01-10 adilet 20190621

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAELS.REGAN
Secretary
S. DAMEL SMITH
Director
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
7016 2140 0000 0564 4903
Mr. Chad M. Threatt
Alamance Aggregates LLC
PO Box 552
Snow Camp, North Carolina 27349
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
June 21, 2019
RE: Proposed Alamance Quarry and Construction Materials Quarry
Alamance County
Cape Fear River Basin
Dear Mr. Threatt:
We have reviewed the application your company submitted for the referenced mine site.
In order for this office to complete its review of the referenced project in accordance with GS
74-50 and 51 of the Mining Act of 1971, please provide the additional or revised information in
accordance with the following comments:
Send certified mail, return receipt requested letters to Duke Power Company and
Colonial Pipeline outlining the proposed access across the rights -of -way.
Provide copies of said letters and signed return receipts.
2. Provide a thorough geologic investigation of the site that outlines any fractures,
dikes, rock type, radon presence etc. See the comments provided by the NC
Geological Survey. Determine the location of the diabase dikes in the area by
acceptable methods, such as magnetometer.
3. Provide results of an on -site pump test and modeling of ground water movement.
Determine the possible impact of the diabase dikes may have on the area ground
water wells with respect to the dewatering activities. Revise the ground water
monitoring plan to include the requested studies. Note that conditions may be
placed in any issued permit that will require well replacement or deepening of
impacted wells.
�FQ�1� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1612 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
919.707.9200

Certified Mail
Mr. Threatt
Page Two
4. See the Attachment 1 provided to this office by Colonial Pipeline Company
regarding blasting operations. Note that any permit issued will require adherence
to the recommendations and may contain additional conditions required by the
Department.
5. See the enclosed comments from the Winston Salem Regional Office regarding
the erosion and sediment control plan review submitted with the application.
Address all if these issues.
6. Provide a construction sequence and staged seeding for the overburden storage
area.
Please be advised that our review cannot be completed until all of the items listed
above have been fully addressed. In addition, please note this office may request additional
information, not included in this letter, as the mining application review progresses.
In order to complete the processing of your application, please forward two (2) copies of
the requested information to my attention at the following address:
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
As required by 15A NCAC 513.0013, you are hereby advised that you have 180 days
from the date of your receipt of this letter to submit all of the requested information. If you are
unable to meet this deadline and wish to request additional time, you must submit information,
in writing, to the Director clearly indicating why the deadline cannot be met and request that an
extension of time be granted. If an extension of time is not granted, a decision will be made to
grant or deny the mining permit based upon the information currently in the Department's files
at the end of the 180-day period.
Though the preceding statement cites the maximum time limit for your response, we
encourage you to provide the additional information requested by this letter as soon as
possible. Your prompt response will help us to complete processing your application sooner.

Certified Mail
Mr. Threatt
Page Three
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions.
4udnce,e
ly,
64
ith A. Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Matt Gantt, PE

June 11, 2019
Comments of Phil Bradley, Piedmont Geologist, North Carolina Geological Survey
Reviewed by Kenneth B. Taylor —June 11, 2019
Ref: Revised Groundwater monitoring plan for the proposed Snow Camp Quarry, Snow Camp, Alamance
County, North Carolina
Purpose:
The groundwater monitoring plan was evaluated by Geological Survey staff to determine the potential
presence of geologic features that may cause a preferential (anisotropic) groundwater drawdown from
dewatering activities.
Background:
As part of geologic mapping activities, geologic structures are identified and include diabase dikes, faults
and fracture zones. These geologic structures are zones of increased bedrock fractures and are
therefore zones of increased groundwater permeability and flow.
Pumping a well removes groundwater and lowers the water level in the well and nearby rock as water is
diverted toward the well. In locations proximal to geologic structures like diabase dikes, faults and
fracture zones, the lowering of the water table may be more pronounced and may extend in a preferred
direction due to the linear nature of the geologic structure.
Findings:
Geologic mapping by the North Carolina Geological Survey (Bradley et al., 2017) identified the presence
of diabase rock debris to the south of the proposed site (Figure 1). Geologic data has not been collected
in the immediate vicinity of the site. Additionally, reconnaissance mapping by Burt et al. (1978)
indicates the presence of a through -going diabase dike (roughly parallel and east of Snow Camp Road)
inferred from aeromagnetic data or stream patterns in the map area.
Recommendations:
Determine the accurate location of the diabase dikes in the area and determine the possible impact to
area groundwater wells with respect to the dewatering activities.
References:
Bradley, P.J., Hanna, H.D. and Peach, B.T., 2017, Geologic map of Chatham County portion of the
Crutchfield Crossroads 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Chatham and Alamance counties, North Carolina: North

June 11, 2019
Carolina Geological Survey Open -file Report 2017-10, scale 1:24,000, in color (Supersedes Open -file
Report 2016-09).
ht�//files. nc.gov/ncdea/E nergv%20M i neral %20a nd%u20La nd%20Reso u rces/Geo logica I%20Su rvey/O F
Rs Geological Survey/NCGS OFR 2017-10 CrutchfieldCrossroads.pdf
Burt, E.R., Carpenter, P.A., III, McDaniel, R.D., and Wilson, W.F., 1978, Diabase Dikes of the Eastern
Piedmont of North Carolina: North Carolina Geological Survey Information Circular 23, 12 p. text plus
map compilation. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc 55082.htm

