19910576 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19910101

`ifd cow
APR i 19Sfi
REGULATORY BRANCH
RECLAMATION AND MITIGATION PLAN
FOR SOUTHERN PRODUCTS AND SILICA COMPANY MINE SITE
HOFFMAN, RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(Revised 15 April 1991)
Prepared By
Dr. J.H. Carter III
Consulting Biologist
P.O. Box 891
Southern Pines, N.C. 28388

RECLAMATION AND MITIGATION PLAN
FOR SOUTHERN PRODUCTS AND SILICA COMPANY MINE SITE
HOFFMAN, RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
INTRODUCTION
Southern Products and Silica Company has applied for state and
federal permits to mine 130 wetland acres next to its existing mine site
near Hoffman, Richmond,County, North Carolina. This plan was written to
address the concerns of the permitting agencies.
VEGETATION AT MINE SITE
Several wetland habitat types occur in the general project area
(Attachment A). These habitats will be discussed individually below. Though
there have been no recent disturbances in the proposed mine area, the area
is hardly pristine. Most of the swamp has been heavily cut-over in the
past, and parts have been cultivated. Two dikes extend into the swamp that
were probably used to extract logs from along the creek. Most of the ex-
isting forest is probably less than 60 years old. Only the gum-cypress
swamp immediately along the creek can be considered relatively undisturbed.
The other plant communities present have suffered from, or are the result
of, clearcut logging, siltation, changes in water flow patterns, or pro-
longed fire exclusion.
1. Gum-cypress swamp: this wetland habitat type occurs on the wettest
sites along Drowning Creek. It is forested primarily with black gum (Nyssa
1 11
sylvatica). There are scattered baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) along
Drowning Creek in the eastern portion of the project area, but it is absent
to the west. Little of this community will be mined. This habitat type is
frequently flooded and is important as a water storage and filtration area.
There are numerous sloughs and the soil is normally saturated. Wildlife
values are high for furbearers, deer, waterfowl, and numerous species of
nongame birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates. The black gum
drupe is a heavily utilized food resource for many species.
2. Maple-gum and gum-maple swamp: this is the most widespread wetland
habitat type in the area to be mined. Overstory dominance varies from
almost pure red maple (Acer rubrum) to.almost pure black gum, with gum
being prevalent near the creek. The gum stands grade into the gum-cypress
community type. Scattered pond pines (P. serotina) occur in the maple
stands. one significant area is dominanted by young maples less than 10"
diameter at breast height, probably an old clearcut. The understory varies
from dense to relatively open. Dominant species include sweet gallberry
(Ilex coriacea), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), leucothoe (Leucothoe race-
mosa), and catbrier (Smilax laurifolia). Ground cover consists mostly of
ferns and mosses. This community probably represents pocosin in an advanced
successional state due to prolonged fire exclusion. Charred conifer stumps
were noted in several locations. Flooding frequency decreases as one moves
from gum-dominated stands near the creek to maple-dominated stands away
from the creek. The soil is normally saturated. Water quality values are
high for subsurface storage and filtration, and the occasional storage of
surface waters. Wildlife values are low to moderate. There is abundant
cover, but food plants are limited or not of high quality. Nevertheless,

this habitat is of great importance to the species, of plants and animals
adapted to it.
3. Pine-maple-gum swamp: this community is located farther away from the
creek than the gum-cypress swamp. Overstory trees are primarily loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), pond pine, red maple, and black gum. The understory
varies from dense to relatively open. This habitat is a successional stage
caused by clearcut logging or past cultivation. Sites now forested with
this community probably supported pocosin prior to clearing. Flooding is
infrequent for short periods due to distance from the creek. It is not
particularly important in surface water storage, but soils are normally
saturated or nearly so. Its primary value for water quality is through
filtration of groundwater, and as a buffer for the gum-cypress swamp and
creek. Wildlife values are not high. Left alone for decades, this habitat
would become dominated by swamp and mesic hardwoods, which would have
higher wildlife values. Currently, its primary values are as cover, and as
buffer for the gum-cypress swamp, though numerous wildlife species do live
here.
4. Pond pine pocosin: pond pine, tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
and black gum dominate this habitat type, found mostly on the swamp fringes
and in branches that feed into the swamp. It was probably the most abundant
wetland community type in the area prior to the advent of fire exclusion
several decades ago. Numerous species,'of deciduous and evergreen shrubs
form a thick and tangled understory. Pocosins are almost never flooded,
though they do store and filter subsurface water. Since this is a fire-
maintained plant community, and because none of the immediate area has been
burned in recent years, the pocosin habitat still present is in succes-
I /
sional decline. This is unfortunate because Sandhills pocosins are habitat
for several threatened or endangered plant species. Wildlife values of
frequently burned pocosins are high due to abundant browse, fruiting
shrubs, and cover. Unburned pocosins have much less value, because shading
eliminates many desirable species. Nevertheless, pocosins support plant and
animal species not commonly found in other wetland habitat types.
5. Pine-white cedar-maple swamp: two small areas contain stands of rela-
tively young loblolly pine, Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides),
and red maple. They probably became established on old clearcuts or burns.
The understory is moderate to dense and shares species with pocosin and
maple-gum swamp. Ground cover consists mostly of mosses and ferns. one of
these areas will be mined; the one with the most cedar will not. Flooding
is rare. The chief values for water quality and storage are similar to the
ones discussed under pocosin. Wildlife values are probably low. There is
little browse, few fruiting trees or shrubs, and little ground cover.
6. Mesic hardwood forest: this community type has an overstory of mesic
hardwoods such as tulip poplar, sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and
black gum, with poplar being most common. Loblolly pine occurs sparingly in
the overstory. The understory varies from moderately dense to relatively
open, and includes species such as red maple and American holly (Ilex
opaca), as well as various shrubs. Ground cover consists primarily of
mosses and ferns. This community type,-occurs on the outer edges of the
floodplain, and is infrequently flooded for brief periods..Water quality
and storage values consist mostly of storage and filtering of ground water.
Wildlife values are moderate, especially for nongame species.
Individually these community types have their own set of values,

but collectively their water quality and wildlife values equal more than
the sum of the parts. This is because each community contains habitat not
duplicated in the others.
Estimated acreages of removal by habitat type are as follows:
gum-cypress= 26.9ac, gum-maple and maple-gum= 86.5ac, pine-maple-gum= 0 ac,
pond pine pocosin= 10.8ac, pine-white cedar-maple= 2.9ac, and mesic hard-
wood= 2.9ac. These are rough estimates based primarily on infrared
photography analysis with limited ground truthing. Cypress was essentially
absent from the gum-cypress community in the proposed mine area. The
boundary between gum-cypress and gum-maple stands was often very vague.
MINIMIZATION
The original mine permit application, was for 208 acres of a 260
acre site. The amended application is for 130 acres of the original 260
acres. Thus, the area to be mined has been reduced by 37.5%. Southern
Products and Silica had proposed to minimize adeverse impacts by excluding
all activities within 300' of Drowning Creek, a 52 acre area. The 300'
exclusionary zone remains in the amended permit. No mining, filling, or
clearing will occur in this zone. The highest quality wetland habitat
(gum-cypress swamp) occurs in this area. The proposed mine will not di-
rectly impact Drowning Creek, the area of highest flooding frequency and
water quality value will be minimally, impacted, and a forested corridor
will be maintained between the mine and the creek.
.
RECLAMATION
Based on information from the current mine site, Southern Pro-
ducts estimates that about 20% (26 acres) of the 130 acre mine site can be
returned to its original elevation through redeposition of spoil and
debris. However, about 5.7 acres will be returned to the existing lake
(Tyner Lake), leaving 21.3 acres of spoil for the new lake. This would
leave a permanently flooded pond of about 109 acres. Additional sources of
fill have been explored. The North Carolina Department of Transportation
was contacted about the possibility of fill from nearby highway con-
struction projects. Their reply was negative (Attachment B). UNMIN, a
nearby upland sand source, was contacted about the potential use of spoil
from their operation. UNMIN quoted a;price of $7.40/ton delivered. Based on
a lake depth of 8' and 2700 lbs. per cubic yard, it would cost about
$128,938.00 per acre to fill the lake. This cost is clearly unacceptable,
and it is based on an estimate from a source only a few miles away. Spoil
from sources at greater distances would be even more expensive.
Southern Products has contacted the U.S. Soil Conservation Ser-
vice (SCS) in Richmond County about reclamation of its existing mine site.
SCS has prepared a reclamation plan for this site (Attachment C), and
Southern Products proposes to use this plan for reclamation at its expanded
mine site also.
As part of the state 401 certification (Attachment D), the
following conditions were agreed to.-The reclamation area (approx. 21
acres) will be planted with black gum and. bald cypress, as well as Atlantic
white cedar, and wetland oak species (along upland edge of reclamation
site). Approximately 400 stems per acre will be planted, using seedlings 1

