to 1.0
22 8 Switzerland - critical level for protection of all landuses 0.8
23 8 Netherlands - critical level for protection of all landuses 0.8
24 6 Canadian interim assessment criteria for background 0.5
25 7 Denmark maximum allowed in sewage sludge treated soil 0.5
26 8 Czech Republic - critical level for protection of all landuses 0.4
27 8 Denmark - critical level for protection of all landuses 0.3
28 8 Finland - critical level for protection of all landuses 0.3
29 1 PCS - Site-specific background (Bath, NC) 0.06
30
31
32 References:
33 1 CZR, Incorporated et al. 1999
34 2 Aqua Survey, Inc. 2000
35 3 Beyer 1990
36 4 Van Gestel et al. 1991 and 1992
37 5 NJDEP 1990
38 6 CCME 1991
39 7 Alloway 1995
40 8 ecological planning and toxicology, inc. 1999
41 9 Page et al. 1987
42
43
DRAFT April 02, 2001
1 Appendix B Cadmium Toxicity Assessment
2
7
3 Cadmium is a naturally-occurring metal which can become enriched in certain areas as a
4 result of anthropogenic activities. The main sources of cadmium as a pollutant are cadmium
5 refining, copper and nickel smelting, and fuel combustion (Wren et al. 1995). The metal has
6 no known biological function (Cooke and Johnson 1996) and has been associated with subtle
7 to severe biological effects, the latter including mutagenicity, teratogenicty, and suspected
8 carcinogenicity (Eisler 1985). Cadmium is known to bioaccumulate. Tissue levels of
9 cadmium increase with the age of the vertebrate organism, are largely accumulated in the
10 liver and kidney, and eventually act as a cumulative poison.
11
12 In summarizing available literature, a Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) and
13 a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) will be identified. A LOAEL. is defined here
14 as the lowest dietary concentration of cadmium utilized in a toxicity test that caused an
15 adverse effect which was statistically significantly different from a control group in that test.
16 A NOAEL is defined here as the highest dietary concentration of cadmium utilized in a
17 toxicity test that caused effects which were not statistically significantly different from the
18 control group in that test. By definition, LOAEL and NOAEL values are limited to doses
19 actually utilized in experimental treatments; a LOAEL may not be the actual threshold for
20 initiation of adverse effects (it is simply the lowest dose at which adverse effects have '
21 currently been demonstrated) and a NOAEL may not be the upper safe limit beyond which
22 adverse effects are predicted (it is simply the highest dose yet tested at which adverse effects
23 have been unapparent).
24
25
26 Birds
27
28 Literature pertaining to the dietary toxicity of cadmium to the mallard, black duck, Japanese
29 quail, and chickens are used. A synopsis of available information is offered here along with
30 avian cadmium NOAEL and LOAEL values which we will use as toxicity screening values
31 for all avian receptors in this evaluation.
32
33 Juvenile mallard drakes were fed diets containing 0, 50,150, or 450 mg/kg of cadmium for
34 six weeks (Di Giulio and Scanlon 1984). The most significant metabolic effects were seen
35 only in the 450 mg/kg treatment group. These specimens exhibited a 20.3% decrease in body
36 weight, a 26% decrease in liver weight, a 15% increase in kidney weight, a 21% decrease in
37 liver aldolase activity, a 46% increase in plasma uric acid concentrations, a 74% decrease in
38 plasma triiodothyronine concentrations, a 28% increase in adrenal weights, and a 31%
39 increase in adrenal cortisone concentrations. Ducks in the 150 mg/kg treatment group also
40 exhibited a 12% increase in kidney weight and a 23% increase in adrenal weight. No adverse
41 effects were observed at a dietary concentration of 50 mg/kg.
42
DRAFT April 02, 2001
8
1 Adult (1 year old) male and female mallard ducks were fed a diet containing 0.08, 1.6, 15.2,
2 and 210 mg/kg, wet weight of cadmium ad libitum for 90 days (White and Finley 1978).
3 There were no mortalities in any treatments, and hematocrit and hemoglobin levels were
4 normal in all treatments. Male testis weight, male kidney weights, and egg production by
5 females were significantly less in the 210 mg/kg treatment when compared to the controls.
6 No adverse effects were observed at a dietary concentration of 15.2 mg/kg.
7
8 Mallard ducklings were fed dietary cadmium at 0, 5, 10, or 20 mg/kg from day 1 of age to 12
9 weeks of age (Cain et al. 1983). Ducklings receiving 20 mg/kg exhibited an 8 percent
10 decrease in packed cell volume, a 6 percent reduction in hemoglobin concentration, and a'52
11 percent increase in serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase activity, all of which were
12 statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Upon necropsy, these specimens revealed mild to
13 severe kidney lesions. No significant adverse effects were noted at dietary cadmium levels of
14 5 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg.
15
16 Juvenile (2-week old) male Leghorn chickens were fed a diet ad libitum containing various
17 concentrations of cadmium in two separate experiments (Prizl et al. 1974). Experiment 1
18 utilized cadmium concentrations of 0, 400, 600, 800, and 1,000 mg/kg for 20 days.
19 Experiment 2 utilized cadmium concentrations of 0 and 700 mg/kg for 20 days. A significant
20 reduction in growth rate and feed consumption was noted at a dietary concentration of 400
21 mg/kg. An LD50 of 565 mg/kg was calculated. Chickens fed diets of 12 mg/kg and 48 mg/kg
22 of cadmium exhibited significant reductions in egg production (Leach et al. 1979, as cited in
23 Furness 1996).
24
25 Male Japanese quail fed a diet containing 75 mg/kg of cadmium as CdC12 for 4 weeks
26 exhibited a 62 percent decrease in testis size, a lack of spermatogenesis, damage to small
27 intestine mucosa, and severe anemia (Richardson et al. 1974). These responses were
28 associated with a mean liver cadmium concentration of 42+2.6 mg/kg.
29
30 Heinz et al. (1983) and Silver and Nudd (1995) independently determined a LOAEL of 4
31 mg/kg in the diet of young black ducks. The significant effect at this concentration was
32 increased activity and hyper responsiveness to fright stimulus which the authors of both
33 studies speculate as having potentially negative consequences in wild birds.
34
35 In his review of cadmium toxicity data, Eisler (1985) indicated that wildlife dietary levels
36 exceeding 0.1 mg/kg should be viewed with caution. In a recent review of most of the
37 cadmium studies cited here, as well as additional toxicity data for birds, Furness (1996)
38 concludes that dietary cadmium concentrations in excess of 2 mg/kg induced increased
39 synthesis of metallothionein, accumulation of cadmium and zinc, and possible alteration of
40 iron, zinc, and calcium metabolism. Although these physiological changes are attributable to
41 low level dietary cadmium, they probably should not be considered adverse responses; rather,
42 they appear to be adaptive physiological responses that are potentially reversible and not
43 harmful. Toxic effects of cadmium (altered behavioral responses, suppression of egg
DRAFT April 02, 2001 9
1 production, egg shell thinning, kidney damage, testicular damage, duodenal epithelium
2 damage, altered energy metabolism, anemia, bone marrow hyperplasia, and cardiac. and
3 adrenal hypertrophy) have been reported in laboratory studies with ducks, chickens, quail,
4 and starlings (Furness 1996) at levels as low as 12 mg/kg (decreased egg production) and 20
5 mg/kg (kidney and testicular lesions). For avian receptors in this risk evaluation, a
6 dietary level of 12 mg/kg, dry weight, of cadmium will be used as a LOAEL with a
7 NOAEL of 10 mg/kg, dry.weight.
8
9 Mammals
10
11 Eisler (1985) summarized data from mice exposed to dietary cadmium at 1.8 mg/kg for 28
12 days. This exposure resulted in reduced hematocrit and hemoglobin values (Siewicki et al.
13 1983, as cited in Eisler 1985). Male and female weanling brown rats fed a diet containing 5
14 mg/kg of cadmium for 10 weeks exhibited no adverse effects on growth (Pribble and Weswig
15 1973). Offspring of white-footed mice exposed to 10 mg/kg dietary cadmium for 10 weeks
16 exhibited increased testes weights (Yocum et al. 1987). In his review of cadmium toxicity
17 data, Eisler (1985) indicated that wildlife dietary levels exceeding 0.1 mg/kg should be
18 viewed with caution.
19
20 In a more recent review of cadmium residue data in target organs of mammalian receptors,
21 Cooke and Johnson (1996) report that diets containing cadmium at about 10 mg/kg, dry
22 weight, could be expected to produce mild symptoms of with more severe kidney damage
23 evident at 50 mg/kg. The equivalent NOAEL to LOAEL range, in terms of dose, is estimated
24 at 1 to 7 mg of cadmium per kg of body weight per day (Cooke and Johnson 1996). The
25 kidney concentrations associated with damage are estimated at 100 mg/kg, wet weight (350
26 mg/kg, dry weight) on a whole organ basis (Cooke and Johnson 1996). For mammalian
27 receptors in this risk evaluation, a dietary cadmium level of 10 mg/kg, dry weight, will
28 be used fora LOAEL with a NOAEL of 5 mg/kg, dry weight.
29
30
DRAFT April 02, 2001
1 Appendix C Hazard Quotients
2
Model
10
4
5 This portion of the.risk evaluation is designed to evaluate the potential threats to ecological
.6 receptors from exposure to cadmium at the R-2 reclaimed area as a model for other areas and
7 future reclamation at the PCS Phosphate facility: Based on the habitats present on site,
8 exposure is likely to result from direct contact with soil, direct ingestion of vegetation, direct
9 ingestion of soil invertebrates, and direct ingestion of surface waters. Terrestrial receptors
10 may accumulate site contaminants through contact with these site media. These receptors
11 may then be consumed by higher trophic level receptors, transferring the contaminants
12 through the food chain.
13
14 A simple approach to evaluating ecological risks is the use of hazard quotients. The hazard
is quotient method (Suter 1993) compares exposure concentrations to contaminant
16 concentrations associated with ecological endpoints such as reproductive failure or reduced
17 growth. The comparisons are expressed as ratios of potential intake values (i.e., dietary
18 cadmium concentrations in this case) to dietary effect concentrations:
19
20 Hazard Quotient = Dietary Exposure Concentration _ Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
21
22 A hazard quotient > 1 when the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL; defined in
23 Appendix B above) is used in the denominator indicates that exposure to the contaminant
24 may cause adverse effects in the organism (i.e., the organisms diet at the site contains
25 cadmium in excess of the levels shown to be harmful). A hazard quotient < 1 does not
26 indicate a lack of risk, but should be interpreted based on the severity of the effect reported
27 and the magnitude of the calculated quotient.
28
29 The values to be used in the hazard quotient denominator are derived from a review of the
30 pertinent literature on cadmium toxicity (see Appendix B). For this illustration, only the
31 calculations with the LOAEL will be used; calculations with the NOAEL would yield greater
32 risk estimates.
33
34 The values to be used in the hazard quotient numerator, or the dietary exposure
35 concentrations, are a combination of measured values of cadmium in soils and worms at the
36 PCS Phosphate site. In the Service's 1996 evaluation, we ran models for several species.
37' Because existing reviews of cadmium toxicity indicate that insectivorous species are likely at
38 greatest risk in the wild (Cooke and Johnson 1996), only the worm-eating shrew and
39 woodcock equations will be presented here.
40
41
42
43
DRAFT April 02, 2001
11
1 Species
2
3 The short-tailed shrew and woodcock are common in eastern North Carolina (Potter et al.
4 1980, Webster et al. 1985) which adds environmental realism to the ecological risk
5 evaluation. However, it is important to understand that these species are being used to model
6 the risk to a wide array of worm-eating birds and mammals expected to colonize reclamation
7 areas at PCS.
9 Key life history information from the Wildlife Exposures Factors Handbook (USEPA 1993)
10 is summarized below for the indicator species chosen for this evaluation. Incidental soil
11 ingestion data are taken from Beyer et al. (1994):
12
13 Short-Tailed Shrew (Blarina brevicauda)
14
15 Body weight: 13 to 22 g
16 Food ingestion rate: 0.49 to 0.62 g / g * d
17 Soil ingestion rate: not available, but probably significant
18 Home range: <0.1 to 1.8 ha
19 Dietary composition: 80 to 95% invertebrates including insects, worms, and
20 snails; 10% vegetation; and 10% other, including mice
21 voles, and other vertebrates; for this evaluation, assume
22 100% invertebrates
23
24 American Woodcock (Scolopax minor)
25
26 Body weight: 120 to 220 g
27 Food ingestion rate 0.11 to 1.43 g/g * d
28 Soil ingestion rate: 10.4%
29 Home range: 0.3 to 171 ha
30 Dietary composition: approximately 100 % invertebrates, including
31 earthworms, beetle larvae, coleoptera; some grit and
32 plant material; assume 100% terrestrial invertebrates for
33 this evaluation.
34
35 Endpoints
36
37 The assessment endpoints selected for insectivorous mammals are population viability and
38 impaired reproductive fitness due to cadmium exposure. The mechanisms whereby impaired
39 fitness can occur are discussed in Appendix B and include affects on individuals such as
40 physiological effects and ultrastructural injury to the kidney. The assessment endpoint
41 selected for birds is the overall fitness of the population due to cadmium exposure. The
42 mechanism by which impairment can occur are also discussed in Appendix B and include
DRAFT April 02, 2001 12
1 physiological effects, reduced egg production, and ultrastructural injury to the livers and
2 kidneys of individual birds.
3
4 Based on the characteristics of the contaminants of concern and the assessment endpoints
5 identified for this site, the following hypotheses were developed for evaluation in this risk
6 evaluation:
7
8 1) Levels of cadmium in site soils are sufficient to reduce reproductive output and
9 cause adverse physiological changes to the livers and kidneys of birds.
10
11 2) Levels of cadmium in site soils are sufficient to cause adverse developmental and
12 physiological effects in small mammals.
13
14 Assumptions
15
16 Dietary composition, soil ingestion rate, food ingestion rates and body weights of receptor
17 species were obtained from the literature, primarily the U.S. Environmental Protection
18 Agency's Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA 1993). For this risk evaluation, the
19 latter two factors are not critical since we are relying on concentration in the diet rather than
20 dose per unit body weight.
21
22 Area use factors (AUFs) were not calculated to weigh the estimated exposure according to
23 the proportion of time the organism would be expected to use the contaminated site and its
24 food resources relative to its home range. They could be calculated according to the
25 following equation:
26
27 AUF = Contaminated Area (ha) -= Home Range or Foraging Range (ha)
28
29 Although home ranges were available for receptor species (as noted above), the size of the
30 reclamation areas indicates that all AUFs would likely equal 1. Also, estimated exposure
31 calculations do not account for differential habitat use over the site and hence, provide a
32 conservative estimate of risk.
33
34 Dietary composition information was also obtained from the Wildlife Exposure Factors
35 Handbook (USEPA 1993) for the receptor species. Although we attempted to chose species