ATTACHMENT 1
Colonial Pipeline Company Proposed Requirements
Alamance Aggregates LLC Permit to Operate
Snow Camp, NC
1. Colonial Pipeline Company (Colonial) requests that a condition be included in the Permit
to Operate that requires the mine operator to provide advanced notification to Colonial at
least 2 business days (email or fax is acceptable) before any blasting is performed. Each
notification will need to include the following information:
a. Date and time of proposed blast;
b. GPS Coordinates for the closest blast hole to Colonial's closest pipeline;
c. Minimum distance from the closest blast hole to Colonial's closest pipeline;
d. Maximum explosive weight per delay;
e. Scaled Distance in units of feet/pounds' using Colonial's closest pipeline as the
reference point;
f. Type of detonators that will be used (e.g., electronic, electric, non -electric, etc.);
g. Minimum time delay between charges.
h. Notifications must be sent to Mr. Tom West as the designated representative for
Colonial at [e-mail].
If the maximum explosive weight per delay will vary during the shot, items a. through g.
above must be provided for each variation. If any of the above information changes
within the 2-day period, an update must be provided to Colonial in writing (e-mail or fax
is acceptable) before the shot is conducted.
2. Colonial requests that the Permit to Operate require that all communications and records
related to Condition 1. above be maintained by the mine operator for at least 3 years to
facilitate external audits and/or inspections of their operations and conformance with the
Permit to Operate.
3. Colonial requests that the limits of the mine operation be defined and that maximum
extent of the quarry be no closer than 1,175 feet from Colonial's pipeline.
4. Colonial requests that the Scaled Distance for all blasts at the mine must be greater than
51 feet/pounds74 using Colonial's closest pipeline as the reference point.
a. The Scaled Distance at Colonial's closest pipeline may be calculated using the
maximum explosive weight per delay that will be detonated within the actual
minimum time delay period (e.g., 3 milliseconds, 5 milliseconds, 12 milliseconds,
etc.) if electronic detonators will be used. If any other type of detonators will be
used, the Scaled Distance at Colonial's closest pipeline must be calculated using

the maximum explosive weight that will be detonated within any 8 millisecond
time period.
5. Colonial requests that the Permit to Operate specify that if electronic detonators are
used, the minimum time delay period must be greater than or equal to 1 millisecond.
6. Colonial requests that the Permit to Operate specify that the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV)
at Colonial's closest pipeline may not exceed 1 inch/second during any blast, and Colonial
must be notified within 1 hour if this vibration limit is exceeded.
7. Colonial requests the Permit to Operate require the installation of at least 10 seismographs
along the southern edge of Colonial's easement as per ISEE guidelines to monitor vibration
levels during blasting operations. The spacing between adjacent seismographs must not
exceed 200 feet, and the seismographs must be positioned in such a manner so that they
provide the actual vibration level within 100 feet of the closest point from Colonial's
closest pipeline to each blast. The seismographs must be owned, installed, and monitored
by an independent 3rd party company that specializes in this type of work, and each
seismograph must be fully functional at all times.
8. Colonial asks that the Permit to Operate state that the NCDEQ may inspect and audit the
mine operating records on an annual basis to confirm all specific Terms and Conditions,
record keeping, and other requirements of the Permit to Operate are being met,
documented, and maintained per N.C.G. S. 74-51 of the Mining Act of 1971 and other
relevant records.
9. Colonial recommends that the Permit to Operate state that the NCDEQ will notify the mine
and Colonial of their findings within 30 days after each audit is conducted.