year or older. Seedlings will be spaced somewhat at random rather than
strictly in rows. White cedar will be planted in monoculture clumps using
a 3 to 6 foot spacing. Existing wetland soils taken from the mine site will
be used to prepare the reclamation site as much as possible. Reclamation
shall begin as soon as feasible, but no later than 5 years from the date of
Section 404 Permit issuance. The reclamation effort may include land in the
existing pond and associated delta.
Emergent, herbaceous wetland plants will be planted along the
edge of the lake after reclamation where feasible.
Monitoring of the initial reclamation area will be for a minimum
of 5 years after completion of the reclamation. A monitoring plan will be
followed (see below). If monitoring reveals that reclamation is unsuc-
cessful, Southern Products will take additional measures to ensure success.
The monitoring plan for the restoration site will be patterned
after the MIST methodology (White, et. al. 1989. MIST: A methodology to
classify pre-project mitigation sites and develop performance standards for
construction and restoration of forested wetlands). The Southern Products
creation site will be ranked as a Class III for vegetation, Class IV for
soils, and Class IV for hydrology. This methodology will be used as an
informational source as needed by Southern Products.
A reference forest ecosystem'(RFE) will be described in a document
to be submitted to the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) for
written approval. The RFE will adequately describe the target wetland
(gum-cypress, white cedar and oak forests) which originally existed in the
area, but no longer is present due to past disturbance. The RFE will be
used to compare the success of the mitigation site In mid-August to
mid-October for each of 5 years after creation, the mitigation and RFE
sites will be surveyed by appropriate plant ecology methods (including
permanent quadrats) for dominance, density, and cover for trees, saplings,
seedlings, and herbaceous layers. Species importance values and densities
will be compared between the RFE and the creation site.
Tree density (trees per acre) for the creation site will be
projected from planted sapling survival rates. The final projected survival
of overstory species at 10 years will be within 20% of the RFE tree density
for each overstory species. If this criteria is not met, additional
planting will be done. The 20% criteria will be considered as a goal to be
met rather than an absolute standard. It will be subject to change by writ-
ten agreement with DEM. A written report of vegetation (and other) sampling
will be presented to DEM by January 31st of each year. Results of all
monitoring, remedial actions, and other information will be included in the
annual report. It is anticipated that active plant management may be
required (e.g., removal of nuisance, weedy species) during reclamation.
Southern Products will monitor the created wetland site once a
year for 5 years after creation to ensure that hydrology has been esta-
blished. Notes on hydrology (draft lines, water depth, etc.) will be made.
Any repairs will be done within 30 days of discovery.
During the first, third, and fifth years of the 5 year monitoring
period, Southern Products will take at least 1 core sample (with an auger)
per 2 acres from the restored site and from a nearby wetland as similar as
possible to the RFE. Soil sample locations will be mapped and subsequent
samples taken nearby. Sampling frequency may be reduced by written agree-
ment with DEM if data reveal that the site is sufficently uniform so as to
make intensive sampling redundant.
Soil samples will be compared to Muncell color charts for hue,
value, and chroma. other soil monitoring shall include saturated hydraulic
conductivity, pH, Al, Cu, Zn, B, Mn, base saturation, conductivity, redox
potential, N, P, K, and organic C.
MITIGATION
The restoration of currently degraded wetlands in the area of a
project is the mitigation method preferred by the regulating agencies. Most
wetlands in the Sandhills are narrow;strips along small streams. Wetlands
that have been drained for forestry and agricultural purposes, a likely
source of restoration sites, are generally absent. Other suitable wetland
restoration sites are uncommon and usually very small in size, and no
suitable restoration sites of the needed size are known in the Drowning
Creek drainage or in the Sandhills region. This conclusion is based on
review of orthophotoquads and field observations. A restoration plan would
involve the purchase and reclamation of several small sites, none of which
have been located to date. A restoration project of the required magnitude
does not appear feasible in the project area or the immediate Sandhills
region. Likewise, construction of artificial wetlands in the Sandhills is
simply not feasible due to the hilly;topography and sandy soils.
Southern Products began a search for suitable mitigation land in
the Drowning Creek-Lumber River drainage basin in January 1990. The North
Carolina Nature Conservancy (Mr. Fred Annand) was involved in this search
at an early stage, as was the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (Ms.
Julie Moore). Based on guidance from these organizations, field investi-
gations were centered along the Lumber River in Robeson County, where the
Lumber is designated a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River. The Nature
Conservancy is interested in pursuing land acquisitions in this area, and
public ownerships along the river are absent. Several tracts were visited,
and the list was narrowed to one owned by Canal Industries at the junction
of the Lumber River and Big Swamp, north of U.S. Highway 74 (Attachment E).
This area is forested with second-growth baldcypress and water tupelo
(Nyssa aquatica), and contains numerous.sloughs and old canals. This site
is a high quality forested wetland, is frequently flooded for extended
periods, and provides high quality wildlife habitat. It is superior in
these values to the Drowning Creek mine site, though such a comparision is
not completely fair.
Southern Products will purchase 218 acres of swamp forest at this
site and transfer title to the N.C. Nature Conservancy, or donate the money
needed for such a purchase directly to the Conservancy. Land to be
purchased will be primary floodplain immediately adjacent to the Lumber
River. The exact tract to be purchased will be determined by negotiations
between the principals and the State of North Carolina.
ATTACHMENT "A" J
KH
UP- SP
G
UPLAND PINE
PLANTATION
UP

• CUT-OVER
PO
US
1", approx. 1250'
all habitat boundaries approximate
Prepared by Dr. J.H. Carter III
10/22/90 from infrared aerial photo and
limited field checks.
LONGLEAF PINE-
TURKEY OAK-
WIREGRASS
GC= gum-cypress
GM= gum-maple,
MG= maple-gum,
MH- mesic hardwood
PCM- pine-cedar-maple
PMG- pine-maple-gum,
PO- pocosin
SP- slash pine
UP- upland
WET- wetland not
evaluated
A ? STA Jt u?

JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. 0. Box 1067
Aberdeen, North Carolina 28315
September 10, 1990
Mr. Marshall Gilchrist, President
Southern Products and Silica Company, Inc.
P. 0. Drawer 189
Hoffman, North Carolina 28347
Dear Mr. Gilchrist:
ATTACHMENT "B" V
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
In reference to your telephone call today, this is to
advise we currently do not anticipate a surplus of fill
materials (sand, clay, topsoil, aggregates, etc.) as a result
of road construction and/or maintenance.
The procedures of pulling ditches to remove excess
materials usually provide the quantity of materials necessary
to reconstruct the shoulder sections of the roadways through
fill sections where soils have eroded due to natural causes
and vehicular traffic.
The disposition of minor amounts of fill materials
sometimes generated by these operations is as follows:
1. Stockpiled for future use by Department of
Transportation.
2. Given to the property owners fronting the roadway
section being reworked, provided the Department has
no anticipated needs (current or foreseeable
future). This usually amounts to a very small
quantity (one to five dump truck loads).
3. Waste materials can be given to a public school at
their request, provided the material is within
close proximity thus creating a short haul.