38 that would maximize likely exposure (i.e., the insectivorous small mammals and birds), few
37 species are rigid in their feeding strategies. For the shrew and woodcock, we used maximum
38 reported dietary percentage of invertebrates, as a worst case scenario, since the cadmium
39 toxicity review predicts this forage to have the highest cadmium burden. Many species rely
40 predominantly on a diet of invertebrates early in life (e.g., young bobwhite quail, Canada
41 geese, mallards) for the high protein requirements of building muscle mass. Hence, the
42 conservative approach to approximating forage composition has merit beyond its utility in
43 developing a conservative estimate of the risk.
DRAFT April 02, 2001 13
1 To estimate exposure to contaminants via ingestion, it was assumed that levels of cadmium in
2 site soils and forage were 100 percent available for bioaccumulation by the ecological
3 receptors we evaluated (i.e., total cadmium concentrations used instead of some fraction to
4 represent that which the gut could assimilate).
5
6 Because we used dietary concentrations of forage and dietary toxicity data in the risk
7 evaluation, depuration is only indirectly addressed. As indicated above, more comprehensive
8 modeling can be conducted including use of actual feeding rates, depuration rates, body
9 weights, and time.
10
11 Risk Characterization
12
13 Exposure concentrations (dietary and incidental intake of soil) were calculated'for each
14 species based on: 1) the documented average level of cadmium in R-2 site soils (22.1 mg/kg
15 dry weight); 2) the measured average levels of cadmium in whole body tissue of worms.
16 based on the bioaccumulation studies with R-2 soils (63.4 mg/kg dry weight based on the
17 mean of six measures from both worm species tested) (note these did not reach equilibrium
18 so this is an underestimate); and, 3) the receptor dietary and soil intake percentages as
19 reported in the literature.
20
21 The exposure concentrations were calculated for the receptor species with following
22 equations:
23
24 Dietshrew = {([worms] xp:terrestrial invertebrates) + ([soil] xp: soil)}
25
26 Dietwoodcock = {([worms] xp:terrestrial invertebrates) + ([soil] xp: soil)}
27
28 Where: Diet = Dietary cadmium content (mg/kg)
29 [ ] = contaminant concentration in a particular matrix
30 (mg/kg)
31 p: = proportion of the specified component of the diet
32 worms = site worms (use lab bioassay results)
33 soil = site soils
34
35 The shrew hazard quotient becomes:
36
37 Hazard Quotient = Dietary Exposure Concentration _ LOAEL
38
39 Dietary Exposure Concentrationsh,,, = (63.4 * 1.0) + (22.7 * unknown) = 63 mg/kg
40
41 Mammalian LOAEL =10 mg/kg (kidney dysfunction and reduced bone calcification)
42
43 Hazard Quotient,h e, = 63 mg/kg - 10 mg/kg = 6
DRAFT April 02, 2001 14
1
2
3 The woodcock hazard quotient becomes:
4
5 Hazard Quotient = Dietary Exposure Concentration + LOAEL
6
7 Diet,,ood,
?.,k= (63.4* 0.9) + (22.7* 0.1) = 60 mg/kg
8 (Dietary composition of worms reduced to allow for soil consumption value to be
9 input)
10
11 Avian dietary LOAEL = 12 mg/kg (decreased egg production)
12
13 Hazard QuotientH,aod,ock = 60 mg/kg =12 mg/kg = 5
14
15
16 Remember, a hazard quotient > 1 when the LOAEL (as opposed to a NOAEL) is used in the
17 denominator indicates that exposure to the contaminant may cause adverse effects in the
18 organism. So the HQ's of 5 to 6 indicate that risks exist even with the average soil cadmium
19 concentrations and average worm cadmium concentrations that did not reach equilibrium.
20 Hazard quotients would have been between 10 and 13 with the predicted-steady-state
21 earthworm results discussed above under Finding 2.
22
23 Sources of Uncertainty
24
25 There are various factors which introduce uncertainty into this evaluation. Wherever
26 possible, an attempt has been made to acknowledge the uncertainty and to explain the
27 assumptions and methods employed to manage it. We attempted to provide risk estimates
28 based on average (rather than maximum) model input parameters. Also, we used no safety
29 factors (such as dividing the LOAELs by 10 to 100 for inter-species comparisons and/or
30 predicting chronic impacts from acute toxicity test data) which would have driven the risk
31 calculations much higher, possibly unrealistically so (Beyer 2000).
32
33 Cadmium is known to accumulate in earthworms and other soft-bodied soil animals;
34 cadmium accumulation in insects and other hardbodied animals is also known to occur, but
35 often to a lesser extent than that of worms (Gish and Christensen 1973; Hunter et al. 1987a,
36 1987b; Morgan and Morgan 1988; Beyer et al. 1982; Ma et al. 1991; Hendricks et al. 1995;
37 Linder et al. 1998). There are other data available for invertebrates from the reclamation
38 areas, but these data are few and the extent to which they represent the sites where they were
39 collected is unknown.
40
41 We focused on vermivorous species because literature indicated them to be among those
42 fauna at most significant risk. Fauna with a significant vegetation component to the diet may
DRAFT April 02, 2001
15
1 be at lesser risk, but concentrations of cadmium were also quite high in willow (94 mg/kg dry
2 weight) and dog fennel (40 mg/kg dry weight) from the reclamation sites.
3
4 Exposure via the ingestion of water and via direct contact with water was not evaluated. An
5 incidental soil ingestion rate was not available for the short-tailed shrew.
6
7 Toxicity values reported in the literature are often derived in single-species, single
8 contaminant laboratory studies. Prediction of ecosystem effects from laboratory studies is
9 difficult, as environmental factors and interactions between contaminants can influence toxic
10 effects. Due to inter-species variability, exposure profile values (i.e., receptor life history
11 information) and toxicity values obtained from the literature (our LOAELs) may over- or
12 underestimate actual values for species addressed in this risk evaluation. However, it is
13 important to understand that these species are being used to model the risk to a wide array of
14 worm-eating birds and mammals expected to colonize reclamation areas at PCS.
15
DRAFT April 02, 2001
16
1 References
2
3 Alloway, B.J. 1995. Cadmium. Pages 122-151 In: B.J. Alloway (ed.). Heavy Metals in Soils
4 (Second Edition. Blackie Academic and Professional, New York.
5
6 Aqua Survey, Inc. 2000. The Bioaccumulation of Cadmium in Earthworms Exposed to Soil
7 Taken From PCS Phosphate Reclamation Areas, Volumes I and II. ASI Study Number 99-
8 445. ASI, Flemington, NJ.
9
10 Beyer, W.N. 1990. Evaluating Soil Contamination. U.S.Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 90(2).
11 Laurel, MD. 25 pp.
12
13 .2000. Hazards to wildlife from soil-borne cadmium reconsidered. J. Environ. Qual.
14 29:1380-1384.
15
16 , R.L. Chaney and B. Mulhern. 1982. Heavy metal concentrations in earthworms from
17 soil amended with sewage sludge. J. Environ. Qual. 11: 381-385.
18
19 , E.E. Connor and S. Gerould. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. J. Wildl.
20 Manage. 58: 375-382.
21
22 Burger, J., R.A. Kennamer, I.L. Brisin, Jr. and M. Gochfeld. 1997. Metal levels in mourning
23 doves from South Carolina: Potential hazards to doves and hunters. Environ. Res. 75: 173-
24 186.
25
26 Cain, B.W., L. Sileo, J.C. Franson and J. Moore. 1983. Effects of dietary cadmium on
27 mallard ducklings. Environ. Res. 32: 286-297.
28
29 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1991. Interim Canadian Environmental
30 Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites. Report CCME EPC-CS34. CCME, Environmental
31 Quality Guidelines Division, Ottawa.
32
33 Clewell, A.F. 1981. Vegetational restoration techniques on reclaimed phosphate strip mines
34 in Florida. Wetlands 1: 158-170.
35
36 Cooke, J.A. and M.S. Johnson. 1996. Cadmium in small mammals. Pages 377-388 In: W.N.
37 Beyer, G.H. Heinz and A.W. Redmon-Norwood (eds.). Environmental Contaminants in
38 Wildlife: Interpreting Tissue Concentrations. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
39
40 CZR, Incorporated, J. Trefry and T. Logan. 1999. Final Report for the Cadmium and Other
41 Metals Study on and Adjacent to PCS Phosphate Reclamation Areas R-1, R-2, R-3, and the
42 Charles Tract. CZR, Inc., Wilmington, NC.
43
DRAFT April 02, 2001
17
1 Di Giulio, R.T. and P.F. Scanlon. 1984. Sublethal effects of cadmium ingestion on mallard
2 ducks. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 13: 765-771.
3
4 ecological planning and toxicology, inc. 1999. A critical review of methods for developing
5 ecological soil quality guidelines and criteria. Report prepared for American Petroleum
6 Institute Biomonitoring Task Force. ept, inc. Corvallis, OR.
7
8 Eisler, R. 1985. Cadmium hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: A synoptic review.
9 U.S Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(1.2). 46 pp.
10
11 Erwin, K.L and G.R. Best. 1985. Marsh community development in a central Florida
12 phosphate surface-mined reclaimed wetland. Wetlands 5: 155-166..
13
14 , G.R. Best, W.J. Dunn and P.M. Wallace. 1984. Marsh and forested wetland
15 reclamation of a central Florida phosphate mine. Wetlands 4: 87-104.
16
17 Furness, R.W. 1996. Cadmium in birds. Pages 389-404 In: W.N. Beyer, G.H. Heinz and
18 A.W. Redmon-Norwood (eds.). Environmental Contaminants in Wildlife: Interpreting Tissue
19 Concentrations. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
20
21 Gish, C.D. and R.E. Christensen. 1973. Cadmium, nickel, lead, and zinc in earthworms from
22 roadside soil. Environm. Sci. Tech. 7: 1060-1062.
23
24 Hendricks, A.J., W.-C. Ma, J.J. Brouns, E.M. de Ruiter-Dijkman and R. Gast. 1995.
25 Modelling and monitoring organochlorine and heavy metal accumulation in soils,
26 earthworms, and shrews in the Rhine-Delta floodplains. Arch. Environ. Contam.. Toxicol. 29:
27 115-127.
28
29 Heinz, G.H., S.D. Haseltine and L. Sileo. 1983. Altered avoidance behavior of young black
30 ducks fed cadmium. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2: 419-421.
31
32 Honeycutt, M.E., B.L. Roberts and D.S. Roane. 1995. Cadmium disposition in the earthworm
33 Eisenia fetida. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety 30: 143-150.
34
35 Hunter, B.A., M.S. Johnson and D.J. Thompson. 1987a. Ecotoxicology of copper and
36 cadmium in a contaminated grassland ecosystem: i. soil and vegetation contamination. J.
37 Appl. Ecol. 24: 573-586.
38
39 . 1987b. Ecotoxicology of copper and cadmium in a contaminated grassland
40 ecosystem: ii. invertebrates. J. Appl. Ecol. 24: 573-586.
41
DRAFT April 02, 2 0 01
18
1 Jongbloed, R.H., T.P. Traas and R. Luttik. 1996. A probabilistic model for deriving soil
2 quality criteria based on secondary poisoning of top predators. ii. Calculations for
3 dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane and cadmium. Ecotox. Environ. Safety 34: 279-306.
4
5 Leach, R.M., Jr., K.W. Wang and D.E. Baker. 1979. Cadmium and the food chain: the effect
6 of dietary cadmium on tissue composition in chicks and laying hens. J. Nutr. 109: 437-443.
7
8 Linder, G., M. Bollman, C. Callahan, C. Gillette, A. Nebeker and D. Wilborn. 1998.
9 Bioaccumulation and food-chain analysis for evaluating ecological risks in terrestrial and
10 wetland habitats: Availability-transfer factors (ATFs) in 'soil > soil macroinvertebrate >
11 amphibian' food chains. Pages 51-65 In: K. Hoddinott (ed.). Superfund Risk Assessment in
12 Soil Contamination Studies: Third Volume, ASTM Special Technical Publication 1338,
13 ASTM, San Diego.
14
15 Ma, W., W. Denneman and J. Faber. 1991. Hazardous exposure of ground-living small
16 mammals to cadmium and lead in contaminated terrestrial ecosystems. Arch. Environ.
17 Contain. Toxicol. 20: 266-270.
18
19 Markland, K.R. 1996. Phosphate Mining: Past Problems and PCS Phosphate's Progressive
20 Solution Using the Phosphogypsum and Clay Tailings Blend. Masters Thesis, North
21 Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 137 pp.
22
23 Morgan, J.E. and A.J. Morgan. 1988. Earthworms as biological monitors of cadmium,
24 copper, lead and zinc in metalliferous soils. Environ. Poll. 54: 123-138.
25
26 Neuhauser, E.F., Z.V. Cukic, M.R. Malecki, R.C. Loehr and P.R. Durkin. 1995.
27 Bioconcentration and biokinetics of heavy metals in the earthworm. Environ. Pollut. 3: 293-
28 301.
29
30 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 1990. Basis for the interim soil action
31 levels. Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation, Bureau of Environmental evaluation and Risk
32 Assessment. Trenton, NJ.
33
34 Page, A.L., A.C. Chang and M. El-Amamy. 1987. Cadmium levels in soils and crops in the
35 United States. Pages 119-146 In: T.C. Hutchinson and K.M. Mema (eds.). Lead, Mercury,
36 Cadmium and Arsenic in the Environment. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
37
38 Pascoe, G.A., R.J. Blanchet and G. Linder. 1996. Food chain analysis of exposures and risks
39 to wildlife at a metals-contaminated wetland. Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 30: 306-318.
40
41 Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. University of North
42 Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
43
DRAFT April 02, 2001
19
1 Pribble, H.J. and P.H. Weswig. 1973. Effects of aqueous and dietary cadmium on rat growth
2 and tissue uptake. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 9: 271-275.
3
4 Pritzl, M.C., Y.H. Lie, E.W. Kienholz and C.E. Whiteman. 1974. The effect of dietary
5 cadmium on development of young chickens. Poultry Sci. 53: 2026-2029.
6
7 Richardson, M.E., M.R.S. Fox and B.E. Fry, Jr. 1974. Pathological changes produced in
8 Japanese quail by ingestion of cadmium. J. Nutr. 104: 323-338.
9
10 Sheppard, S.C., W.G. Evenden and T.C. Cornwell. 1997. Depuration and uptake kinetics of I,
11 Cs, Mn, Zn, and Cd by the earthworm (Lubricus terrestris) in radiotracer-spiked litter. Pages
12 151 to 164 In: S.C. Sheppard, J.D. Bembridge, M. Holmstup and L. Posthuma (eds.).
13 Advances in Earthworm Ecotoxicology. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL.
14
15 Silver, T.M. and T.D. Nudd. 1995. Influence of low-level cadmium and reduced calcium
16 intake on tissue Cd concentrations and behaviour of American black ducks. Environ. Pollut.
17 90:153-161.
18
19 Spurgeon, D.J. and J.M. Weeks. 1997. Evaluation of factors influencing results from
20 laboratory toxicity tests with earthworms. Pages 15 to 25 In: S.C. Sheppard, J.D. Bembridge,
21 M. Holmstup and L. Posthuma (eds.). Advances in Earthworm Ecotoxicologv. SETAC Press,
22 Pensacola, FL.
23
24 Suter, G. 1993. Retrospective risk assessment. Pages 311-364 In: G.W. Suter, II (ed.).
25 Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
26
27 Traas, T.P., R. Luttik and R.H. Jongbloed. 1996. A probabilistic model for deriving soil
28 quality criteria based on secondary poisoning of top predators. i. Model description and
29 uncertainty analysis. Ecotox. Environ. Safety 34: 264-278.
30
31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Wildlife exposure factors handbook, Volume
32 I of II. Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. EPA/600/R-93/187a.
33 various page numbering.
34
35 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Draft Preliminary Risk Evaluation of Cadmium in PCS
36 Phosphate Reclamation Lands and Adjacent Areas, Raleigh, NC.
37
38 Van Gestel, C.A.M., E.M. Dirven-Van Breemen, R. Baerselman, H.J.B. Emans, J.A.M.
39 Janssen, R. Postuma and P.J.M. Van Vliet. 1992. Comparison of sublethal and lethal criteria
40 for nine chemicals in standard toxicity testing with the earthworm Eisenia andrei. Ecotox.
41 Environ. Safety 23: 206-220.
42