COMMENTS FOR ALAMANCE AGGREGATES, LLC
PLAN RECEIVED BY WSRO ON 6/7/2019
1. Sediment skimmer basins must be designed for the 25-year storm. As submitted, the sediment
skimmer basins have been designed for the 10-year storm. Please revise.
2. Auxiliary spillways for sediment skimmer basins may not be shown within fill material for each
basin.
3. Please provide match lines on sheets C301A through C301F.
4. Final plans submitted for review may not be stamped "Preliminary — Not for Construction".
S. A detailed construction sequence must be sown on sheet C301B for the installation of the
proposed 24' arch span culvert and the proposed retaining wall. The construction sequence
must include sediment controls for areas adjacent to the stream during the culvert placement
and retaining wall construction. Also, particular attention must be given to maintain the stream
buffers for the maximum duration possible during culvert placement. Construction drawings
must also show fill placement on either side of the stream as the road fill retaining walls are
brought to final grade.
6. No sediment control measures have been shown for the proposed fence clearing around the
perimeter of the property. Please provide acceptable sediment control measures for these
areas.
7. Please note the following comments addressing permanent ditch placement and stabilization:
a. All proposed ditches must be assigned a specific number (i.e., #1, #2, #3, etc.) corresponding
to the design calculations. In addition, a schedule must be provided on the detail sheets of
the plans showing each proposed ditch and methods for stabilization
b. The following proposed permanent ditches may not be constructed as shown with
temporary diversions shown within the ditch line: (1) FES #1 to 6+50, (2) FES #2 to 6+50, (3)
7+00 to 14+00 (West), (4) 8+50 to 14+00 (East), (5) Access road (East side) 14+00 to stream
buffer, (6) Access road (West side) 14+00 to stream buffer, (7) Access road (East side) 17+50
to 20+00, (8) Access road (West side) stream buffer to 20+00.
c. An adequate sediment control measure must be placed at the outlet of the access road
ditch (East side) stations 18+50 to stream buffer.
d. An adequate sediment control measure must be placed at the outlet of the ditch from the
outlet of sediment skimmer basin #8 to the stream buffer. Note: the drainage for this ditch
is 4.86 acres, which would necessitate the use of sediment skimmer basin.
e. An adequate sediment control measure must be placed at the outlet of the ditch from the
outlet of sediment skimmer basin #11 to the stream buffer. Note: the drainage for this ditch
is 3.58 acres, which would necessitate the use of sediment skimmer basin.
f. Adequate sediment control measures are needed at the outlets of ditches discharging
toward Clark Road. In addition, a rock check dam will need to be placed in the ditch along
Clark Road below the outlet of FES#2.
g. Ditches adjacent to sediment skimmer basins #4, #5, #6, and #7 are required to discharge
into the sediment skimmer basins. As shown, discharges are routed around the basins.

8. No adequate sediment control measures have been shown below the fill slope north east of
proposed sediment skimmer basin V. In addition, proposed fill in this area is shown within the
proposed temporary diversion berm, which is not acceptable.
9. It appears that permanent storm water control measures will be needed within the proposed
plant areas located west of the proposed pit excavation. In addition, the temporary diversion
berms that have been shown will not function properly on fill material and can not be properly
maintained throughout the grading process.
10. Proposed baffles within sediment skimmer basins must be located such that runoff entering
each basin will be filtered through three baffles. Please reevaluate baffle place placement and
the temporary diversion berm configuration such that this requirement may be properly
addressed.
11. It appears that sediment skimmer basin #13 could be relocated further to the east (back uphill)
so that additional areas below the basin would not have to be cleared. In addition, the
temporary diversion berms leading to sediment skimmer basin #13 may not be shown directing
site runoff over constructed fill slopes.
12. Please provide reasoning to support the clearing of additional areas as noted below:
a. Areas below the proposed temporary diversions around sediment skimmer basin #23.
b. Areas around sediment skimmer basin #25.
c. Areas shown as being graded below sediment basin #1.
d. Areas around sediment skimmer basin #2.
e. Areas around sediment skimmer basin #3.
f. Areas around sediment skimmer basin #12.
g. Areas around sediment skimmer basin #14.
h. Areas around sediment skimmer basin #15, also ensure that discharge from FES#4 is
directed into skimmer basin #15.
i. Areas around sediment skimmer basin #26.
j. Areas around sediment skimmer basin #27.
k. Areas around sediment skimmer basin #24 (Note: clearing has been shown through the
50' undisturbed buffer below sediment skimmer basin #24).
13. Provide sediment control measures for the perimeter fence installation through the 50'
undisturbed buffer zone shown on sheet C301E.
14. On sheet C301E, sufficient sediment control measures must be shown on the south side of the
processing area (east od sediment skimmer basin #12). The temporary diversion berm that has
been shown will not function as intended because it will not have positive drainage toward
sediment skimmer basin #12. Also, areas have been shown graded such that they will be
directed into the 50' undisturbed buffer zone, which is not acceptable.
15. At numerous locations on the plan the disturbed limits have encroached into the proposed 50'
buffer zone. Please amend the plans to show no encroachments into the 50' buffer zone.
16. No sediment control measures have been provided for the "emergency access road". It appears
that this area will need to be disturbed to have proper drainage for vehicle access.
17. An acceptable sediment control measure is needed below the north side of the proposed 8' tall
berm shown on sheet C301E. The proposed check dam is not an acceptable sediment control
measure.

18. Acceptable sediment control measures must be shown below the construction of proposed
tailings pond #2. Silt fence shown below this measure is not an acceptable sediment control
measure. In addition, basin construction is encroaching into the 50' undisturbed buffer zone.
19. Additional silt fence outlets must be shown below the 8' proposed berm on sheet C301C.
20. A number of the temporary berms shown on the plan do not appear to be "temporary"
structures. Any "temporary" diversion berms used for permanent storm water conveyance
must be accompanied by design calculations and construction details.
21. Provide elevations for the temporary diversion berm upstream of FES#9 to show that the
diversion will actually direct runoff into skimmer basin #8 and not through the pipe inlet at
FES#9. Should this not be the case, calculations for skimmer basin #22 will need to be revised
for the additional drainage area.
22. No sediment control measures have been shown west of the temporary diversion directing
runoff into skimmer basin #10. Only a perimeter security fence has been shown below the
basin.