Mr. Marshall Gilchrist, President - 2 - September 10, 1990
A review of the Transportation Improvement Program
reveals that'the proposed four laning of US 1 is the only
major statewide construction project programmed for your
geographic location. This project has not been designed, and
we therefore do not know if it will be a waste or borrow job.
If it turns out to be a waste project, it will be the
responsibility of the contractor to satisfactorily dispose of
the excess materials.
In summary, the opportunities for obtaining fill to be
materials from the Department of Transportation appear
slim to non existent. If this situation changes in the
future, I will advise.
Yours very truly,
F. E. Whitesell, P.E.
DIVISION.ENGINEER
cc: Mr. Herman Thompson
Mr. D. W. Bailey
Mr. Jack Murdock
W'm'WV,,.' -,.. NSEF(VA'?IuN i'?? Scu.th HAr' •cK pti."« 4 ,
NOTMOT OF Flack i n• Warn, N. C. 23375+
;??Ut.TUR SERVICE--------- --------«- «
tf
4• •I
t August Z$ l 1990 J ATTACID
K Smith, General Manager
Products $. Si l Ica Co., Inc.
G'p
Drtwer
nCa

U." [(;ianarf, N. C. 2$347'
r M r. Smith' •.?rjNJY' g i ad to meet with you oar Fr?'
....'Scientist Steve Evans an+? I were ;
...,•.w. 4,sp
.. _...,to examine tree Tyner Lai,,e dike ad &I '?'.`?
d I ktiand a IuviaI for you to qua l i fy ..far. a permit to Oxten4 yp. ±
'
arna oni n order
n9 operation.
n addition to our soils iHurstigat ohs, wefac viduobserved
in our F(fle
nave Brice. talked with two 01491
,•. ?" ts,;?
Q f the ar It
ials specialist Keith Salvo and bl ?
?•r
l ??'•
state office ----pia nt mater' site whi;h:
Phi I Edwards ----wt?o have rnaae re'commendatiar?s for your s
I k e mould I to convey to you.
'K. We want you to understand that these recommendations are
iYet>!?"'T'
• `:= wh l It also being quite sound. The recommendations that are
t+ ,
pe I ow should a I I ow tree wet I and areas to deve I OF, naturally wri i I
?` ,.?.,?• ?.
;;.
designed to enhance their earliest sta3et of dove l oF'rnant .
rra7S'4?" 1.
' Before planting, I recamrner,d that a' I taR>shal dikeI awredgebthatasholl?ir?".
• slope of l5s1 or less. This wi 1 I create
.: T w
?...?..:.?c
11 provide exc e I I erit habitat far ducats and various f or•ag i rig waterfowl
?r?ir end fur baring an Imalb
f
Th n e areas that w 1 ( I tie near' but above the Water level fqr
`+• of th 3r•ow I n3 season &h,-..u t d oe seeded to a mi;tture of Kan I ow ?, ••.?.•.•..,,?,
e trig g3
swltchgrass (4 lbs. pure live sera/ac.), Japanese mi I let (2tt ,l?R
Ibs./ac•)r and glar?t.trnartwoed (20 Ibs./ac.) in addition to the ..•?{,
planting of muidencar,e r•hysornes in rows feat apart withr plans
fleet apart i n the rows (7260 p i•ante/ac .) . The rna i dericane th10441 E0 ;?" r:. ;•.
seeded i n Apr 11 'Gr
p I anted i n March arid tr,e other p !.ants sriouid be
.• ,?
May. Fort l I I ze all areas above. the water I i ne with E+OU Ibs./ac.. 4?
either 5-10-10 or 10-10-10 for•ti 1 i;or. It wi I I riot be necessary
•?
add I line to tree planting site. _4°
In addition to trio above, I also recommend tree occasional plaritin
trald cypress seedlings alternating with Atlantic white cedar
reedIIngs. A Iinear spacing for the cypress would be every 00 full; ; , r i
?.;,
cedars planted in Gotwrren trip cypress. On a grid
with tree whi t e anted' or, a 5+U' 50, t•asis witfi th?R°..,er.;
pattern the cypress she.u I d Gk F. i i nterrn i ng i ad with the "-? F.
cedars p l anted on a sma l l er 3t* i d, Z5, x 5,.?
cypress. These seod1 trigs couIa tie piantea in tree winter before Ot' "j?e' ,:y..¢
after trio estart. l ishrnent of tree rnatrrriais and can be ordered through';`
trio N. C. Forest Service in tree fal 1 . a*t
w • ?,ih ?J'^. !\: v rye ', 1•u .? ..
,Ii x
?•,.•.j!y r ,.',?•i Witt' tr{e arjove recornmendat i an, Nature woui?l' 4
believed that, W
pfetn a natural succession Of various plants, while, In the m•a)1hJ{
a t would have been established that would have valuabit
habita
i
t ife benefits.
W
j-would alsG affe'r trio atave(ecactiv,ttesr1ar-eocGmprQtecth•reiGn:41..r,f?'?
hit Tyner Lake area when rn{ nf$ .;
if a more mature wet l aria env i ror,rner,t i s your w i sri, you could a I eQ
consider such p 1 ants as hardstern t-u 1 I rust{, giant ourreed, and
IJa?,ltarla sp. (duck potato).
Sincerely,
.. '1 '
Walter B. Hlgh 2
District Conservation a
?G>< Steve Evans
Phil Edwards
Keith Salvo