P
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
DRAFT April 02, 2001 20
, W.A. van Dis, E.M. Dirven-van Breemen, P.M. Sparenburg and R. Baerselman.
1991. Influence of cadmium, copper, and pentachlorophenol on growth and sexual
development of Eisenia andrei (Oligochaeta; Annelida). Biol. Fertil. Soils 12: 117-121.
Wakefield, Z.T. 1980. Distribution of cadmium and selected metals in phosphate fertilizer
processing. Tennessee Valley Authority, TVA Rep. No. Y-159.
Webster, W.D, J.F. Parnell and W.C. Briggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas Vir inia,
and Maryland. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
White, D.H. and M.T. Finley. 1978. Uptake and retention of dietary cadmium in mallard
ducks. Environ. Res. 17: 53-59.
Wren, C.D., S. Harris and N. Harttrup. 1995. Ecotoxicology of mercury and cadmium. Pages
392-423 In: D.J. Hoffman, B.A. Rattner, G.A. Burton, Jr. and J. Cairns, Jr. (eds.). Handbook
of Ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI.
Yocum, S.M., P.C. Darby and P.F. Scanlon. 1987. Effects of ingested cadmium and lead on
reproduction of Peromyscus leucopus. Va. J. Sci. 38: 90.

APR-30-2001 MON 07:21 AM FAX NO, P. 01
?C)??Vrq I ?-o Mich:id F. Easley
0 Governor
O-N SL t Willialli G. Ross, Jr., Socrotary
Depaitrnent of Environmorlt sild Natural Rec;ourcoc
-`q 'D ;.r.„.; x a ?5fv ,`.i KoirT. Storms
DIVIolon of Water Quality
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Brarich.
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
FAX: 1 fl) 733-9959
UMBER(,75 ) 97s-37

FROM: Larry t ate'"
PH0NE:f7/'7) l33-e9vc tcrrZ.e C, 4 ss& v_?Chi,i.l. n v t e-mail:
NO. OF PAG5S INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
VeAorA .'
W1?a'r' lK? diRrr? derv) r?t<r t?/ ?,',?? al?a?t ?;.p?w,:vk? arG?.•r?
??s l.i{l« 1N? p?,'P a l{ve(y utoW? f1.e?^t inn 1992 ar ?I^'G ?of:) ?jaf f1'C'
@19 oP I'? aT ;?-ert grav?? fii.r at?"^elnea? -a??e. We w;II SeP"V
r rel-rt7'
P
J,7 7ov wktL-, w, (jtv jt. LeT V5 KAO- I`P y0V Me-1 ( faON?trt?d:h eISe,
I'
bi rV
JoA
I?
Customor Sorviou DIVNIon of Water Quality 1617 Mail SONIV.1 a Center Raleigh, NO 27099•IG17 [phone]
1 eoo 1523.7748
APR-30-2001 MON 07:22 AM FAX NO. P. 02
m
A
F
QJ
m
APR-30-2001 MON 0722 AM FAX NO. P. 03
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
14 APRi1. IM
1V PI MOItAND DA
TO: Harold Quidley
THROUGH, Trish MacPherson
FROM: Larry Eaton
SUBJECT: Biological Results from Sediment Toxicity Survey, Neuse haul Pamlico
Estuaries, January 9 And 10,, 1992
BACKGROUND
Over ilia last five years, Ur. Stanley Riggs from ECU has been sampling sediments in
the Neuse and Pamlico estuaries in an effort, financed by APES, to identify areas high in
metals. He has produced two sumniany documents, one for each basin, which Summarizes
his findings (Riggs et, al., 19$91 Riggs ct. al., 1991). In the Marina Summary of the
Neuse report, Riggs says It is our opinion that the presence of high concentrations of
metals in bottorn sediutcnts in and around marinas can have subslwhtial negative effects
upon overall environmental duality, alxin assoeiawd marine organisms, and the viability of
the estuarine ecosystem". The fact that metals in the sediment have boon shown to lhavc
deleterious effects on more than a few species and at all trophic levels (Ulsen, 1984),
means that these areas may be negatively affecting the bentbic community.
On January 9 and 10, 1992, sediment samples were collected for toxicity testing and
biological evaluation at four background areas and six areas that Riggs' data indicated had
high sediment metal levels, This meino summarizes the blological portion of that
evaluation.
ME-M-1013.9
While sediment for toxicity tests WAS collected from several stations in each area
investigated, ben thos was collected at only one site within each area. An l1kinan dredge
(15ctn X 15cm X 15cm) was used at each of these stations to collect sediment. At most
benthos stations, three replicates of four dredges each (12 dredges/site) were collected,
sieved through a 500 micron mesh net and preserved In formaltn with rose bent al Added ns
a tissue stain. Some stations had fewer dredges collected because heavy detritus clogged
Oie net. 't'hese stations are noted in the Station Locations and Results sections, and their
results have. been adjusted to be comparable to other sites. One ;site, Kennedy Creek, was
not sampled due to darkness. An extra sample of sediment was collected at each benthos
site for sediment grain Size analysis, Water chemistry p rarneters also were collected at
each site.
At tlce lftb, benthos were sorted from the detritus, identified to the lowest practical
taxononuc level, and abundance; and biomass were determined. 'flee Slhai?.non-Weiner
Diversity Index (11) and Margaleffs (d) summary statistics also were calculated for etch
site. Margaleff's d is less sensitive than Shannon-Weiner f•1' to a very few sp" ics having
a very Iarge dumber of individuals and thus might be expected to yield more inibrinntion
during pariods of active recruitment.
STATION LOCATIONS
No neaps of the study areas have been included in this merino, They will, however, be it
part of the final report Sutmnarizing the chemical, biological, and toxicity restflts,
APR-30-2001 MON 07;23 AM FAX NO. P. 04
F.aast Arong Slocurn Creek (SLO-18)
'lIlis site, Ineated downstrearn of the FIavelock WWTP and offshore of a Waste i ? pa5al
site, was the deepest benthos Site sarnpled (4.2m) and the freshest (t) ppt saalirahty,
umhos/c in conductivity). The sediment wag black, probably anoxic, ooze and detritus.
Sampling here was llmited to one drop / replicate (3 drops total) because of the heavy
detritus.
11p r Slocum Creek, (SILO-3)
This site was sandier and shallower (1.5m) than Last Prong Slocum Cr., but still very
nearly as fresh, (0 ppt salinity, 163 umhos/cut conductivity). This site was located near two
waste disposal sites at the Cherry Point Marine Air Station.
Hancoc% `reek (1-1CK-3)
This site was chosen to be the background site for the Slocum Creek stations even
though this creek receives ninoff from Cherry Point (as does Slocum Creek) so it is by no
means pristine. ,e sediment here is muddy and fairly shallow (1.5m). Salinities are
slightly higher (4 p pt) than at Slocum Creek.
r.?taZtttl Marina ` (C:MP- l)
Sediments at this site were black, oily, anoxic ooze which contained enatagh cl thus to
lpmit saa ipling to four dredges. These were e;oMposit0d T'Aher than kept separate for
replicates. The depth is not excessive for a marina (2 in) and the salinity was moderate (13
?C,11 jr*1 offYAcltt Clatb (CMP-2)
This site, located in the center of the marina entrance, was somewhat deeper than
CMP-1 (3.5m) and ate sediments contained less detritus and slightly more sand. The
salinity hero (14 prpt) was the highest found in the Neuse basin during this study. Since
this site was sampled as inept to collect seasonal data as to verify the impacts at CM13-1,
the sample here consisted of 8 dredges which wore composited (no replicates).
Qr??n?Crhek shove Kershaw Creek (ORL-5)
This site, which scevod as the reference site for Oriental Marina, )tad a muddy substrate
with a little sand and a depth of only 1 tn. Salinity here was 11.5 ppt.
7.?4 4.?p k nr Mc. _?rll .ors Maria (BRD-1)
This site was located between docks at the end of the haul-out slip at McCotters Wrian.
'Pile depth was 1.5 m, the sediment was sandy mud with detritus, and the bottom salinity
was 10 ppt. Only two drops /replicate (6 dredges total) were collected here because of
heavy detritus.
hrirnwinit Tina (PAM-3)
'T'his site (Loran 27264.8 40146.1), the reference site for Broad Creek, was in is
relatively undisturbed area. The only visible human habitation was a mobile home park.
The depth was approximately 1 rn and the bottom was sandy mud. 'lase salhnity here, 1
papt, was much lower titan at Broad Creek.
Pamlico River a ff Texaas Gulf docks, ('1'G-1-2A)
This station was supposed to be at a site between Riggs' stations TG-I fand'111-2, near
the outfall of tho Texas Gulf discharge (up to 60 M01)), but the substrate was too hard to
allow sampling with an Lkanan dredge. '1 he site wag moved twice, finally to ne,, r the
channe=l marker off the entrance to the Texas Gulf Docks (Loran 27196.5 40107.9), to finch
sediment soft enough to sample, Depth here was 3 m and salinity was 15 ppt, the highest
in this survey.
p amli.4[?'Riv r a oveccm f II (PAM-21)
This site (Loran 27260 401339) was upstream from the Texas Gulf site and
approximately 1/2 mile offshore, Sediment here was muddy with some sand; tilt depth
was 1 n, and the salinity was 14 ppt.

APR-30-2001 MON 0.7.23 AM
FAX NO.
RESUI,TS AND DISCUSSION
111ablcs 1 and 2 suuntarize the results from this study. Appendices I and 2 list the taxtn
found and their individual abundance values. Abundance and biomass have beelt
normalized to #/0.111,2 for case of comparison between stations with different bottom zreas
sampled. Total taxa wag not normalized as were abundance and blomass because it was
found that 90% of all taxa or more were found within due first 3 dredges so between ,slte
comparisons can be mule without correction,
't'able 1. Taxa Richness and summary parameters, Ncuse Toxicity Assessment sites,
January 9, 1992. SLO-18=E Pr Slocum Cr., SLO-3=Upper Slocum Cr,, I•ICK-
3=11ancock Cr., CMP-I=Orientat Marina nr Docks, CMP-2=Oriental Marina off Yacht
("1111, r)i2i._S=C:rNrtiC (Y
Total Taxa
Abundance/ 0. 11,12
11ionlass/0.1 m2 (g)
Shannon Weiner (14)
Margaleff s (d)
Salinity (°/oo)
Median Crain Sim (µ)
Elevated metals (ller Riggs)
*Reference Sites

LW H S1,0CUM CR
S LO-3 11CK-3* ORWNTAL MARINA
CMP-1 ,,,,,,, WP-2 OR -5
3 10 12 7 10 16
93 755 1120 404 173 1182
1.51 0.89 4.53 2.44 0.71 3.24
1,91 2.19 1.36 1.79 2.16 2.54
1,11 3.18 3.66 2.34 3.86 4.28
0 0 4 13 14 12
29 45 27 31 26 26
Cd, Hg,Mo Mo 138, Cu IIg, Cu None
P. 05
Table 2, Taxa Richness and summary pa ameters, Pamlico Toxicity Assessment sites,, January
10, 1992. BRU-1=11road Cr., PAM-3=Chocowinity Ray, TO-1-2A=11amlico R. off Texas Gulf,
11AM-21=Parnlico R. upstream Texas Gulf.
BROAD CR TEXAS GULF
BRD-1 PAM-3* T0-1-2A...-.? PAM-21±
Total Irtma
lnxn2
Abundance/ 0 11
365 9
176 12
412 181
.
lm2 (g)
RionlttsslQ 1.14 1.61 1.83 0.4 S
.
Shannon-Weiner (1:1') 2.84 1.34 2.68 2.09
.
Margalefl"s (d) 3.71 2.99 3.61 4,22
Salinity ('/oo) 10 1 15 13
Median Grain Sire (µ) 26
Elevated Metals (Riggs) Cu,Pb,Hg
*Reference Sites
27 196 24
None Cd,Mo,As None
jpeiirn Crack
bast Prong Sloouni Creek (SLO-18) was located downstream of the I lavclock ?VW''l''
and off a waste disposal site. Taxa richness, abundance, and diversity (d) of the benibic
community at Ii Prop Slocum Creek (S1,0-1 8) swerc much lower than the b:ickgroLutd site
and was the lowest of any site in this survey, Ch ic)bt)ru5 ?rnctipettinis, a toleran t water
column-feeding dipteran, made up 92% of the hio7n i-s at this site, indicating a very
stressed site, due at least in part to low dissolved oxygen.
APR-30-2001 MON 07;24 AN FAX NO. P. 06
Lipper Slocum Creek (SLO-3), located cuff two waste disposal sites at the Cherry Point
Marine Air Station, also appeared impacted. While taxa richhness, abur ci nice, trncl diversity
(d) wore up dratnadcally over East Prong Slocum Creek, they were still less thin the
background site (Hancock Cr) and the biomass was even idwer than tit H Prong Slocum
Creek.
-0: iontal Marina
Samples collected in both January, 1992 and June, 1991(Neuse Basin Assessment, in
prep-) suggested that the marina area in Otiental Harbor is heavily Impacted, During both
seasons, taxi richness, abundance, biomass and diversity were till much lower at the
marina sites, CMP-1 and 2, than at background sites (011-3,4 and 5 in June and ORL-5 in
January) indicating a severe impact to the benthos. Since summer tHxtt richness Inca
abundance were so much lower than winter values, hypoxia seems to be a major, soasonal
stress here.
Broad Creek
The bottom salinity at Broad Creek (9.8ppt) was significantly higher than at
Chocowinity Bay (0 9ppt), thus comparison betwcon the two communities is difficult.
Chocowinity Bay appears to be the most stressed of the two, with slightly reduced taxa
richness and abundance, but with a mach lower diversity and higher biomass than Broad
Creek. That this is primarily due to salinity differences, and not toxicity, is evidenced by
the fact that 30% of the organisms and 32% of the biomass at Broad Creek carne from
estuarine taxa, while in Chocowinity Bay only 3% of the organisms (l.5olo of the biomass)
were estuarine.
Pamlico River at Texas Gulf
The much coarser sediment at the Texas Gulf site ('1'G-1-2A) tharh its background site
(PAM-21) makes a direct comparison of the biota loss than straightforward. Previous
sarripling across a groin size gradient (Memo to Ken Eagleson, 30 March 1992) sllowed
that unimpacied sandy sites have higher tax-,% richness, abundance and diversity thus
unimpacted muddy sites. In this case, however, taxa richness is almost unchanged
between the two sites and diversity (d) is actually higher at the muddy (background) site
which suggests that the sandy site ('1"0-1-2A) is more impacted than the muddy,
backg=round site (PAM-21).
SUMMARY
PchssRY toxic impacts were noted in most of the high-metals areHS that were sanipled
for benthos. Some sites, such as Upper Slocum Creek and the Oriental Marina showed
decline$ in taxa richness and abundance, indicating a toxic impact. 't'hese impacts, while
occurring in areas high in heavy metals may be caused by factors other Chun metals,
Physical variations between sites in the Pamlico basin made these comparisons difficult.
Variations in salinity prohibited comparison of Broad Creek with a backgrotiml. Prrevious
work with varying sediment grain size suggests problems at the Texas Gulf site, however,
tho change hi substrate prevented a characterization of this impact,
REFERENCES
Olsen, L.A. 1984. Effects of Contaminated Sediment on Fish and Wildlife: Review and
Annotated Bibliography, FWSl013S-82166, 103p.
Riggs, S.R., F.R. Powers, J.T. Bray, RM. Stout et tel. 1989. llettvy Meted pollutants in
organic-rich muds of the Pamlico River estuarine system: tlrcir eorrcentration,
distribution, and effects upon benthic environments and water quality. Albernarle-
Parnlico k?stuary Study Project 89-06. 108p.
Riggs, S.R., J. T. Bray, H.R. Powers, J.C. Hamilton et al. 1991. fheavy rnctnl potlutttttis ill
organic-rich muds of the Neuse River Estuary; Thcir concentration, distribution and 01'ects iyoll
benthic environments and water quality. Albemarle-llamlico Estuary Study Project 90-07. 1601).
APR-30-2001 MON 07,24 AM

FAX NO.
P. 07
Appendix 1
Species List and Abundwice Values from Neuse Trib'foxicity Slmpling, 9 January 1092.
Feeding F Pry t)__nner Flandr k ?)rieri?atl C.)rio1,1 (Jk'.E'T1S
Type1 Slocum Sloetim C' A, JL-tr or i[SL Cli?gk
T-txa/ Riggs Station # SLO-18 SL0.3 HCK-3 CMP-1 CMP-2 ORI,-5
MOLLUSCA
1 2
,, Macoma bahbica F,D
i Mulinia lateralis F 1
93
38 10
10
+.) Mwotna mitt hell! F,D 6 4
NEMA UODA V 9
OLIGOCRAI3TA
Lhimodrilus D 4 211
hoffmiesteri
Chaetogaster Sp. D 1 2 53
ITubifl oides sp. T)
4
I Tubireidne D
POLYC1 XAI.s 1'A
I Strcblospio D
4
183
117
96t
benedieti
k Polydora sp. D 17 23
A
46
f Polydora ligni D
Capitelta atpitata D 36 95 156
I Heteromastus D l 1
filiformis
Mediornastus arrtbiseta D
1
1(!02R
2
-I Eteone heteropoda C 2 48 49 39
2
f Laeoncreis culverl C 1
( Neantltes succinea C 3
)ParapionosyHis C
,ongtcrrralta
.1 Hobsonia florida D
6r4
1022
4 l 8R
CItUSTAC;F_A
Corophium lacustrt: D
5
87
l 431
Ciamniarus sp. D 40 12 1 2
Wotea montosa S
D11'' L,RA
I C,hironomus sp. S
4 289
1811 25t)
I `fanypus
neopunctipennis C,S
35
56
e IChaoborus pu=fiprnis F 56 8
I? I,li
j,-Ij let
lAbbreviations for feeding ty pes are: C - Carnivore
D - Deaitivore
S - Scavoger
V - Variable
APR-30-2001 MON 07.25 AM FAX NO. P. 08
t ,
J
Appendix 2
Species List and Abundance Values from Pamlico Toxicity Sa pling, 10 3anttary 1992.
Feeding BTS.s.. i't?l 01MMAinit _7nili li?i4?41
Type1 C. e, * EI '1 ex??s,(???lf ?strc?t?I?
Taxa. / Riggs Station # BRD-1 YAM-3 TO-1&2 PAM-21
MOLLUSCA
Macoinabalthica. FD 2$7 45

Muiinia laleralis 1' 19
155 18
75
Macotna mitchelli F,D 1 1
Rangia vuneata F

NF.MATC)DA V 1
NEMERTRA 5 2
Cerebratulus sp. C
OLIGOCI-IAETA
Linuiodrilus D 10$
11offiniesteri
Tubificoides sp. D 34 20 5
MLYCRAETA
Streblospio D
13
4 227 32
benedict!
Polydora sp. D 23 5 1
Polydora ligni D
71
Heteromastus D 1
filifoniiis
Medionnastus anibiseta D
8 2?8 20

Eteone heteropoda C 7 i0
11obsonia Florida D 55 4
CRU STAC.EA
Corophium lacustre D
50 l $
GaTmilarus sp. D 2
1
Monoculodes edwardsi D
DUYI'LRA,
Chironornus sp. S
108
356
69
28
Twiypus C,S 92 49
neopunctipenals
Coelotanyptts sp C 1 33
*Only 2 drops / replicate were collected at Broad :reek, Abunclance vBtttCi clyould be iuultiplietl by 2 to uitikc
comparisons witli the outer Pamlico sites which have 4 drops / replicate,
1Abbreviadons for feeding types are; C - Carnivore
D - Dclritivore
S - Scavenger
V - Variable
z;
State of North, r;?-olina
Department of -t ivironment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Mr. W. T. Cooper, Jr.
Vice-President/General Manager
Phosphate Production, PSC Phosphate
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, NC 27806
Dear Mr. Cooper:
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
December 11, 2000
DWQ # 001506
Beaufort County
On November 16, 2000 the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) was notified by receipt of
your application and Certification fee regarding your plan to fill wetlands for the purpose of
expanding the existing phosphorus mine in Beaufort County. Approval from DWQ is required to
disturb these wetlands. As we have discussed and is mentioned in your letter, DWQ fully expects
that this is the first step in a lengthy process for this permit. The first pertinent issue is the origin
point. of all intermittent streams in this area since the Tar-Pamlico buffer rules apply to this
project. Staff will soon be scheduling these visits with you in order to locate these points.
Please call me at [phone] if you have any questions or would require copies of
our rules or procedural materials. This project will remain on hold as incomplete in accordance
with 15A NCAC 2H .0505(c). The processing time for this application will begin when this
information is received. If we do not hear from you by writing within three (3) we will assume
you no longer want to pursue the project and will consider it withdrawn.
i cere
I'
o ey
Cc: Washington DWQ Regional Office
Washington Corps of Engineers
File Copy
Central Files
Jeff Furness; PCS Phosphate

Wetlands/401 Unit • 4401 Reedy Creek Road.* Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper
yp,0 Eg r`4
yam:
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Colonel James W. DeLony
District Engineer, Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Attention: David Lekson
Dear Colonel DeLony:
January 8, 2001
r<N
' ; -,
+4?
?ttgry?a''
?}".? !:'.asp
r3 ?,.;;?Fq
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed correspondence dated December 6,
2000, referencing PCs Phosphate Company's application for a Department of the Army
individual permit to continue its surface mining operations on a 3,604 acre tract of land located
on the Hickory Point peninsula, adjacent to the Pamlico River, South Creek and associated
tributaries, north of Aurora, in Beaufort County, North Carolina. The following comments are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
We recognize that this is only the beginning of the process which must include the preparation of
an Environmental Impact Statement but we offer the following points for your consideration.
The Service will strongly oppose mining in tidal creeks or their buffer areas or activities
that will damage area. submerged aquatic vegetation.
The Service has previously expressed concerns with high levels of cadmium in soils of
reclaimed mined lands at PCS, concerns which remain relevant to the new permit
application. We have worked successfully with the applicant, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and others to get data on the significance of this issue, and we anticipate
working through the results of those studies and their land management implications
soon.
Many of the impacts in this request are estuarine and the Service believes that the area to
be evaluated for potential mitigation should be commensurate in scale with the affected
aquatic community. Because the estuarine community is composed of fish, shellfish and
migratory birds that migrate on a large scale during their life cycle, we believe the area
considered acceptable for mitigation should be larger than it would, if the impacts were
le-
more terrestrial in nature. Also, since this project is so large and invasive, mitigation
should be very substantive. For example, for this project, the applicant should consider a
tract such as Open Grounds Farm for mitigation after being purchased from a willing
seller. A site such as Open Grounds Farm is farther from the site than might normally be
considered; however, restoration on such a site would benefit the same assemblage of
estuarine animals that are effected on this site, and the scale of that type of mitigation is
commensurate with this type of impact.
The Service considers this process very important and looks forward to being actively
involved.
The Service would like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to convene a meeting of the
environmental agencies and organizations to discuss environmental concerns. Although
this meeting would be a gathering of government agencies, PCS Phosphate can also
attend, if desired. However, in an effort to provide an atmosphere which will allow free
discussion, the environmental agencies/groups should convene a meeting prior to
scheduling a meeting to include PCS Phosphate. That meeting would be a more efficient
venue for discussing Service scoping comments on a project of this magnitude (e.g.,
wetland impact avoidance, minimization, compensation, endangered species section 7
consultation issues, etc.). We will be pleased to provide written scoping comments as a
follow-up to such a meeting for the Corps' files on this project.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Mike Wicker at [phone] (Ext. 22)
or via email at [e-mail]. Mike will have the lead for the office regarding this
permit application.
Sincerely,
Garland B. Pardue
Ecological. Services Supervisor
cc:
Mr. William T. Cooper Mr. Terry Moore
Mr. William L. Cox Mr. Rob Perks
Mr. John Domey Mr. Ross Smith
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness Mrs. William Wescott
Mr. Larry Hardy Mrs Katy West
Mr. Doug Huggett Mr. Floyd Williams
FWS/R4:MWicker:1-5-2001:919.856.4520extension22:\PCSPhospahteonJan2001.wpd
2

6 '?O IA
?te ??p
jr?i[S of
RECENED
Mr. David M. Lekson
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Lekson:

t11'4fIITED STAI cS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional office
9721 Executive Center Drive N
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
January 5, 2001
iA,N 0 8 2001

Please reference your December 6, 2000, request for comments concerning the scope of issues to be
addressed in evaluating PCS Phosphate Company's application (Action ID No. 200110096) for a
Department of the Army individual permit to continue its' surface mining operations on a 3,604-acre
tract of land located on the Hickory Point peninsula adjacent to the Pamlico River and South Creek
near Aurora, Beaufort County, North Carolina. According to your letter, the proposed project will
adversely effect 2,530 acres of wetlands. Wetland types to be impacted include herbaceous and
shrub-scrub assemblages, pine plantations, pine flatwoods, mixed pine/hardwood forest, hardwood
forest, bottomland hardwood forest, and brackish marsh. Additionally, 49 acres of open water
habitat would be effected including Jacks Creek, Jacobs Creek, Drinkwater Creek, Huddy Gut,
Huddles Cut, and several unnamed tributaries including existing mitigation areas (Creation Sites I
and II). These surface waters are surrounded by emergent marshes and are vegetated with
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) including widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima), milfoil
(Myriophyllum spp.), horned pondweed (Zannicellia plaustris), and homwort (Ceratophyllum
demersum).
We are concerned that the potential loss of wetlands and fishery habitat associated with this project
would adversely effect fishery resources for which we are responsible including Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH). The proposed project is located in an area identified as EFH for, eggs, larvae,
juvenile, and adult red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) and cobia (Rachycentron canadum); larvae,
juvenile, and adult brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus), pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum), and white
shrimp(Penaeus setiferus); juvenile and adult bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), summer flounder
(Paralichthys dentatus), black sea bass (Centropristis striata), king mackerel (Scomberomous
cavalla), Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus), and spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias).
In addition, EFH for juvenile gag grouper (Mycteroperca microlepis) and gray snapper (Lu Janus
griseus) is located in the project area. Categories of EFH potentially impacted by this work include
estuarine water column, mud and sand bottom habitat, emergent brackish and salt marsh, and SAV
which is identified as a habitat area of particular concern.
4?0 ATMOgq?,