f._YY'Z.? •L'
t.4:..
Sit :;Ji k 4.
:P•' .
MSS y
r;
• : yr. • s: ..4
4,7
p
ATTACHMENT "D"
NORTH CAROLINA
RICHMOND COUNTY
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the
requirements of-Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the
United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500
to Southern Products and Silica Co., Inc., pursuant to an
application filed on the 16th day of January, 1990 and
subsequent amendments to the application and supporting
information to expand the Hoffman Mine into wetland areas
adjacent to Drowning Creek.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the
discharge of fill material into the wetlands adjacent to Drowning
Creek in conjunction with the proposed mine expansion in Richmond
County will not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality
Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North
Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate Sections
301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted
in accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set
forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. That the activity be conducted in such a manner as
to prevent significant increase in turbidity
outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (increases such that the
turbidity in the Stream is 50 NTU's or less are not
considered significant).
2. That the applicant shall plant. the reclamation area
(approx. 21 acres) with black gum and bald cypress,
as well as Atlantic white cedar, and wetland oak
species (along upland edge of reclamation site).
Planting about 400.stems per acre with 1 year or
older seedlings shall be conducted. Plantings of
seedlings shall be somewhat random rather than
strictly in rows. 'White cedar should be planted in
monoculture clumps at a 3 to 6 foot spacing.
Existing wetland soils taken from the mine site
must be used to prepare the reclamation site as
much as possible. Reclamation shall begin as soon
as feasible but no later than five years from the
date of the Section 404 Permit issuance. As such,
the reclamation effort may include land in the
existing pond and associated delta.
3. Emergent, herbaceous wetland plants must be planted
along the edge of the lake after reclamation where
feasible.
Water Quality Certification No. 2551
Southern Products and Silica Co., Inc.
Page Two
4. Monitoring of the initial reclamation area shall be
for a minimum of 5years after completion of the
reclamation. The attached monitoring plan shall be
followed. If monitoring reveals that the
reclamation is unsuccessful, the applicant will be
required to take additional measures to ensure
success.
5. The applicant must donated approximately 109 acres
of suitable land adjacent to the Lumber River
within one year of the issuance of the Section 404
•Permit. The land will be donated to either the
Nature Conservancy or N. C. State Parks System upon
written agreement by the North Carolina Divisions
of Environmental Management and Parks and
Recreation.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in
revocation of this Certification.
This Certification shall become null and void unless the
above conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit.
This the 7th day of January, 1991.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
/,George T. Everett, Director
WQC# 2551 -
Water Quality Ceritification No. 2551
Monitoring Plan for Restoration Site
This monitoring plan is patterned after the MIST methodology
(White, et. al. 1989. MIST: A methodology to classify
pre-project mitigation sites and develop performance standards
for construction and restoration.of forested wetlands.) The
Southern Products creation site would be ranked as a Class III
for vegetation, Class IV for soils and Class IV for hydrology.
This methodology should be used as an informational source as
needed by the applicant.
Vegetation
A reference forest ecosystem (RFE) shall be described in a
document to be submitted to DEM for written approval. This RFE
should adequately describe the target wetland (gum-cypress, white
cedar and oak forests) which originally existed in the area but
no longer is present due to past disturbance. This RFE will be
used to compare the success of the mitigation site. In mid-
August to mid-October for each of five years after creation, the
mitigation and RFE sites shall be surveyed by appropriate plant
ecology methods (including permanent quadrants) for dominance,
density and cover for trees, saplings, seedlings and herbaceous
layers. Species importance values and densities will be compared
between the RFE and creation site.
Tree density (trees per acre) for the creation site shall be
projected from planted sapling survival rates. The final pro-
jected survival of overstory species at 10 years should be within
20% of the RFE tree density for each overstory species. If this
criteria is not met, additional planting will be necessary. This
20% criteria should be considered as a goal to be met rather than
an absolute standard. It is subject to change with written
agreement with DEM. A written report of vegetation (and other)
sampling will be presented to the Division of Environmental Man-
agement by January 31st of each year. Results of all monitoring,
remedial actions and other information shall be included in the
annual report. ..It is anticipated that active plant management
may be required (e.g., removal of nuisance, weedy species) during
the reclamation.
Hydrology
The applicant shall monitor the created wetland site once a
year for five years after creation to ensure that hydrology has
been established. Notes of hydrology (draft lines, water depth,
etc.) shall be made. Any repairs shall be done within 30 days of
discovery.
Soils
During the first, third and fifth years of the five year
monitoring period, the applicant shall take at least one core
sample per two acres from the restored site and one sample from a
nearby wetland as similar as possible to the RFE with an auger in
the reclamation site. Soil sample locations shall be mapped and
subsequent samples taken nearby. Sampling frequency may be
reduced by written agreement with DEM if data reveal that the
site is sufficently uniform so as to make intensive sampling
redundant.
Soil samples shall be compared to Muncell color charts for
hue, value and chroma. other soil monitoring shall include
saturated hydraulic conductivity, pH, Al, Cu, Zn, B, Mn, base
saturation, conductivity, redox potential, N, P, K and organic C.
Y N
`r
"ITC
..w
i
:•K
,m
AT ;HMENT
C
O
Y
AIM ?`
n
N ?
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
CESAW-C090-N-077-0114 January 18, 1990
PUBLIC NOTICE
SOUTHERN PRODUCTS AND SILICA COMPANY, INCORPORATED, POST OFFICE DRAWER
189, HOFFMAN, NORTH CAROLINA 28347, has applied for a Department of the Army
permit TO PLACE EXCAVATED MATERIAL IN WETLANDS ADJACENT DROWNING CREEK TO
ESTABLISH A DIKE/SERVICE ROAD FACILITATING SAND AND GRAVEL MINING OPERATIONS
ON PROPERTY OFF U.S. HIGHWAY 1, BEAVER DAM TOWNSHIP, Richmond County, North
Carolina.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided
by the applicant. Plans submitted with the application show the proposed
construction of approximately 2,150 linear feet of an 8-foot-wide,
2-1/2-foot-high dike/service road to facilitate the surface mining of
unweathered quartzite material in approximately 208 acres of forested wetlands
supporting the growth of black gum, cypress, red maple, sweet gum, white cedar
and loblolly pine. Approximately 5 acres are planned to be mined each year
for the next 40 years. The dike, which is to provide access for mining
equipment and impound lake water resulting from mining operations, is to be
aligned no closer than 300 feet to Drowning Creek. Plans showing the proposed
work are included with this public notice.
The applicant, who has been surfacing mining in adjacent areas for the
last eighteen years, states that the deposits, used primarily by the public
sector throughout the Southern United States as'filter materials for potable
and waste water treatment systems, are unique to wetland areas. They are
unaware of any other natural, alluvial deposits which provide the hard,
rounded, iron free material of the quality required for filter operations.
The applicant proposes to reclaim as much as possible of the 208 acres to
be mined. After mining operations are completed and time is allowed for
suspended particles to settle, the dike is to be breached to allow the lake to
slowly drain. The material used to construct the dike is then to be placed
back into the lake area returning approximately 20 percent (42 acres) of the
area to premining topography. This resulting exposed soil area is to be
planted with wetland species,. As mitigation for the flooding of the remaining
area, the applicant proposes to purchase and preserve 166 acres of high
quality forested wetlands within the Drowning Creek-Lumber River drainage
basin. Contingent with issuance of a Department of the Army permit, the
applicant offers to transfer funds for the acquisition of such property to the
North Carolina Nature Conservancy.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine
the need for the applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No
Department of the Army (DOA) permit will be issued until the coordinated State
viewpoint on the proposal has been received and reviewed by this agency, nor
will a DOA permit be issued until the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management has determined the applicability of a Water Quality Certificate as
required by PL 92-500. The State has issued associated mining and recycle
system permits.
A r
-2-
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404(b) of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request,,in writing within
the comment period specified in the notice, that a public hearing be held to
consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the
National Register of Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered
properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and
this worksite is not registered property or property listed as being eligible
for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register
constitutes the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District
Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the presence of such resources.
Presently, unknown archaeological, scientific, prehistorical; or historical
data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that
the proposed activity will affect species, or their critical habitat,
designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which
it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern
for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which
may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order
11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water
supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in
general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the
placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a
permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit
would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable
guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the District Engineer
determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal,
State and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested
d
-3-
parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed
activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers
to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this
proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on
endangered s6pecies, historic properties, water quality, general environmental
effects and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used
in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental
Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments
are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the
overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this DOA permit will not be made
until the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) issues,
denies, or waives State certification required by Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. The DEM. considers whether or not the proposed activity will comply
with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act. The application
and this public notice for the DOA permit serves as application to the DEM for
certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Salisbury Street, Archdale
Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished
to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management plans to take
final action in the issuance of the Clean Water Act certification on or after
February 9, 1990.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27611-7687, on or before February 5, 1990, Attention:
Mr. William Mills.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. Hugh Heine, until 4:15 p.m.,
February 20, 1990, or telephone [phone].
1. .
tl1 N h tl1 0 N N N
N 0! N OJ N w e e
U H
U u
- - u u u
U
U U U U U V u
U,
M N q A 10 R •0 N'
N 010 .o o? O o`
C•+ coon d WO aD
-A t1

-1 N
O CO ^ _
co
G?
F q VI O N (n L -
10 1
PG 1 N
O r 1n P1
1 y1 1 1 1 -1
1
1

01 1.
1 1 1 / 1
1
1
L 1 0 1 1 1 .•+ 1 1,10
Y I IIG / 1 1 l0 1 I Y W
1
F I F 1 1 1 SI 1
I Y 1 p N' 1 U ?1
Y 10 a7

11i O 1 O
1 V 1 Y Y
a ,. .
U'{i"? •' '
Y
d M i M i Y
i u c A u
u
h d 1 N 1 u 10 N Y F N
p w I w 1 11 C u .?^+
44
7 1 7
1 .+ W -0
1A F 31
.O
~ D N W
1
0
d I
O OG OS
w d i W l o6aO1?"s a C+F+
0
d
a u i u 1 o o
C A w
a w
0
u
cY i Y i. oo 00.0
yc $
i
h1 0/ 0 1 F C F C 4 co 0
O O
g ., ..1 t0 A
_ °_ -UT*2 - ~ a ° .
Y

r<
J
v
1 V

l !
II
I
1
I
I
inw ras ?? ...•.? rnv ?
„ a''o '° ? ? ? ?I'I r ?' '?' ? ? 1+I' j •' S 9 ' < !I'?1' t 1 / . 11?i' .
'.? r i'! I ?'? i II ( f\???
a u / ? ?1 t. ,it.!I<Il ? I ? !?IWfI.,?'4 V - l r?
??-?/?^ -_ I 1 .f i.'???:,l i,:'r' I Ij'il• !i?!a 1:It1`?,',;,.??. .? ,c. •?'
i 1 •1' I ;III li; Si i'i ?C'.,C?i.'`:;?;;
%./'1./??-? 1?• ?I I•??It' I4jl, I(IAj
\' / ?il "1 /? •i'I I•'I ,.r ' 1 1b ??'IIIIIL l !
10 1 I 1 I I ' t? . aa+
`•4'1;1 ??#Iltdtl '' '1? +IIW"•' 6' ?" I
411
?? 1 Z t' 1 1 1' 1 Y? 4?3
t ?'. t.?l 1 1 '?1 ? 1 . 1 1• p
.? /f •11 I I1. 1
'1 ^ 4 If 01
"V
W
t
v G
?a
•? a ' 1 I 't 1 1 1 1 ? +
•?• 11 6?1 /il, I I? I ? ?
1,414 t t
#
y,/.Ild?i '?1 .I 1?41?,141 ,
'' ••y,, 11'ay , ?,' ?,y, ?'1y?511?'41t
t F?j?h1l 11
••'1' _ , r17? 141 ''TI?i?IT •!'?J" ' = J sas Q? I
1• I I I ?
Y? 1 1 III 1 I w
1` t yy I w
." •?.?dl , ? ICI ?I?q ? 14,1?1?t . .,
.,\
10 14,1
,•• q s $ .. ?• I{'I III i''???lihl?l,?,ily .. •••?
? ? ?II+ q?ft ?!Iq; ?: Lt i #I? 1•II 1?,1111I? 4ws..
_ 'fa n'• ? n ? I 111 ? " 1 ? 11 I?' I?'?1#.I 1.. ) •ss ? •.
I ,• I v' t ,I
4.414 (1 41YI41 1?, 141
lip
VIF I?? 1 Iljl < : O N
iI•?
'?? , 1 6qt ? d1Y?• ?'JS,, 1?: .? 1?1jt •Q?,`I,?. 1 1 ??? • sa:aS +i?,• ? •
! ?? • t v
11.1 II' Tl tl '?i Is' ?j
+ j I? 1 i1?# ' 41??t;,t?; 4,I14,t 11.1- 1 h d a ?* i ?% H "' T,• C
•. r '+s ??i: 1 I' i I; I II' I 1? ? , 1? i# I?f ?s a ?" ?? I O .•?•1 w ?
.^ . 111 1411 *1{ ?" w x u a?i
N t • y I1 I??I1 "f Q 1.4 w N ?G
p/ 1 ? 1?1?1??1 ?L•. • V? ? ?l
t
•?•/ Z O O C
1?11??I4,Vj ,
• (fat I?ItI I?t,?1T •t. ai' ?'? Z O M .
1 •
w.• V tr7 Z
.1 vi l
G
0
N'
L3'
tOt
I
I N ?•? ?•'ras >4 w '
e IT
IS
a "a

v,
A
ac?
I ?i
? a4
,? '? .AZ H u
O p
O
Q r?Gl O co d
-
i a O Z ?Fe! ^+
vl ? 4a
'

°91E I z

O
o 0 O a > ¢ t
r,
c
9
t1)
a.. 7
W d
U
I
-be e

Z a i?

I o a

q- EXitTiNC LAKE ??7?j /dov 11J /
B-ExitTeN? IQo,q? lDl Kt?
C- Si.u GGE .ff?a i p, f o 6 e ,h. i ? E.D
IVI W RoA 1D CD l Kc?
UN /?i % N t:? f?R efI
F- Pe,Pnl,r,v?N r D t K ?
G- DRedle FI,4-rttwAy
r
7?1
ShigE7 .3 a? ¢
,eFwaz ofU 4 E 7
iii
I
v

b
Z
b
Q?
ti
0
V
'I
?L a
? 3
It
4
lo;?
c
x
H
`p v b ?o
1ca"Q, b?0\
?qe?
0
%
? q\
b
va ??\
b O
o ?
n??b
d? b?\
Q
.a
v ?
3 'q \
aIV
4
v
V
b
V
I?z
A
S;
?SN
a..
v
.o
?ratP of North"Carolina' 3 FEB
l{ Y Ada 1 j,?+.
? {Departs
s i -

nent,'i wl, alth, and j Natural
of L,andResources
CLA;MAT"ION REPORT
199
#74-55 °and 4,the' Mining Regulations ;require - tha
bruarl'f,each year during the life4,of tli
P 4%
,ofcompletion or termination o
permitted 'erat?io,?<arid withir30< daysV
ywththe Departmentamining reclamatio
minngfonan ,ara under .permi f%e
.reportt?on •a: form.. prescr?bedby heDepartmepnt`" h r, - xA
t?. .fr'C "x 7YC9u? S n ?
P,LEASE PRINT+ OR TYPE
Namebf .i1ne r r ??. '/iH'a`:??? ?iinYnc? Pe?i?iit Nurlcr
d-3kT?r+>k.fd .-, k•+?`..?• 3 .?o yk'-N
?yZd
Mining :Permit FExpixatbion Date a
,?zd'•' r 3? fxit???:;,3 ?,,, : ?q r$ ?- 3 , `>'-? .,.? ?? ,.s?n,?? ?, a tr i, ? i --?r '
,?{{ ?' •t k.G'?'P?r? r?,.? ?rk?R..a??tiF?? ,rq?' ?'.v e y. ? 5 0-,r,ap A._ .ya. ?p? ? / -
s s; Name;,of ,COmgan .,Owner ? o ? ???.,? /?2?o??`-S i? -r? ??` ? ,,4 C v ??' --Z ? C
? i
are MA iz (a) Ifmine i no: actkive., hen did mining stop? Date z /g
No !'P
# w(b): GIs this stop a e permanent. ?: 4 ,?, -,?
4?f ? !
2. Lister<by tcategar?y t e total- mount +ofnewTland affected by min l
1 ^acti It es , t n thee, :1992' Galen {ar ear $;and ;locate each '' area 'on yob
updated me p':'rs , t i 4:
' (A) TAILINGS PONDS; 'acres. (D),?M NEEXCAVATION acre:
.CiJ Lat may,.. ?[*`F„zm N ;>ii(. * +t#;t x 'S s. to +34',g r*Nt
,, ?(B) WAS EAP L'ES*§T?'" _ acres ( ) rPIANT?AREA: acre:
K(C STOCKPILES: } acres. x? g;? .
4 .; _ , tRY??t ...r?r."anr .• ?.... 4OY . • . .. ???^ ?ic?"?,3
,Check here is no> ew acres a of ec'ted in 1992
stimate ca a or the ount e ' creage r to e agfIea.6d by?q{?
G?a'.?x"'. ? Yh,•.u1bd' d? •?%?;tkw.
e
cavities e 9 3 ca endar eat nd ocate the``outlinof eacha.E
y(A,)?TAItL NGS P.OND$: Gres. (D). MINE EXCAVATION.i acre<
?B)WA?STE O.? ?° ::nx
_ acres E" RLANT•'AREA ', aerie:
" (C) STOCKPILAE ace "u > Chec ere; pf':`no ew acs a e is to e' affected 119;9,3.
• ?`.?' v. rya =?:1 ?.. ?a
*4 r?_List b? category the total amount; of disturbe and `unreclaimed rla
yyd', • a' r "?w'&° ><e @A•Iw r-iV +(i's'iF`y?YYa x:tr Wffi z .n ? x3?'S r.
present ;at °thrs site zthe end ;of the 19 2 calendar year,,,, c ?
(A) r','TAIL GS ONDS: ?' acres. " ,(`rD) MINE SEXCAVATION acre
;,i, aaYrrF as:FUt+vr.4wd1 '?.%'i h"'1R1? "°_"' i Ivy?rF»S'
i'XS! iyNz R8? 4'>f 4+'..
(B.} WAS 'E iP LES : acres :.PLANT` A Y EA a a1 ?? ? u acre
' , 1 b r 1? tt :,? 1
4 +t• +Yr'+sR?Ni ,. "Y.?. 347 ? 9„? '?Lxt i - 4?t r ::.t. laYt?-W..i .. d L ka
STOCKPILES : acres' Mir
°(CONTINUEiib'* EVERS SIDE) OTE WASTEP rLE should includeoverb rden`st rage%disposal'areas and berm
IZA
MMI

5 , sist ?by category t_ e amount of land a that 4 has ,, beeri? completely reclaimed
yin 1992 ands is, no subject?3to con .121u& use 6,1 aluture' mining{irelate
K' t d
y''; K•„tAS`"o`]F#` !!Ro.'i ^7"$'x{, Y, .,.q
,' .w r Y>'?" 3T+r •' 5 W40-7.7
. activ Mies .Br ef?l de`scrYbe "tYiereclamation: work conducted andx,
?yxr ? ?aSr24? £ah A' « r jy"? F? L tike J ?? o? ty r
x indica yWte if you sYi to MM ave?any f these areas released fromr k your
Rai „x.
curt n bonding equ.. emenccur ately loeate the"out ?neKof°all such
areas on our update m ne:map ,"
,?. ;? _? •. ,.fA)` a TAI<LING PONDS_ n _ ?a,cres: xplain:.,,. .?A s??. ' , • ;, ,,,??? _?
X4„ P... O. Box- 2 68°
Raleigh; NC 2761x1-7687 ;
s
FAILURE TO FILE' HIS ORM Y' E D TE' SPECwIFIED MAY RESULT NTHE ASSESSMENT

?. >J.'M • Yx - G':x?t .
OF 'CIVIL. PENALTIES
'`
`
D 'COUL'D t - ? 4Ran+aHMi"tk'F(?sJ .i&:.^sl ?. H'N?Y"1YiV?.
EVEN RESULT N THEEVOCATION $OF OUR MINING. -
`k '
k L:l1S`Y
,d
^'T G
'+k
'
iVx
1+P -"" ?b5
?kY5=8 Mi6Ki`di
'y;' PERMIT: HOULD YOU: VE: ANY- A
J
.
Ax. AP1'ifi 1
t:
AT
QUESTIONS., P. EASE ADyISE