The waters in the project area are also designated by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission as primary nursery areas for other commercially and recreationally important species
including Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), spotted
seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), and striped mullet
(Mugil cephalus). These estuarine dependent species serve as prey for other fisheries managed under
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) by the South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) (e.g., snapper grouper complex) and highly
migratory species managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (e.g., billfish, tuna,
and sharks). Detailed information on the above species and other Federally managed fisheries and
their EFH is provided in the 1998 amendments of the Fishery Management Plans of the South and
Mid-Atlantic Regions prepared by the SAFMC and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
The amendments were prepared as required by the MSFCMA (P.L. 94-265). In addition, many of
the above species have been identified in Section 906(e)(1) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (PL 99-602) as species of "national economic importance".
The wetlands to be impacted function to maintain water quality which is essential for the continued
projection of commercially and recreationally important fishery resources including anadromous
species managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Pursuant to our
responsibilities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, we are concerned that project related
wetland impacts would result in cumulative losses of wetlands that support NMFS trust fishery
resources. The cumulative loss of wetlands in the Pamlico River Estuary is problematic because
the applicant received federal authorization in August 1997 to conduct mining activities impacting
1,268 acres of wetlands. The NMFS's acceptance of these wetland losses was contingent upon our
understanding that adverse impacts to other high quality wetlands within the overall project area
would be avoided.
We question whether the proposed work is consistent with the Clean Water Act Section 404 (b)(1)
Guidelines which require that fill material shall not be placed in wetlands if there is a practical
alternative that would have less impact on aquatic ecosystems. The guidelines further state that for
non-water dependent activities proposed for wetlands, practical alternatives are presumed to exist.
We do not consider the construction of dikes and/or other activities that involve the placement of fill
in wetlands associated with phosphate mining to be a water dependent activity. We also note that
your letter identifies mitigation of potential adverse impacts and avoidance of impacts where
practical as a major consideration. We believe that any discussion of mitigation in association with
this proposal must be predicated on full compliance with the 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army Concerning the
Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
Based on our assessment of the information provided in your letter, high quality wetlands and
waters of the United States, including navigable waters, will potentially be effected by this project.
Therefore, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, we believe that federal authorization
for this work would constitute a maj or federal action effecting the quality of the human environment
and recommend that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared for this project. The EIS
should provide a comprehensive assessment of the project's impacts to wetlands, soils, geology,
r
hydrology, water quality, and fishery resources including the cumulative effects on NMFS trust
resources and their EFH. Therefore, pursuant to our April 17, 2000, Findings concerning the use of
existing consultation/environmental review procedures by the Wilmington District to satisfy the
MSFCMA consultation requirement, we anticipate inclusion of an EFH assessment in the EIS for
this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments early in the project planning process.
Sincerely,
O1'f
?OT
Andreas Mager, Jr.
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division
cc: FWS, ATLA, GA
FWS, Raleigh, NC
EPA, ATLA,;GA
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC
NCDENR, Morehead City, NC
SAFMC, Charleston, SC
MAFMC, Dover, DE
EDF, Raleigh, NC
F/SER4
r
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC,t'ION AGENCY
Sue REGION 4
A Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta,.Georgia 30303 - 8960
JAN 10 zoos
David Lekson, Chief T ,,??
sa' .i'
Washington Regulatory Field Office JAN ` 6 202
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers y
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
SUBJ: PCS Phosphate Company
Action ID No. 200110096
Dear Colonel DeLony:
This is in response to your letter dated December 6, 2000, requesting comments on the
PCS Phosphate Company's (PCS) application for a permit to continue its stuface mining
operations on a 3,604 acre tract of land on the Hickory Point peninsula. The proposed impact
site is adjacent to Pamlico River, South Creek and associated tributaries, north of Aurora, in
Beaufort County, North Carolina. According to the December 6, 2000 letter, 2,530 acres of
wetlands are proposed for impact, along with 49 acres of waters of the U.S., including navigable
waters. A large percentage of these waters are densely vegetated with several species of
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV).
We have also reviewed the December 6, 2000 letter to PCS concerning the potential
requirement for preparation of a detailed environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Wetlands Section (EPA) strongly recommends that
a detailed EIS be required and completed prior to any authorizations for this proposed project.
We are dismayed that the areas currently proposed for mining include mitigation areas and also
many acres which were originally deleted fiom the mining areas authorized under Action ID
Number 198800449 (issued August 20, 1997), after negotiations with the resource agencies. We
question whether PCS ever intended to avoid these areas, since the request to mine them has
come so soon after their agreement to avoid and/or preserve them.
Along with the considerations listed in your December 6, 2000 letter to us, we believe
that the EIS should include a detailed alternatives analysis, including a detailed justification for
proposed impacts to the high quality areas which were not included in the 1997 permit and
mitigation areas, and discussions concerning avoidance of these areas.
2
Thank you for the opportunity to provide scoping comments. We look forward to
working with your office, the applicant and other interested parties to resolve our concerns with
the project. We intend to participate in any meetings which may be called in the near future.
Should you have any questions, please contact Kathy Matthews of the Wetlands Section at
404-562-9373.
Sincere
ilham L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section
cc: See attached list
CC List: PCS Phosphate Company
Mr. Garland Pardue
Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516-9722
Mr. Wayne Wright, Chief
Regulatory Division.
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Mr. John Dormey
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Mr. Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1701 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina. 27699-1701
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638

MARINE FISHERIES i?P', Fax:[phone]
MEMORANDUM:
TO: David Lekson
FROM: Sean McKenna (jWce
DATE: January 12, 2000
Jar, 01 11:34 P. 02102
SUBJECT: PCS Phosphate Company Section 404 Permit Application
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) offers the following comments
pursuant to G.S. 113-131. on the request for a Department of the Army (DA) individual permit Pr
Phosphate to continue its surface mining operations outside of the 50 year mining
the previous EIS, PCS Phosphate Company am
3,604 acre tract of land located on the Hickory Point peninsula bounded by mining operations avers forth in
PCS north and South Creek to the South. This proposed project will adversely effect 2,530 acres of
wetlands and 49 acres of public trust waters. Y he Pamlico River to the
The NCDMF would like to see the Corps address the following issues in its evaluation
PCS's pending permit application. of
l • Effected waters include inland rim
Tooleys creeks).
These and other effected creeks erve as Es ential Fish Habit tCI Iabitat Areas of
Particular
Concern (EFH_H gpCs) for shrimp and red drum under the federal 'and Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This Act specifies that each Federal agenc
shall consult with the Secretary of Commerce with respect to any action authorized, funded
or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, by such agency that..ma
adversely affect any EFH identified under this Act, Y
nursery areas for important commercial and recreatio
Additionall, these creeks are nal speciesysuch as blue a ab,south southern
flounder, spot, and Atlantic croaker.
2. It is imperative that a complete review of alternatives, other then those
considered in the ,EIS. proposed by PCS, be
3 The Purpose and Need statement must objectively represent PCS's true pu
4• Need to address the impacts of hydrological changes on nursery area a purpose and need.
5• The impacts of the proposed activity on available habits and wetland functions.
EIS. t (all types) must be addressed in the
6. Cumulative impacts from PCS and other local activities need to be looked at in the
7. Proposed mitigation should be commensurate in scale and EIS.
8• The ;Purpose and Need, and Alternatives Section of type to the affected habitat.
parties prior to the initiation of the draft EIS, the EIS should be agreed upon by all
The NCDMF appreciates the Opportunity to comment on the proposed activity, and looks
forward to working with the Corps and other groups during this process.
Y ?Y? Y
PCS Permit Evaluation Team
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: AID 200110096 PCS Phosphate mine advance, South Creek and tributaries,
Beaufort County, North Carolina.
The PCS Permit Evaluation Team:
Scott McLendon
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
Kathy Matthews
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Section-Region IV
Wetlands Management Division,
61 Forsyth Street Southwest
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Phone: [phone], ext. 22
FAX: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
1
PCS Permit Evaluation Team
John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Phone: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
Bob Zarzecki (Alternate for Dorney)
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Phone: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
Deborah Sawyer
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
David Moye / Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
PCS Permit Evaluation Team
Floyd Williams
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
Sean McKenna
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
William Wescott
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Phone: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
Rob Perks / David McNaught
Pamlico Tar River Foundation
Post Office Box 1854
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
3
A Ic- e-