?
all
-..
It 1 -93 MOM 17 : 15 ? V ?`'°
• t ?? erg i?? F . G 1
FEB 0 9 1^?,'?
QIJA IT`S` SECTION
1992 RECLAMATION REPORT FOR
SOUTHERN PRODUCTS AND SILICA, INC,,
HOFFMAN, NORTH CAROLINA
SUBMITTED BY
DR. J,H. CARTER III
Reclamation activities on the existing spoil fan at Tyner Lake were begun in the fall
of 1992. Two series of reference forest ecosystem (RFE) plots were established west of 4
Tyner Lake. One RFE was placed in a stand dominated b Atlantic white cedar P/_,c f
(C'harnumaris thyoideg and the other was placed in a stand of black um Mssa biflora)
and b d_ ypress ( Taxodium distichum
The RFE's were one-tenth hectare in size, and consisted of 5 adjacent pairs of 10
meter by 10 meter plots. Trees and saplings were inventoried, measured, and mapped in
all modules, as were identifiable stumps. Shrubs and herbaceous species were inventoried
in 5 alternating modules, using S lm x lm quadrats (i at each corner, 1 in center of -
module). Percent cover was estimated for species. High water levels prevented a through
assessment of some modules.
A series of plots (as described above) was set up on the spoil fan at Tyner Lake in
order to monitor the results of reclamation efforts. These plots were not in place until
after the end of the growing season. As a result, no inventory was conducted,
The fan was prepared for planting the recommended reclamation species by di in
a new outlet ditch. This channeled wash water from the ongoing mining operation beyond
the existing fan, thereby minimizing fan overwash. Loblolly pine ( Pinus taeda ) saplings
were out, and all sweet guns (Liquidamhar sty„ iflua ) saplings were removed with a weed
wrench. Most red maples ( Acer rubrum ) were removed also, but scattered specimens were
retained, as were all wetland shrubs that had become established (such as titi [ Cyrilla
raemiflora ]),Herbaceous species, such as rushes, ( un u spp,) were left undisturbed
?nough white cedar (1000) cypress (400), and water to ? (400) ( Nvssa
were acquired to plant acre Water tupelo was substituted for black gum
Because a i -.Lu ur 1e lat saes could not he found. The seedlings were
planted on the fan in January 1993.
v-0M-)4 sal A full report containing the planting design drxd success, RFE inventory, and
associated maps will be submitted in January 1994.
U Z?.
11 .R h_ k
?'o-4/- a72 -
AMr-AT10N
FOR
JAS ? 2 4???
REGULATORY BRANCH
PERMIT TO EXCAVATE ANO/OR FILL DATER QojA 1TY CERTIFICATION
EASEMENT IN LANDS COVERED 3Y WATER CAMA PERMIT FOR MAMA OEVUDPMMT
pyartmteitt M tlto AMY
Depwaamt of AertrMtYt "i" Stair of Noah Ci OU" CpM of ErteMteere, IMMittlttpM Otttriti
(GS 1K121 0itowtroertt of Natural Reno em std Corr moWty OwdAo"nt o
CfR l.320-3291
(GS 1113-229,143-2115.341(l). 143.215.3(c). 113A•119
Nsaa type at print and fill in all blaaksL N infotrttation is not appllcable+ so indicate by placing N/A in blank.
1. Applicant Information
A. Hartle First Middle
Last
B. Address P.O. Drawer 189
Street, P O. Box nr Route
Hoffman, NC 28347 [phone]
Citv per Town State Zip Code Phone
IL Lmation of Proposed Protect:
A. County Richmond
9. 1. City, town, community or landmark Drowning Creek at U. S. Hwy. 1 Beaver! ?Dam'.,'Township
2. Is proposed work within city limics? Yes No X Drowning Creek
C. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located or nearest named body of water to project
III. Dewiption of Project
No 2. New work Yes
A. 1. Maintenance of a:fisting project
8. Purpose of excavation or till
1. Access channel N/A length width depth
2. Boat basin N/A length-width depth
3. Fill area Dike length 2150' width 8' depth 2.5'
4. Other length . width depth
C. 1. Bulkhead length N/A -- Average distance waterward of MHW (shereiine) N/A
2. Type of bulkhead construction (material)
0. Excavated material (total for project)
1. Cubic yards 3,697,695 2. Type of material Sand & Gravel
E. Fill material to be ol•ced below MHW (see also VI A)
1. Cubic yards 1=_344, 616 - 2. Type of material Overburden
IV. Lain Type, Disposal Area, and Construction Equipment
A. Does the area to be excavated include any marshiand, swamps or other wetland' Yes X No
B. Does the dispntal area include any marsnland, swamps or other wetland' Yes X No
C. Oisposal Area ,
1. Location 50 from dredged area and inside mine area
i
2. Oo yuu claim title in dtsoosal area!_To. Disposal area is leased.
0. Fill material si+u,e.e if Idl n to be trucked in _NIA
E. How will cxcavated material be entrapped and erosinn uontrolledi Large gravel is placed on top of a
temporary dike. Erosion is retarded by natural vegetation.
F. Type of equipment itt he uwd Dragl; ne and hydraulic dredge
Q Will marshland he crnssed in transporting equipment to proiect s+tei II yes, explain No
D&F-il
Roar. I"

V. bmm&d Wo of 1MArm (0mcfte)
A. L PrrW N/A
2. Cot+Mrcw Sur ace mine
3. Fioutirtt CWveioeatent or lttd -MtW - NN/A
/A
d. Other
L 1. Lot dw(s) N/A
2. Elwradon of fats) above mom high waxer N/A
1 SON type and t~ature Bibb fine sandy loam
4. Type of building faeiltttes or structures N/A
S. Sewaw disposal andlot waste water treatttsent A. Esistirl NnnP Planted Nnnp
B. Describe N/A
6. Laid Clasuftcattnn (circle one) DEVELOPED TRANSt C1UNA-. COMMUNMY RURAL
CONSERVATION OTHER N/A _ (See CAPAA Local Lud Uw Plan Synopsis)
VL Pertaining to Fill and Water 09"irty
A. Dan the proposed orniect evolve the CIACC rent Of fill Tatsria4 be1Uw "'eJtt water? Ys x No
L 1. Will any runoff or dtscharte enter adtacent waWn as a result of prttrect uttvity or planned use of the
area following praita comoletion) Yes-No X
2. Type of discharge N/A Mini n no, nn rat-inn inVnl-upc a n1n--A ,VtRtPTn whar in intro
I Location of disctarle N/A isolates mine from Drowning Creek.
VOL Franne rate of Owthne erosion Iif known): N/A
VUL Lbt patch ttumb.en and issue dates of previous Department of Army CmM of Engumm or State pawns for
vat in proi•cs area,, i f ao ikable: USA Corps of Ens?. Permit No: SAWC081-N-077-000
iX Lat4iii of time required to Cowtpiete proiett' 4U years S t a t p r )t- N C M i j
X Iw additlew to the Cisma eted aodicatlan fWm, the fdlewip iteet+e must be orev
A. Attach a copy of the dammed (with State application only) et other instrument under which apoiaant
daims title to the affected orooerty. OR if applicant Is not claiming to be the owner of sad property.
then (orwwd a copy of the dead or other insttummt under which the owner claims tide plus written
permission from the owner to carry out the project on his land.
L Attach an accurate weak plat drawn to scale on 8'A X I i" white pacer (sae instrucuon booklet for
details). Note: Original drawings preferred • only h.gh quality copies .cceoted.
G A copy of the application and plat must be served uoon adiacant ricarran landowners by teystated of
certified mail or by purlicatton (G.S. 113229 (d))Emer date served N /A
0. List names and complete addtesses of the noattan landowners with oreewiv adjoining applicant's.
Such owners have 30 davs in which to submit Comments to aeenctes listed below.
XL Carditcatien requirensent: I certt(y that to L'se best of my knowWga, the prooosed activity comprres
with the State of North Carolrnabs acoroved coastal manaeement orovam and will be conducted -n a
WAnew consistent with such program.
XIL Any permit issued pursuant to this accusation will allow only the develooment dewibad in this apph
cation and olat. Aoclicants should therefore describe in the application and plat alt anttctpatad devei-
optwent activities, including construction, excavation, filling, and land clearing C iz,,/ G oe/a TS G
f L : c ern .z.
GATE ,r., .
Aoeticant's Signature
apn S££ REVERSE SIDE FOR MAWNG IwS7RUC710NS

W ,r

u

Cl)

? A
o ? ^
z
o w ? o
a x o?
H ?? a

1?

N
0
1?? 0
"

?- I ,

a a 3
r
N

N

• APPLICANT/PROJECT NAME :
Southern Products and Silica
• DEM #: WQC#: MAP #:
91576 2551 43
• COUNTY:
Richmond
• LOCATION OF MITIGATION SITE (LAT. AND LONG.)
• DIRECTIONS TO MITIGATION SITE:
Take Hwy 1 S out of Southern Pines. Located on the right after you cross the Richmond
County line.
• ACREAGE AND TYPE OF WETLAND IMPACTED:
• ACREAGE AND TYPE OF WETLAND MITIGATED:
109---preservation ~21---restored
• DESCRIPTION OF MITIGATION(IN FILE):
Donate 190 acres to the Nature Conservancy. Restore mining area to pond surrounded by
plantings.
• DESCRIPTION OF VEGETATION(IN FILE):
Kanlow switchgrass, Japanese millet, Giant smartweed, Maidencane rhysomes.
Occasionally Bald cypress and Atlantic white cedar.
• SUCCESS CRITERIA STATED(if any):
on the certification
• WHAT IS THE PROJECT STATUS?(mark one):
RESTORATION, ENHANCEMENT, CREATION, PRESERVATION
• MONITORING PLAN:
on the certification
• WHICH REGULATORY AGENCIES ARE INVOLVED?:
• TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT(mark the ones that apply):
RURAIL. URBAN, PUBLIC, PRIVATE, COMMERCIAL

FIELD INFORMATION
• DESCRIPTION OF VEGETATION(AT SITE):
Planted White cedar, Bald cypress and Tupelo gum on spoil fan.
They are removing red maple and sweet gum. (Trying to mimic their Reference Forest
Ecosystem (RFE) sites)
• SURFACE WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS:
none
• SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER RELATIONSHIPS:
adjacent to the spoil pond of the site
• HAVE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS BEEN MET?:
not as of yet, more planting to do
• DESCRIPTION OF SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN:
0-6 inches grey sand (spoil material)
7-12 inches grey sand

j0
- / 00
(7 9 ti
C: ro CA
0 C

1
0
?4 00 9
C: < 0
O C:
m C-2
F-+
70
rt .
cn
ra z
?.
to
r
ca 0 rtf
CJ 70
z H
"C

%D O

0
m Z
%D Z 04
z C9
n
• p 0 x a
d;

N1?
U)
?

7j0 ? p,= ?N '
p ? I N ?
^
' .'`
• -v p n o 'O
CID a
T
?
?
I ?1Fr<r Q
R $

t+ b CJ
Irte. 7d Oct
1-4
:1 n 1--4 CIO K 1r1 :elf $
y cl t
0
8
1 j {r
n
N ?? : •? 1. t}I It
t, .i?llli ( 11 1. 11
i till
PIC
cn H D t51, '' I c
m 0 m N r , '11a1, 1 1hr1i 1
4-1
I I t 1' 1 I•
7 ,;1 ' L;I 1 III
?
0 z H M • y k'?Fily;?pl I'YI11 I.
r x i?* ? ?? ? •'1?1}., ?,?I?iIII1?1 1•?I1??,??11
? (I ? ,? , ?assasa ? t Z ? ? ,'????}?i ?!?1 ?"?II#1? ?11 ?y1 ?•l I'
0 0 'x? ?, ,}I Iy„,11?1 1?, 1? 1?h? t
O H 17 ' N, `71YI i'?}I , If?t il'?t,?ld
/ ''?,?' 1 y1 1 1 ?'1? tl??
? ? ? ' ti. _: ' ?// . •. 1 y' ,kIY'.It rl ,?`'U'?l.' I.?11r?
J
I : 40,
•O•
?r
?4,rt
N
. a,
/p
'u
N
Ca
r
a
t7 t.,
R •
/ r

tom.
l
1
c

W
1
.t1
?i \

cC! o
?l ? 3 ys'7y ?-- ? ?,
Iili?
IMPORTANT
To
Date Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
of
Phone
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION

Message

Signed
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
cretary ? c PA Jonathan B. Howes, Secreta C
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 25, 1993
Mr. C. K. Smith
Southern Products and Silica Co. Inc.
P.O. Drawer 189
Hoffman, North Carolina 28347
Dear Mr. Smith,
I am an intern for the Division of Environmental Management in the Wetlands and
Technical Review Group. My job is to conduct a survey of all wetlands mitigation projects
required as a condition of 404/401 permits. I am specifically looking for information
concerning the type of mitigation (creation, restoration, enhancement, etc.), the kind of
wetland mitigated and where the site is located
Our files show that the permit issued to Southern Products and Silica in January, 1991
required mitigation. The information I found in the file is not complete. Therefore I would
appreciate your assistance in obtaining the following information.
• Has mitigation been completed
• An exact location of and directions to the mitigation site. (A vicinity and a more specific
map are both needed)
• What type of mitigation was done? (restoration, creation, preservation, enhancement)
• An exact description of the mitigation plan. (Including specific vegetation planted)
• Acreage and type of wetland impacted in project.
• Acreage and type of wetland mitigated
• Success criteria.
• Monitoring plan.
In order for me to complete this survey within the time allotted, I would appreciate
receiving the information by July 6, 1993.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1 0% post-consumer paper
If you have any questions concerning this request please call me or Ron Ferrell at (919)
733-1786.
Sincerely,
Hunter L. Blanton
Water Quality Section
Enclosures

5TEState of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental dement
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
January 7, 1991
Mr. C. K. Smith
Southern Products and Silica Co., Inc.
P.O. Drawer 189
Hoffman, North Carolina 28347
Dear Mr. Smith:
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section.401. of the Federal
Clean Water= Act' fir
Proposed Mifie Expansion
Southern Products and Silica C0-' Inc = x '?
Attached hereto are two (2) copies`Qf Certification°No `2551
issued to Southern Products and Silica Co., Inc., dated January
7, 1991.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
George T. Everett
Director
Attachments
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Fayetteville Regional Office
Mr. William Mills
Mr. John Parker
Mr. Frank Boteler
Polludon Prevendon Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]

NORTH CAROLINA
RICHMOND COUNTY
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the
requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the
United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500
to Southern Products and Silica Co., Inc., pursuant to an
application filed on the 16th day of January, 1990 and
subsequent amendments to the application and supporting
information to expand the Hoffman Mine into wetland areas
adjacent to Drowning Creek.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the
discharge of fill material into the wetlands adjacent to Drowning
Creek in conjunction with the proposed mine expansion in Richmond
County will not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality
Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North
Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate Sections
301, 302,'303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted
in accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set
forth.
Condition(s) of Certification
1. That tYie' actIV- 1, be conducted i,n such `?° a rmanne= as = :
tQ ? ,1. 'r 11rf Y w'D.::5S2ktx?31 T? ' '$?X.. d+r n - e st a `ic `d ,? bu stir ? 6 i $ ?, i } outsi e'. e e tip r Irv cT
' tY 'Y r?.L ."'+°'X"- . ?,t?'C- :y: ,.....s,.m r ^La'i.S+.?•j,^.?y??''" i
related'r scharge , a.ncreases ° such``?ha?''`?h? -- ; ,:
turbidity in the°Streani `is ,50 NTUt s" `or less are not
considered significant}.
2. That the applicant shall plant.the reclamation area
(approx. 21 acres) with black gum and bald cypress,
as well as Atlantic white cedar, and wetland oak
species (along upland edge of reclamation site).
Planting about 400 stems per acre with 1 year or
older seedlings shall be conducted. Plantings of
seedlings shall be somewhat random rather than
strictly in rows. White cedar should be planted in
monoculture clumps at a 3 to 6 foot spacing.
Existing wetland soils taken from the mine site
must be used to prepare the reclamation site as
much as possible. Reclamation shall begin as soon
as feasible but no later than five years from the
date of the Section 404 Permit issuance. As such,
the reclamation effort may include land in the
existing pond and associated delta.
3. Emergent, herbaceous wetland plants must be planted
along the edge of the lake after reclamation where
feasible.