.- ?/v e-azo- V, ?Izev
Z.1179>,

y
7- - -- -
d

{ / I
/J
/?--
,r YY" 7 7

-----
?'-- ? an-? - ? ate-?a'?
--
U
T ? /f `7 7

2-? Z
000
04
lop,
jo4v

- - - - ______ _Grc? - -- - - - --- - ------ - -- - -- -=- ------ ----

PCS Field Wk.
Subject: PCS Field Wk.
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:23:49 -0400
From: Deborah Sawyer <Deborah. Sawyer@ ncmail.net>
Organization: DENR
To: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>, John Dorney <[e-mail]>,
Steve Mitchell <[e-mail]>
CC: Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>, Roger Thorpe <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
Bob, John, and Mitchell,
We can't go in the field on 5/30 or have a DCM meeting. That is the day of the PCS meeting. There
wouldn't be time before or after the PCS meeting for a DCM meeting. Jeff wants to be with us in the field
so he nor the CZR people can go on the 30th in the field because they'll be in the scoping meeting.
May 31st is totally out for me, my son graduates on May 31st and I will have a house full of relatives. I
am taking 5/31 and 6/1 off. It is also critical that the stream determinations be done when I am there. Jim
and Roger agree.
I have called Jeff Furness and he wants no more than 3 groups so that he and the 2 CZR people who
have been working on the site can be on each group. I agree with him. 3 groups is the right number to
control. That means that Bob and I will lead a group and either Mitchell or John will lead the 3rd group.
The tentative dates Jeff and I have agreed on are as follows:
• May 23, 2001
• May 24, 2001
• May 29, 2001
• June 18, 2001
• June 19, 2001
Jeff will be out of town the 1 st week in June and Kent of CZR will be on vacation the 1st 2 weeks in June.
John, if you can't make the dates in May, maybe Mitchell can.
Bob, John, and Mitchell; please let me know how your schedule stands on the above dates. We need to
settle on 3 days. There will be other agencies in the various groups as well. We need to let all interested
parties know when we will be making the calls.
Thanks,
Deborah
1 of 1 4/24/013:35 PN
NEPA/404 Planning Process
t? Oevelop Project Tea
Notice of Intent (Federal Register) ?? ?,t
Project Sco in tie ,or
El ata Collection, Evaluation and Notificatio y
? CONCURRENCE POINT 1- Purpose and Need 5130 f
? lternatives Development a? 2
? ICONCURRENCE POINT 2 -Impact Minimizatio
? [Alternatives Analysis and
? I CONCURRENCE POINT 3 - Alternatives Carried Forwar
? (Prepare Preliminary Draft EIS/Section 404 Permit Applica
1
? Notice of Availability (Federal Register) and 404 Public N,
? raft EIS and Section 404 Revie
I
? oint NEPA/Section 404 Public Hearin
? Comment Responses and Final EIS Pre aratio
? CCONCURRENCE POINT 4 - Selected Alternativel
? inal EIS Revie
? I CONCURRENCE POINT S - Compensatory Mitigation
? ecord of Decision /.Permit Decision
. &0,1
f0
Southern
Ar-
Environmental
Law Center
January 12, 2000
Mr. David Lekson
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Re: PCS Phosphate Company Section 404 Permit Application
(Action ID 200110096)
Dear Mr. Lekson:
200 West Franklin Street, Suite 330
Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2520
919-967-1450
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL
'AN I
LO1Jf Ton
The Southern Environmental Law Center ("SELC") submits these comments on behalf of
the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation ("PTRF") in response to initiation of the scoping process for
PCS Phosphate Company's ("PCS") application for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit to
continue surface mining operations on Hickory Point peninsula in Beaufort County, North
Carolina. PRTF is a citizens' organization of approximately 2000 members, dedicated to the
preservation of the natural systems of Tar-Pamlico watershed. SELC is a non-profit legal
advocacy organization that represents organizations working to protect natural resources
throughout the Southeast and which has expertise in wetlands, water quality and National
Environmental Protection Act ("NEPA") issues. We appreciate the opportunity to submit these
comments.
PCS owns nearly 50,000 acres of land in Beaufort County. The company currently mines
phosphate at the site and processes the phosphate into various chemical products at a
manufacturing facility adjacent to the mine. The most recently issued permit for this site, DA
No. 19880449; authorized PCS to mine 1,268 acres of wetlands, the largest permitted loss of
wetlands in the history of the Section 404 permitting program in North Carolina. The current
proposed project, a continuation of surface mining operations on a 3,604 acre tract, will
adversely affect 2,530 acres of wetlands and 49 acres of waters of the United States, including
navigable waters. It is imperative that the current application be evaluated in the context of this
history of extensive loss of wetlands, and in the context of PCS's larger phosphate holdings and
operations in Beaufort County.
The wetlands that PCS will destroy are important to maintaining and improving water
quality in the Pamlico River, part of the second largest estuary on the East Coast. In the recent
Regional Office: 201 West Main St., Suite 14 • Charlottesville, VA 22902-5065 • 804-977-4090
Deep South Office: The Candler Building • 127 Peachtree St., Suite 605 • Atlanta, GA 30303-1800 • 404-521-9900
100% recycled paper
past, the Pamlico has experienced algae blooms, dead water, fish kills, and the emergence of
Pfiesteria piscicida as a result of excessive nutrient imputs. Wetlands perform the critical
function of removing nutrients and are essential to protecting water quality in the Pamlico River
and Sound. In 1987, the State of North Carolina and Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
designated Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds for special management under the National Estuary
Program established by the federal Clean Water Act. This designation resulted in part from
eutrophication, fish disease and associated loss of wetland habitats that particularly affected the
Pamlico River in the vicinity of the PCS mine site.' Efforts to address worsening water quality
problems in the lower Pamlico River continue. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality
targeted the Tar-Pamlico estuary as the highest priority for total maximum daily load (TMDL)
development and implementation to address impairment resulting from excessive nutrient
loading.2 In September 1998, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
authorized development and implementation of mandatory nutrient reduction measures for the
basin.3 These rules are in the final stages of development and should be considered in the
permitting process. Permitting further loss of wetlands to allow continued phosphate mining in
this sensitive area will only add to the Pamlico River's myriad of water quality problems.
The following issues should be addressed by the Corps in its evaluation of PCS's pending
permit application.
Project P ose
Under the National Environmental Policy Act, an environmental impact statement
("EIS") must be prepared by the responsible agency where an approved action would constitute a
"major Federal action[s] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." Section
102(2)(C) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). PCS's pending permit to continue phosphate
mining in a wetlands area, including the placement of excavated materials in a wetlands, is a
major federal action that requires the Corps to prepare an EIS. Further, a public scoping process
should be initiated to help determine the issues to be addressed in this project's EIS. The public
scoping process is used to determine the range of issues to be addressed in the EIS and which
issues are of greatest concern to the public; scoping also keeps interested parties informed and
gives them an opportunity to participate in this process. See 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7.
NEPA requires that an EIS contain a statement of purpose and need for the proposed
action. Courts regularly have held that the statement of purpose and need should be defined to
reflect the objective, general need for the proposed activity rather than the specific, narrow
course of action preferred by the applicant. The statement of purpose and need in an EIS must
not be defined too restrictively, and may not be so narrowly defined as to reflect the applicant's
preferred course of action rather than its underlying basic need and purpose. The Corps should
' State/EPA Conference Agreement for National Estuary Program Designation Under the Water Quality Act of 1987
(October 20, 1987).
2 North Carolina Division of Water Quality, North Carolina's 1998 303(d) List (May 15, 1998).
3 North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Draft Tar-Pamlico River Basin-Wide Water Quality Plan at 61-62
(February 1999).
2
remain vigilant in guarding against an overly restrictive statement of purpose as this application
progresses to the EIS stage.
The purpose of PCS's latest application to the Corps is to provide for the continuing
viable operation of the PCS facility at Aurora. Specifically, the overall goal is to ensure that
PCS's phosphate plant has a continuous supply of ore for a reasonable period of time. While
other purpose and need statements submitted by PCS in previous permit applications have had
continued mining as a stated purpose, the Corps should be mindful that PCS's more fundamental
purpose is to continue operating in a cost-effective manner by supplying its plant with sufficient
quantities of phosphate ore. The Corps must make certain that PCS's next statement of purpose
and need is more broadly defined to objectively represent that underlying need.
Formulating Alternatives
In the process of reviewing this application, the Corps will be required to formulate a
range of reasonable alternatives to be considered along with the actual proposal submitted by
PCS in its pending application. 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(2). Under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines,
activities authorized under Section 404 must avoid wetland impacts to the maximum extent
practicable. Given the extensive acrege of wetlands already destroyed on Hickory Point
peninsula, it is especially important that the Corps examine alternatives to avoid and minimize
wetlands impacts. Also, the Corps is required to seriously evaluate a "no action" alternative.
Under NEPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 1502.4(c)(1), in the preparation of studies or
reports, agencies should evaluate the proposal and its scope "geographically, including actions
occurring in the same general location, such as body of water, region, or metropolitan area." The
project area for the pending application should be defined to include all phosphate ore reserves
south of NC Highway 33, in addition to the property referred to as the "NCPC tract." In fact, we
understand that PCS has agreed to this definition of project area for the pending permit.
Therefore, any discussion of environmental impacts that may result from the continuation of
mining under the pending application must include alternatives on property south of NC
Highway 33. That property includes at least 10,000 acres that are predominantly uplands. Mine
expansion in this upland area would greatly reduce volume and quality of wetlands destroyed
and significantly reduce adverse environmental impacts. The most recent mining activity has
occurred.in an area of similar ore quality, demonstrating that continued mining of these reserves
is indeed economically feasible.
In analyzing the relative merits of various alternative mining plans, the economics of
moving mining equipment from one part of the PCS tract to another should not be a
consideration. PCS has acknowledged that the potential costs and delays associated with moving
mining equipment from the terminal°point of the currently-permitted mining area at the northern
end of the NCPC tract to any mining area south of NC Highway 33 are insignificant in the
overall economic and engineering considerations presented by the pending permit application.
Alternative mining continuation plans should be analyzed based.on environmental
considerations; having to move mining equipment from one location to another on PCS-owned
property should not be a factor.
The availability of imported phosphate ore may obviate the need to mine any wetland
sites. PCS may have the ability to import ore from Florida, Morocco or other locations for
processing at the Aurora facility. This is an economically viable alternative that should be
thoroughly investigated before any permit is issued which destroys wetlands.
IMPACTS
Water Quality
The activities proposed in the new permit application may have severe ramifications for
water quality in the tributaries in and around the site. According to your scoping notice, forty-
nine acres of waters of the United States, including surface waters, will be affected under the
proposed permit. Additionally, Jacks Creek, Jacobs Creek, Drinkwater Creek, Huddy Gut,
Huddles Cut and several unnamed tributaries of South Creek and the Pamlico River will also be
impacted. Under Special Condition 3 of PCS's current permit, PCS must perform studies to
assess water quality and hydrologic impacts on the tributaries of South Creek and the Pamlico
River that are the result of removal of drainage area from these tributaries, and perform remedial
action where unacceptable impacts are identified. The terms of this existing permit must be fully
satisfied before the new permit can be evaluated, and the results of these water quality studies
should inform any future permitting action. The tributaries named above and any others
identified during the environmental review process must be monitored extensively and on an
ongoing basis under the new permit, and remedial action should be required if water quality is
diminished as a result of PCS's mining activities. Remediation must be more than a paper
promise - it should be an independently enforceable means of ensuring water quality protection
in Pamlico Sound.
Adverse Effects of Cadmium
Researchers have found cadmium in high concentrations around the PCS site for the past
twenty years. More recently a bioaccumulation study in earthworms also found elevated
cadmium levels. Certain plants can concentrate cadmium and when those plants are consumed
in turn by animals, cadmium is "biomagnified" and may result in kidney and liver dysfunction,
brittle bones, and adverse affects on reproduction and survival generally. Cadmium
contamination studies, monitoring and remedial action, if necessary, are required under Special
Condition 2 of PCS's current permit. The results of these studies must inform any fixture action
on the PCS site. Cadmium impacts must be examined closely in conjunction with the new
permit application and specific requirements should be included, e.g. specific timelines for
completion and analysis of cadmium data, penalties for failing to abide by the timeline, and a
plan for remedial action authored by a cadmium expert. Further, PCS should be required to cap
all reclaimed sites with uncontaminated topsoil. An EIS must fully disclose all cadmium issues
at the PCS site before evaluating the mining permit application.
4
Habitat Loss and Threatened and Endangered Species
Wetlands host a wide variety of plants and animals and loss of wetlands translates to lost
habitat. Coastal wetlands contain 70% of the rare or endangered plant species of the region, and
form the principal habitat for a large number of animal species of special concern. For species
such as black bears, wood ducks and muskrats, wetlands are primary habitat. Wetlands also
serve as nursery areas for terrestrial invertebrates, fish, and migratory waterfowl. The Corps
should analyze the potential for habitat loss in PCS's pending permit application and minimize
those losses to the greatest extent possible. Surveys must be done for threatened and endangered
species in the area covered under PCS's pending permit. The results of those surveys should
inform the Corps' decisionmaking during the EIS process.
Cumulative Impacts
PCS's pending permit must be analyzed against the backdrop of the company's years of
phosphate mining activities and its cumulative impacts on the area in question. "Cumulative
impact" is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action
when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 40 C.F.R. §
1508.7. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
actions taking place over a period of time. Id. The acres of wetlands that have been mined over
the years along with the impacts on water quality and wildlife habitat make an investigation of
cumulative impacts crucial. Further, the cumulative impact of PCS's mining activities must be
considered not just in terms of wetlands impacts, but also relative to the ecological integrity of
the overall Pamlico estuarine system.
MITIGATION
Wetland Mitigation
Under the previous mining permit granted to PCS by the Corps, PCS was required to
accomplish mitigation of mined wetlands and monitor to determine if mitigation was successful.
Before the current permit application can be properly evaluated, the results of this monitoring
must be analyzed to determine how successful past and ongoing mitigation has been at the PCS
site. This information could then be used to determine the likely scope of wetlands loss posed by
the new permit. The types and functions of wetlands affected by the pending permit should also
be considered. If wetland losses are allowed, a mitigation plan should be required that includes
provisions for a remedial plan, if warranted, as in Special Condition 1(a) of the permit under
which PCS is currently operating. PCS's new mitigation plan must be developed in detail before
a final environmental impact statement is issued to ensure public review and evaluation by the
Corps. Also, adequate mitigation ratios must be used. Further, PCS should consider funding a
joint standing technical committee on reclamation and mitigation that would be empowered to
make judgments on adjustments to monitoring and management criteria for reclaimed and
mitigated lands.
5
Conservation Easements
Provisions should be made in the new permit for placing mitigated wetlands outside the
scope of future mining activities. The current permit under which PCS is operating provides that
PCS will convey a conservation easement over all mitigation lands. To avoid the possibility of
future mining of mitigated wetlands, the new permit should also include a provision calling for
mitigation lands to be placed in conservation easements as in Special Condition 1(b) of the
current permit.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.
Very truly yours,
R} S. Coed, , r . czY.4)
Derb S. Carter, Jr.
Senior Attorney
Donnell Van Noppen III
Senio Attorney
Ina Zucker
Associate Attorney
cc: Rob Perks, Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
William L. Cox, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Garland Pardue, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Larry Hardy, National Marine Fisheries Service
John Dorney, Division. of Water Quality
Doug Huggett, Division of Coastal Management
Katy West, Division of Marine Fisheries
William Wescott, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
George House, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP
r .- K.
6
CESAW-RG-W/Lekson
August 26, 2003
AGENDA PCS PHOSPHATE PERMIT TEAM MEETING
SUBJECT: AID 200110096 / PCS Phosphate mine advance, Beaufort
County, North Carolina.
'
10:00 - 10:30 Introductions/Old business/Schedule next meeting
10:30 12:30 Marston presentation/discussion of economic model and
minimum pit idth proposal;
12:30 -1:00 Lunch
1:30 - 2:00 Review/discussion of revised mine block boundaries
2:00 - 3:30 Dr. Wayne Skaggs creek study presentatio V11

imap://bob.zarzecki%40dwq.denr.ncmail.net@ cros.ncmail.net:143/fe...
Subject: PCS - DWQ upper stream limits
From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:33:13 -0400
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Tom, Bob, and John,
Regarding questions from the PCS - interagency meeting earlier this week,
DWQ upper limits
Bonnerton Tract - the drain to Durham Creek, shown as a blue line on the USGS above
SR 1942, was labeled DCUT2 by us. We flagged three upper limits, but upon inspection
by DWQ, none were claimed jurisdictional due to a blocked drain (no culvert at the SR
1936 road crossing).
South of NC 33 Tract - the two blue-line drains just south of Idalia that drain into
South Creek were visited by DWQ and were determined to be ditches west of SR 1925.
We will probably have DWQ confirm these areas east of the road. The small drain
along the scarp near Prescott was not visited by DWQ, but the ditch "downstream" and
east of this drain was determined to be a ditch, not under DWQ jurisdiction. Since
this area was outside the original study boundary, the COE and DWQ will probably need
to visit this area.
We are in the process of delineating wetlands in the expanded South of 33 block along
the Suffolk Scarp, but we have a good idea of where potential streams occur in this
area. Could we schedule a date for an on-site visit for DWQ to confirm the upper
limits of these streams? Please let me know a couple of potential dates/times that
you are available for these field confirmations. I do not believe that it would take
more than 4 to 6 hours.
Thanks,
Sam Cooper
CZR Incorporated
4709 College Acres Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
9/26/2003 4:15 PY
/,V? 15-
Rs iqe,6 ' -7V/0 5
cJGu-C N? (33
'ye- sow
Ar, J4 1,7V A,6e rte' O+e4ze A,?sA,4 • ? 170
- ?? / /' Jlm ?w
'104
? Q
off'
n- ?
/VA
'
?
-IVA
o?
pz ??

??. e ?6- ?( X-e5j I( d&
AAa A eOe? &4 ,16a &-z- A-e,?
#,?e
&e?-

-
?
AL5' Aze
JAIA? 4;?
z
/Ao /v av it /.e/7JLd-)

(1pb

4?
h
V> 'tiff
s AL
1;?41 ct??
010 6-L Ce9
Al?? 9--
VOA Jt?e-4 . CeS,u Clef (P-)
C`x? 6razQ, ?®. OP)
?J? ?.? CPS
OwQ ? a?ti? ? l?
.. tgi?Ps
(A?c
o S

mailbox:///C l/Documents %20and%20Settings/bob_zarzecki/Applicat...
Subject: Re: PCS-upper DWQ stream limits
From: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:56:56 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Sam:
I received the maps today and will look them over prior to our meeting tomorrow.
Bob
[e-mail] wrote:
Bob and Tom,
You will be receiving figures tomorrow via overnight delivery that show DWQ upper
stream limits for each of the three blocks (NCPC, South of NC 33, and Bonnerton)
over a USGS topo base map. These figures will not contain biotic communities or
wetlands, as those resources are still be surveyed/mapped. We will be providing
additional reference figures (aerial photos) at the meeting. Please let me know if
you need additional information, or if these figures will be sufficient to evaluate
an alternative based on DWQ upper stream limits and buffers. We look forward to
your input.
Sincerely,
Sam Cooper CZR Incorporated
4709 College Acres Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
1 of 1 9/23/2003 9:57 AM
CZR INCORPORATED
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
TO: NC Division of Water Quality
ADDRESS: Parkview Building, 231 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604-2269
1061 EAST INDIANTOWN ROAD
SUITE 100
JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477-5143
TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]
DATE: 9/22/03
JOB: CP 1746-62
PCS Phosphate
ATTENTION: Bob Zarzecki
WE ARE SENDING YOU: ¦ Attached ? Under separate cover via ovemight AM the following items:
? Shop Drawings ¦ Prints ? Plans ? Samples ? Specifications
? Copy of letter ? Change Order ?
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
1 9122103 1 NCPC - DWQ Upper Stream Limits and Buffers on Quads
1 9/22103 2 Bonnerton - DWQ Upper Stream Limits and Buffers on Quads
1 9/22103 3 South of NC 33 - DWQ Upper Stream Limits and Buffers on Quads

THESE ARE TRANSMITTED: as checked below
? For approval ? Furnish as submitted ? Resubmit copies for approval
¦ For your use ? Furnish as corrected ? Submit copies for distribution
? As requested ? Revise and resubmit ? Return corrected prints
? For review and comment ?
REMARKS:
Forwarding graphics per Sam Cooper NU LADS IITU
TMQUAMSECTION
COPY TO:
SIGNED: ?P ,
Terry Jones, G phi Department
LL i N S U O N
N' R U) D o
r /? a1 cb i } J Z c? ° rn
h S W M 0
U- Li
u / y } Z }
UAI
61 J ?, !'/ m ?"Ax
Q m 3 Z
cill CL LL.
C) I
,a? Ny O O Of WJ 2 e^,, N Z 0 Q
H a ul ?7 € < Q J Z
nN m Of VIZ 3 w w
W W W V zrwam
I' as w m a w a=
LLI
Z Y w F..,... J w Z m < o??
?r a. a O a< Z- o
U 0 3 y p _ w °
_ A m z UI LO 0 o m
o Q W
/ 7zP "` , •• >.-, ., to ?r A Q a z
n ? Ali a ? a O ,?+
?1J
,
/ A m
t
X
t a ?l
v 3- .<
"Jaw 51
m
\ S ?? .
m / I
C ? 5
r
ZT
o
Q, Al 2 till
IPI
r atilt j tl, '
11-f? I
a y y'?
411 A,
I r
N?
mu
0

,
? I ....
. ?
1j
-

4o
x

I?
I 6?
FV
1

Lr)
L it
LLJ
'r
W W m r
I u CL LL.
c? ?:? ?'I 3 O Z
`1 j 1 11 W J a W V
I ? C Z
i W
a >"omn
/ , ?1 ? ?? N W ? ?FNQN
Z W ml?naam
a o00
e n? I? A. !I- i M r o W ewe
w to 3 0 =
?? - 1;?I,?11 W 0 o IN,
Q g? U C? d 0
(';{II I i'r I N ?W
- -- ! t ` PI° , Itll ?Il it 3 y
Nab
1
v<) 00)
a
i - o
W
t- 1
?1?1 gg
,? 1 C I
l 1 II I Lo fr-
ui
l O tl
?t I ?f fly. I Z W
lIII
?? I? NISI{ if fly
I -_ ? ? ?r I N m
4
u
lz-
o?
LL jl-J m 3
LLI
°w 0
it V) L 1- W
IM CL
LL U-
C d z Z
o a 3 z z
................ -- ?- ?? GO cn to D o >
pl*
m w
' J
! \J/ I til
l-
to it
y) \ l,' r n It
a 9 1 \ L.
? I If ` u.• ? r 1 ?)
It
a ?
-J P I c C
1110 -
0
- y a N
a
` F U O Q
p Z ; N N
b Y
L? m H} 't w
Cllj LO
Q mV z
n
Z W LL a m W
P, z
?pOCW7? p W Z Z U`
N ??a< a -.r c = m LJ z m
f / a < LLJ o Z Q U ?`
C4 _3
z -00 O LLJ
[ Z d
-J LL
'?B ?• -•? i(''r?'-?y+.-? M C?., \..^' (r, co
40 J O a '-rJ.? J
Z
;< i g -
?' ?3y ?' ? ? >"SAM
m z 0 o W y LL
C, v I, _, at m
z wp O F- Li LU
CL U-
0.0
W ?Z V) LL)
z°?
)- X j0 Q J a
I R
U Iii F- ??W ?mW W ? W
CI- Cl?
U W W 3 j Q Q a
?
a
m a O k a w W ? Z a
U a 3
z Vi ° Z) o o?C ".a Q 3
I- Z
5 r z w
0 O\
LAJ
C. Z d (f) C,4 LL "
zi ` 6 4 O
Q o
44 N
I C ,
CJ 9
0
o I
I
V) a
A
-Sw
a ? 4 ,. I p
I ? l
41
.? 5 a I! I 1
l
v i ;I141
(? ?S:°'-? v?' I? ? \_ `•II I;IP'1 ? i I b''II• Wlr I i
?,Iz r r
0
%
?tl
h °t its K , I I I I'dI I I 7 u -
hx I ? ': r I } r
`;??Slg.149 r ? ?' A' •r, „ail ? ', ? I ?' 1 I I r. ,., I YYY - t _ _
I
?t
f
Iwo
c
God
41
U 1 tv
I L i ? "I ,y?^"".+?ty ; r °?w?; ?i, li ,..,? \ OG? - . ?? /` ,? I ,? ` ,, • a ? ? n tr? ? ? E ? ' ?
b I ???? ? `'SSA ?"??? I ,91 .?{ ?? wM??, },,,.? ^?,.} I' ?'??1? ?i'? ?? •? . ,d' ?? • ?o n°°';,;?? •
-- 3 r"-' -
imap://bob.zarzecki %40dwq.denr.ncmail.net @cros.ncmail.net:143/fe...
Subject: DRAFT - meeting minutes August 26, 2003
From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:16:30 -0400
To: [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]
EMAILED TO THE FOLLOWING:
[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], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Hello all,
Attached for your review is a draft version of the meeting summary notes from the
last PCS - EIS agency meeting on 26 August 2003. The attachment is a Word document.
Hard copies of the presentations will be included with the final meeting notes. If
you would like a copy of the presentation prior to responding, please let Mark Grippo
or me know and we will provide you with a copy. I will also bring some copies of the
presentations to the meeting tomorrow. Please list the appropriate page and line
number(s) in your comments and have your comments to us by 10 October 2003.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sam Cooper
CZR Incorporated
4709 College Acres Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
1 of 1 9/24/2003 6:57 AM
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
TO: See Distribution
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
FROM: Samuel Cooper, Mark Grippo
DATE: 23 September 2003
RE: Minutes of the 26 August 2003 meeting for the PCS Phosphate Mine
Continuation permit application review.
The ninth 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 26 August 2003. The following
people were in attendance:
David Lekson - USACE
Bob Finch - USACE
Brooke Lawson - USACE
Scott Jones - USACE
Tom Walker - USACE
Tex Gilmore - PCS Phosphate
Ross Smith - PCS Phosphate
Jeff Furness - PCS Phosphate
Jerry Waters - PCS Phosphate
Bill Schimming - Potash Corp.
John Dorney - NCDWQ
Tom Steffens - NCDWQ
Bob Zarzecki - NCDWQ
19 Terry Moore - NCDCM
20 David Moye - NCDCM
21 Sean McKenna - NCDMF
22 Mike Wicker - USFWS
23 David McHenry - NCWRC
24 Mike Thomas - NCDWQ
25 Ron Sechler - NMFS
26 Heather Jacobs - PTRF
27 Richard Peed - LQ
28 Terry Kremmel - Marston
29 Don Marston - Marston
30 Samuel Cooper - CZR Incorporated
31 Mark Grippo - CZR Incorporated
Kathy Matthews of USEPA participated via telephone. In addition, Wayne
Skaggs of NC State and George Chescheir of NC State were present at the meeting
from approximately 12:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
At approximately 10:05 a.m., Mr. Lekson called the meeting to order. He asked
if everyone had received the minutes from the last meeting and if anyone had any
comments. No comments were given. Mr. Lekson asked to schedule another meeting
approximately one month from the present date. Mr. Dorney had scheduling problems
and Mr. Lekson asked if Mr. Steffens could sit in for him. Mr. Dorney said that was fine,
and the next meeting was scheduled for 24 September 2003 at 10:00 a.m. Ms.
1
43 Matthews said she could not participate on that date, but may have someone else
44 participate via conference call in her absence.
45
46 Mr. Lekson said that discussion of mitigation would be a topic at the next
47 meeting. Mr. Dorney asked about a DWQ stream origin map for the NCPC tract. Mr.
48 Cooper said it would be available for discussion at the 24 September meeting. Mr.
49 Lekson asked for CZR to send the figure to himself, Mr. Dorney, and Mr. Steffens prior
50 to the meeting, if possible.
51
52 Mr. Lekson introduced Mr. Finch, an economic modeler from the USACE, and
53 stated that he would assist in the review of the economic model developed by Marston.
54 A PowerPoint presentation by Mr. Marston of minimum permit width requirements at
55 PCS Phosphate's Aurora, North Carolina mine began at 10:20 a.m. A copy of the
56 PowerPoint presentation is attached with these meeting notes. During the presentation,
57 Mr. Marston stated that in determining minimum pit width, the assumption of 5 million
58 tons a year (mty) was used as the production target and then modeled for one, two, or
59 three draglines, taking into account the safety, operational, and efficiency constraints of
60 each dragline option. Mr. Marston emphasized the tremendous size of the draglines
61 and identified the distances required between operating draglines. For the NCPC Tract,
62 the mining bench would require 90' of permitted width on one side and 309' on the
63 other. For tracts where no prior mining had occurred, 309' of permitted width would be
64 required on both sides of the mine bench. Considering safety, operation constraints,
65 and efficiency, the use of three draglines with a two-week buffer was recommended.
66 Also, recommended was a permitted pit width of 4,415'. Reducing the pit width
67 decreases efficiency and ore recovery. The current pit width is 3,900' because demand
68 for ore is currently low and production is only 3 mty. Three draglines are in the pit at
69 present, but only two are being used. The Permit Width Analysis presentation
70 concluded at 11:10 a.m.
71
72 Mr. Lekson asked what was the role of the 5 mty assumption in determining pit
73 width. Both Mr. Smith and Mr. Marston verified that the pit width determination was
74 applicable to any production rate that used three draglines. Mr. Marston indicated that
75 the study presented was based on geometry and geology of the site and did not
76 represent a mine plan. Mr. Marston pointed out that site-specific conditions could
77 influence pit width and a mine plan would be necessary for each scenario. A shallower
78 pit may result in a narrower pit width. Overburden was estimated at 75' in this study.
79 Mr. Lekson stated that it was important that page 1-1 of the Marston pit width report did
80 not specify what is economically viable. Mr. Smith replied that the 5 mty target was
81 based on long-term demand from chemical plants. Mr. Smith also said that 5 mty was
82 an average, and actual production at any given time may be higher or lower. Mr.
83 Lekson reminded the group that the project's purpose and need was based on
84 continuing to mine the phosphate reserve via an economically viable alternative. A
85 question was asked about current and existing capacity and PCS responded that
2
86 current production was 4 mty, and capacity was approximately 6.5 mty, but the long-
87 term average was 5 mty.
88
89 Mr. Moore asked if the pit width could be reduced and the 5 mty target met by
90 using the draglines in different places. Mr. Smith stated that PCS Phosphate has
91 considered that option, but the cone of depression necessary to depressurize the Castle
92 Hayne Aquifer may not be reproducible in other areas. Mr. Steffens asked how far
93 apart two draglines could operate with one cone of depression. Mr. Waters stated that it
94 depended on the area but 2.5 miles was possibly the maximum separation.
95
96 Mr. Lekson said that on page 2-1 of the Marston pit width report, the statement
97 that Marston has economically analyzed the alternatives is false, because the
98 alternatives have not yet been determined. Mr. Kremmel replied that the study is
99 generic and can be applied to any alternative as long as a mine plan is produced. Mr.
100 Dorney said that the choice between one, two, or three draglines in operation are not
101 mutually exclusive, and that there could be a way to cut mine permit width by moving
102 the draglines to different locations. Mr. Kremmel replied that this had been done in the
103 past. Mr. Smith stated that site conditions would determine whether this was possible.
104 It was acknowledged that a mine plan which took into account site specific conditions
105 would be needed for the economic analysis to be adequate.
106
107 Mr. Moye asked if PCS Phosphate would add a fourth dragline in response to
108 increase demand, noting that draglines had been added in the past. Mr. Smith said that
109 was an interesting question, but said it was very unlikely that a fourth dragline would be
110 added because the plant does not have the capacity to handle the additional ore from a
111 fourth dragline, adding that the entire plant would need a multimillion dollar expansion.
112 He added that the cone of depression would represent another difficult problem and
113 would require substantial revisions to existing permits.
114
115 Mr. Lekson pointed out that it was important that PCS Phosphate not restrict
116 themselves to 5 mty. Mr. Lekson asked CZR to e-mail Mr. Dorney a version of Dr.
117 Skaggs' presentation. He then called a five minute break at 11:30 a.m.
118
119 At 11:40 a.m., Mr. Kremmel began the presentation on the proposed economic
120 model to be used in evaluating mining alternatives. A copy of the PowerPoint
121 presentation is attached. Mr. Kremmel stated that the objective was to create a generic
122 cost model that could be applied to any mine plan alternative. Mr. Kremmel detailed the
123 methodology used to develop the model, stating that PCS Phosphate's 2003 operating
124 budget was used in the analysis. He then discussed the four cost model departments:
125 prestripping, mining, mine services, and the mill. Mr. Lekson asked whether cadmium
126 capping was included. Mr. Ross replied that the unused excavated material would go
127 back into the mine so capping would not be necessary. Mr. Lekson then asked how the
128 model will deal with "variable" costs. Mr. Kremmel described all cost model categories
129 and stated that he created variable unit costs based on the 2003 operating budget. Mr.
3
130 Lekson asked how the model would account for varying grades of ore in a large mining
131 block. Mr. Kremmel replied that the mining block resolution used in the model is very
132 high, 500' by 200', and accounts for spatial heterogeneity in site conditions.
133
134 Mr. Lekson said that in the interest of time he would go straight to questions.
135 Several agency members were concerned that the model was based only on the 2003
136 budget projection and not on more historical budget data. They added that the
137 accuracy of the 2003 budget projection could not even be assessed until the end of the
138 year. Mr. Lekson pointed out that the model was a projection based on the 2003
139 projection. Mr. Kremmel replied that they would use the actual 2003 costs when the
140 data are available at the end of the year. Mr. Kremmel noted that historically the budget
141 projections have been accurate, generally within five percent of actual costs. Mr. Smith
142 stated that additional historical data were not used because the mine has been in a
143 lower production mode during the last few years and the model would have been
144 skewed if abnormally low production years were used in the cost model.
145
146 Mr. Moore then asked for definitions of depreciation and depletion. Mr. Kremmel
147 replied that depreciation is straight line depreciation of capital equipment. Mr. Moore
148 asked if this wasn't already covered under amortization, to which Mr. Kremmel replied
149 that tax depreciation is different than depreciation used in internal accounting. Mr.
150 Kremmel explained that depletion is what is written off in order to recover acquisition
151 costs after ore is removed from the property. Mr. Lekson asked Dr. McNaught if he had
152 acquired someone to evaluate the model. Dr. McNaught said not yet, but they will have
153 someone review it.
154
155 Mr. Lekson reminded the group that Mr. Finch would review the cost model. Mr.
156 Dorney said he may have someone review the cost model as well. Mr. Lekson
157 emphasized the importance of everyone being comfortable with the cost model.
158
159 Mr. Lekson asked if compensatory mitigation costs were included in the analysis.
160 Mr. Kremmel replied that mitigation costs in the 2003 budget, for the current NCPC
161 Alternative E, were included. Mr. Furness noted that no other mitigation costs were
162 included in the cost model. Mr. Lekson asked that the meeting minutes reflect that
163 compensatory mitigation costs were not included in the model.
164
165 Mr. Lekson questioned if consumer demand is a variable in the cost model. Mr.
166 Smith replied that mine plans will be based on 5 mty. Mr. Lekson asked if 5 mty was a
167 fixed variable. Mr. Smith replied yes, and Mr. Lekson replied that he would have to
168 think about this issue before accepting.
169
170 Mr. Kremmel concluded his presentation. Mr. Kremmel stated that he modeled
171 pumping costs, and displayed a figure showing that pump costs increase with pumping
172 distance. Mr. Lekson asked what was the greatest pump distance modeled. Mr.
173 Kremmel replied 15 miles. Mr. Lekson asked if that distance reached the mining block
4
174 Area South of Highway 33. Mr. Kremmel replied yes. Mr. Lekson asked that the
175 meeting minutes reflect that the model takes into account all of the mining block Area
176 South of Highway 33. Mr. Steffens asked if PCS Phosphate had geology data for Area
177 South of Highway 33. Mr. Smith replied that they are collecting data in the Area South
178 of Highway 33 as well as data for the Bonnerton Tract. Mr. Smith noted that to get
179 sensitivity in the model, they evaluated very small blocks, so the model resolution is
180 high. Mr. Lekson asked where in the report he could find the last three graphics he
181 discussed. Mr. Kremmel indicated that those figures were prepared in the last few days
182 and were not included in the initial material.
183
184 Mr. Wicker asked what was the relative importance of each cost variable. Mr.
185 Kremmel replied that he could not rank them at the moment, but the most important
186 included overburden volume, pump distance, stackability, development costs, and ore
187 grade. Mr. Wicker stated that simple comparison of alternatives using the economic
188 modeling would be helpful. Mr. Smith replied that this could be provided. Mr. Wicker
189 asked if pit width was an important variable. Mr. Kremmel said pit width will affect the
190 model.
191
192 Mr. Lekson asked if the cost variables are weighted and Mr. Kremmel replied that
193 in the mine plan they are weighted. Mr. Lekson stated that it may be useful to
194 recalculate the cost of mining the Area South of Highway 33 assuming the same pump
195 distance as NCPC Tract in order to compare alternatives equitably and allow
196 comparison of the ore quality in the three mining blocks.
197
198 Mr. Lekson said that the team needed quantitative data to evaluate alternatives,
199 to which Mr. Smith replied that the economic model could be applied to the latest NCPC
200 permit application boundary. Mr. Smith asked that the 2000 permit application
201 boundary described in the 26 June letter of the USACE to PCS Phosphate be
202 considered as an alternative. Mr. Lekson replied that they would consider it. Mr. Smith
203 also stated that they would need to discuss confidential business information with the
204 USACE.
205
206 Ms. Lawson stated that mitigation costs and avoided reserves needed to be
207 discussed. She was not sure if costs associated with avoided reserves should be
208 included in the model. Mr. Smith said these issues could be easily discussed and/or
209 incorporated. Ms. Lawson also said that once the alternatives were modeled with real
210 numbers, there would be additional questions about the model itself.
211
212 Mr. McHenry asked what alternative boundaries could, at present, be evaluated
213 with the model. Mr. Smith replied that there are no definite alternative boundaries to run
214 except what has been permitted and that the agency needed to put together an
215 alternative list. Mr. Lekson verified that the boundary Mr. Smith was referring to is the
216 original permit request boundary, not the modified boundary. Mr. Smith replied that
5
217 PCS Phosphate could run the model on both the original permit request and modified
218 permit request boundary.
219
220 Mr. Dorney referenced page 21 from the last meeting minutes summary which
221 referenced a preliminary list of potential alternatives.
222
223 Ms. Lawson pointed out that it was the applicant's responsibility to generate
224 alternatives that incorporated agencies' concerns and avoided such areas.
225
226 Mr. Cooper and Mr. Lekson discussed what items were left for the afternoon. Mr.
227 Cooper indicated that other than Skaggs' presentation, they were interested in obtaining
228 the group's concurrence on a revised block boundary for the area South of Highway 33.
229 At the request of agencies from the previous meeting, areas along the Suffolk scarp, up
230 to a point where residential areas were excluded, were to be added to the Area South of
231 Highway 33 block. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Smith stated that they needed to determine a
232 boundary before wetland delineation could begin.
233
234 After a 45-minute lunch, the meeting resumed at 2:00 p.m.
235
236 Mr. Lekson continued the discussion on the western boundary of the Area South
237 of Highway 33, and asked for comments or concurrence on the boundary. Mr. Smith
238 stated that PCS Phosphate did not want to mine the slope of the scarp because it did
239 not make sense to mine one side of the scarp and then stop. Mr. Wicker and Mr. Moye
240 both stated that if PCS Phosphate had no interest in mining the block or alternatives
241 then there was no need to evaluate it. Mr. Moye stated that the western boundary was
242 part of the Edward Tract and by evaluating it we are going backward. Mr. Lekson
243 responded that there was a reason why the line was revised to include part of the
244 Edward Tract. Dr. McNaught said that the boundary was moved because the eastern
245 edge of the Edwards Tract could be worth mining if it was added to the Area South of
246 Highway 33. Mr. Lekson indicated that some upland areas and timbered wetlands were
247 located along the scarp. Mr. Smith replied that PCS Phosphate needed approval from
248 the agency members for the revised boundary in order for wetland delineation to begin.
249 Mr. Lekson stated that the boundary is acceptable and directed CZR to proceed with
250 wetland delineation. Mr. Cooper stated that the additional area is approximately 1,200
251 acres and the delineation would not be completed by the next meeting in September
252 2003.
253
254 Mr. Lekson stated that the next meeting would include discussion of CAMA
255 jurisdiction, NCDWQ streams, and sensitive areas on the NCPC, Bonnerton, and Area
256 South of Highway 33 blocks. Mr. Lekson asked about CZR's progress in mapping
257 streams located in the mining blocks. Mr. Cooper replied that the streams have been
258 flagged and approved by NCDWQ and surveyors were working on GPS coordinates,
259 but the surveys would not be complete by the next meeting. Mr. Smith asked about the
260 accuracy of CZR's GPS unit. Mr. Cooper replied that the accuracy was usually
6
261 submeter. Mr. Lekson requested that CZR determine the uppermost limits of the
262 NCDWQ streams via GPS and generate a map for all mining blocks.
263
264 Mr. Lekson asked if maps of Public Trust would be available. Mr. Cooper replied
265 that the Public Trust boundaries had not been approved by NCDCM. Mr. Smith stated
266 that the criteria were in litigation and boundary lines could not be drawn. Mr. Moye
267 stated that NCDCM had been instructed by the Attorney General not to make Public
268 Trust determinations on the proposed mining blocks. Mr. Smith asked that the minutes
269 reflect that NCDCM had been directed not to make Public Trust determinations on the
270 proposed mining blocks. Mr. Smith asked how PCS Phosphate could model
271 alternatives unless the old Public Trust boundaries were used. Mr. Furness noted that
272 the difference between the old and new NCDCM Public Trust boundary would be much
273 less than the distance represented by the boundary line on a map; therefore, the final
274 Public Trust determination should not hinder the development of an alternative
275 boundary. Mr. Lekson stated that the USACE is on record as accepting the old Public
276 Trust boundaries. Mr. Dorney agreed that there was no reason Public Trust
277 determination should slow development of alternatives. Mr. Dorney asked about the
278 status of NCDWQ upper stream limits and asked if he could get a map of these sites on
279 the NCPC Tract. Mr. Cooper replied that these limits had been surveyed from the
280 NCPC Tract and could be provided for review. Mr. Lekson requested a copy as well.
281
282 Mr. Skaggs' presentation on "Hydrology of Small Watersheds Draining to the
283 Pamlico River" began at 2:20 p.m. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is attached
284 with these meeting notes. Mr. Skaggs stated the main objectives and conclusions of
285 the study as presented on frames 2 and 3 of his presentation. He then discussed
286 problems encountered during data collection and described the hydrology and the fate
287 of rainfall in the headwaters of streams on the NCPC Tract.
288
289 Comments by Mr. Skaggs during the presentation included that proper weirs
290 placement was key in obtaining usable data. Even though Huddles Cut 2 is shown on
291 the USGS map as a "blue line", it has ephemeral flow. Huddles Cut is typical of coastal
292 plain streams. Even though there can be lots of rain, runoff is sometimes absent.
293 Surface or subsurface flow occurs when ground water is high. Huddles Cut 1 may be a
294 17-acre watershed instead of the 13-acre watershed used in the model. This probably
295 accounts for the higher reported flow for this system. Huddles Cut 3 had a leaky weir
296 and many measurements from this site were not used in calibration of average
297 measurements.
298
299 Mr. Wicker stated that the presentation thus far indicated that rainfall is critically
300 important for these streams, because rainfall is the stream's source of water. Mr.
301 Skaggs replied that Mr. Wicker's summation was correct.
302
7
303 Mr. Moye asked if the hydrology model takes into account changes in landscape
304 such as development and ditches. Mr. Skaggs replied that the model did account for
305 mining at Jacks Creek.
306
307 Mr. Skaggs stated that the hydrology model very accurately predicted water flow
308 in the NCPC Tract streams. Mr. Cooper then asked if the model was applicable to other
309 mining blocks, such as the Suffolk Scarp, located on the new western boundary of the
310 Area South of Highway 33. Mr. Skaggs replied that it will likely be applicable for most
311 areas, and that although modeling the scarp will take more effort, it can be done. Mr.
312 McHenry asked what would outflow be, as a percent of yearly rainfall, in a normal
313 rainfall year. Mr. Skaggs replied 30 percent, but it depends on ETP. Mr. Skaggs'
314 presentation concluded at 3:25 p.m.
315
316 Mr. Lekson stated that the next meeting would focus on compensatory mitigation.
317 Mr. Wicker presented a map that included potential mitigation sites. The map identified
318 known ecologically important areas in central-eastern North Carolina. Mr. Wicker noted
319 that this map could be helpful in developing mitigation options. Mr. Wicker added that
320 PCS Phosphate activity, overall, has been detrimental for the environment and made
321 the following recommendations:
322
323 1. The USFWS's main interest is in wetlands and productivity. With this in mind,
324 the Team needed to ask whether mining impacts could be mitigated for
325 effectively.
326 2. The North River mitigation bank would be a good bank for estuarine impacts.
327 3. To mitigate for loss of river function, such as anadromous fish runs, the
328 Timberlake mitigation bank could be appropriate.
329 4. Water is the limiting factor in wetland mitigation areas and the water PCS
330 Phosphate discharges into the Pamlico River is an under-appreciated resource
331 that could be used in created wetlands.
332
333 Mr. Wicker concluded by stating that PCS Phosphate's needs have been
334 considered, but he wants the negative impacts of mining to be discussed in greater
335 detail. Mr. Wicker also stated that mitigation needs should be discussed as early as
336 possible in the NEPA process to avoid creating a mitigation site of poor quality. He
337 added that he was displeased with the benthic productivity and water flow in past PCS
338 Phosphate creek mitigation sites. Mr. Wicker said the goal was to, at minimum, break
339 even environmentally.
340
341 Mr. Smith asked if agencies should look at the map Mr. Wicker presented and
342 pick areas they felt would be appropriate for mitigation. Mr. Smith suggested that the
343 map be provided to everyone. Mr. Lekson agreed. Mr. Smith asked CZR to provide
344 maps to the merger team members. Mr. Smith also asked Mr. Wicker if he knew
345 anyone who had experience with using discharge water to create wetlands. Mr. Wicker
346 replied that NMFS may have relevant experience. Mr. Wicker also added that he was
8
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
not downplaying the importance of minimization and avoidance in alternative
development, and stated that using mining water to create wetlands must be expertly
applied.
Mr. Lekson stated that team members would discuss the map at the next
meeting and noted that this meeting was productive.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:40 p.m. If you feel that we have
omitted or inaccurately depicted any of the issues that were discussed, please submit
your comments to us in writing. Please list the appropriate page and line number(s) in
your comments.
9
359 Attachments
360
361 1) PCS Phosphate Permit Width Analysis, 26 August 2003, Donald D. Marston,
362 P.E., Marston
363 2) PCS Phosphate Mine Plan alternatives Cost Model, 26 August 2003, Terry L.
364 Kremmel, P.E., Marston
365 3) Hydrology of Small Watersheds Draining to the Pamlico River, R.W. Skaggs,
366 G.M. Chescheir, D.M. Amatya
367
368 Distribution
369
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. Charles Jones
Mr. Terry Baker NC Division of Coastal Management
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. 943 Washington Square Mall
Post Office Box 48 Washington, North Carolina 27889
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
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
Mr. Jeffrey C. Furness
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Tex Gilmore
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. James M. Hudgens
CZR Incorporated
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
10
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
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. Kelly Spivey
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Tom Steffens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Mike Thomas
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Ms. Laura Toler
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Ms. Maria Tripp
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Jerry Waters
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 48
Aurora, North Carolina 27806
Mr. Mike Wicker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
11
Mr. Floyd Williams
Division of Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Bob Zarzecki
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
12