Water Quality Certification No. 2551
Southern Products and Silica Co., Inc.
Page Two
4. Monitoring of the initial reclamation area shall be
for a minimum of 5 years after completion of the
.reclamation. The attached monitoring plan shall be
followed. If monitoring reveals that the
reclamation is unsuccessful, the applicant will be
'required to take additional measures to ensure
success.
5. The applicant must donated approximately 109 acres
of suitable land adjacent to the Lumber River
within one year of the issuance of the Section 404
Permit. The land will be donated to either the
Nature Conservancy or N. C. State Parks System upon
written agreement by the North Carolina Divisions
of Environmental Management and Parks and
Recreation.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in
revocation of this Certification.
This Certification shall become null and void unless the
above conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit..
This the 7th day of January, 1991.
ks`c`+-TTTIT ATJ\iT /?Tf -: TIiTTTTT A1TfTR7.'!49[TlY iRZT'RZY?T11!'1']lTt1T ,k:...
/_George T. Everett, Director
WQC# 2551
Water Quality Ceritif-ication No. 2551
Monitoring Plan for Restoration Site
This monitoring plan is patterned after the MIST methodology
(White, et. al. 1989. MIST: A methodology to classify
pre-project mitigation sites and develop performance standards
for construction and restoration of forested wetlands.) The
Southern Products creation site would be ranked as a Class III
for vegetation, Class IV for soils and Class IV for hydrology.
This methodology should be used as an informational source as
needed by the applicant.
Vegetation
A reference forest ecosystem (RFE) shall be described in a
document to be submitted to DEM for written approval. This RFE
should adequately describe the target wetland (gum-cypress, white
cedar and oak forests) which originally existed in the area but
no longer is present due to past disturbance. This RFE will be
used to compare the success of the mitigation site. In mid-
August to mid-October for each of.five years after creation, the
mitigation and RFE sites shall be surveyed by appropriate plant
ecology methods (including permanent quadrants) for dominance,
density and cover for trees, saplings, seedlings and herbaceous
layers. Species importance-values and densities will be compared
between the RFE and creation?`si.te..
Tree density (trees per acre) for-`,,the.
anon site hall be w
projected from plantedsapl urv e final.
jected survival b. ov story pecies. s shou]. e z
20% of the RFE tree`densityfor.°each overs_ ., reties40 lii
criteria is not met, ` additional -planting will tae ' necessary: TYis
20% criteria should be considered as a goal-':to be met rather than
an absolute standard. It is subject to change.with written
agreement with DEM. A written report of vegetation (and other)
sampling will be presented to the Division of Environmental Man-
agement by January 31st of each year. Results of all monitoring,
remedial actions and other information shall be included in the
annual report. It is anticipated that active plant management
may be required (e.g., removal of nuisance, weedy species) during
the reclamation.
Hydrology
The applicant shall monitor the created wetland site once a
year for five years after creation to ensure that hydrology has
been established. Notes of hydrology (draft lines, water depth,
etc.) shall be made. Any repairs shall be done within 30 days of
discovery.
Soils
During the first, third and fifth years of the five year
monitoring period, the applicant shall take at least one core

sample per two acres from the restored site and one sample from a
nearby wetland as similar as possible to the RFE with an auger in
the reclamation site. Soil sample locations shall be mapped and
subsequent samples taken nearby. Sampling frequency may be
reduced by written agreement with DEM if data reveal that the
site is sufficently uniform so as to make intensive sampling
redundant.
Soil samples shall be compared to Muncell color charts for
hue, value and chroma."Other soil monitoring shall include
saturated hydraulic conductivity, pH, Al, Cu, Zn, B, Mn, base
saturation, conductivity, redox potential, N, P, K and organic C.

RECEIVED
UEG 1991
Southern ProductsDand RSTM CNN TOCo. F,Ti CARMY PERMIT
Post Office Drawer 189 REGULATORY BRANCH
Permittee Roffman,,. North Carolina 28347
Permit No. Action ID. 199000114
Issuing Office CESAW CO-E
NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term
"this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted
activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer.
You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below.
Project Description:
To place excavated material it wetlands adjacent to Drowning Creek to establish
a dike/service road facilitating sand and gravel mining operations on property
off U.S. Highway 1, Beaver Dam Township.
Project Location:
Richmond County, North Carolina
Permit Conditions:
.?., General Conditions:
1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on December 31, 2002
. If you find that you need
more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least
one month before the above date is reached.
2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and condi-
tions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make
a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain
the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of
this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area.
3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by
this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordina-
tion required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places.
ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS oeso'LETE. (33 CPR 325 (Appendix A))
1
4. If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided
and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization. '
6. If a conditioned water quility certification has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions specified
in the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certification is attached if it con-
tains such conditions.
6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure
that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit.
Special Conditions:
See enclosed sheet.
Ia.
Further Information
1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to:
() Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403).
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
() Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413).
2. Limits of this authorization.
a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law.
b. This penmit'doesnot grant any-property rights or exclusive privileges.
,T c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others.
d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project.
3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following:
a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural
causes.
b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf
of the United States in the public interest.
C. Damages to persons, property,' or to other' permitted or unpermiWad activities or structures caused by the activity
authorized by.this permit.
CL Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work.
2
e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit.
4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public
interest was made in reliance on the information you provided.
5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances
warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or
inaccurate (See 4 above).
c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision.
Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation
procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The
referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms
and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any
corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations
(such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the
cost.
6. Extensions. General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit. Unless
there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest
decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit.
Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
SQUTgERN PRODUCTS & 'SILICA CO-, INC.
(PERMITTEE) (DATE) l
This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below.
\Co? C/ 444."/L 3 jA-J g Z
DIS ICT ENGINEER) (DATE)
FV \ TER S. TULLOCH, COLONEL
When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and
conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit
and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below.
(TRANSFEREE)
(DATE)
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 19W - 717.425

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
a. The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a
significant increase in turbidity outside the area of construction or
construction-related discharge. Increases such that the turbidity in the
waterbody is 50 NTU'S or less are not considered significant.
b. The permittee will maintain a,300-foot-wide wetland buffer along
Drowning Creek. This area will not be mined.
c. In accordance with the approved mitigation plan revised April 15,
1991, the permittee will reclaim at least 21 acres of bottomland, hardwood
wetlands. The reclamation area may include land in the existing pond and
associated delta.
(1) This area will be planted with black gum and bald cypress, as well
as Atlantic white cedar. Wetland oak species will be planted along the upland
edge of the reclamation site. Planting approximately 400 stems per acre with
one year of older seedlings will be conducted. Plantings of seedlings will be
somewhat random rather than strictly in rows. White cedar should be planted
in monoculture clumps with 3 to 6-foot spacings. Where feasible, emergent,
herbaceous wetlands plants will be planted along the edge of the lake after
reclamation.
(2) To the extent possible, existing wetlands soils taken from the
mine site will be used to prepare the reclamation site.
(3) Reclamation will begin as soon as feasible, but no later than 5
years from the issuance date of this permit.
(4) Monitoring of the initial reclamation area will be for a minimum
of 5 years after completion of the reclamation. The monitoring plan attached
to North Carolina Water Quality Certification No. 2551, dated January 7, 1991,
will be followed. If monitoring reveals that the reclamation is unsuccessful,
the permittee will be required to take additional measures to ensure success.
(5) A copy of the monitoring report will also be submitted to the U.S
Fisheries and Wildlife Service by January 31 of each year.
NOTE: As compensation for the loss of 109 acres of wetland, 218 acres of
bottomland hardwood swamp on the Lumber River in Robeson County, N.C., was
purchased by the applicant and transferred to the National Conservancy by deed
deed dated November 1, 1991.
ii
'CIO
I II ^
IF
.. ?
? A A A O
g o
' 0 0 o
o m p° u °o
4 0 0 o y o
E m ?
5 ? >
n -
A O
n O
a s°
-
cZi ^

x
F

9 4 2 A R
S i u

s a s s s

3
;
€7
? yi Ss

I O
I
P `
I C
I ? 3f ? Cm..ja+ !o?
? 1 r
I `Y
z?
I
c) A/ 7-7
I m W
m
?l
D
z
? i -
II -
? II
I I
I I
I I -
n
I I
II
II
II _
NlrNVa,
i
,NINNVa,
\
i
1
i

-77

-
Z =

G O
.
?
l
? a? 9 {
`,
f 1 i
? • i
i
a TafO? I I ? ?/ ? ?\ \ a
?
t
Jv
N
n
m
v2
ON
<9
O
OZ
?A
m
p°
A
FO
Ulm
;{
40
IA?
Om
CC
IC
m
m
A
ZZ
O
01
oa
C9
jD
Nm
ZN
09
FF xx fille a
I?` m
s AS ? rxu x
A ?? I All A
0
co 70
o M U)
0 0
Cl)
C
o v ;o O -1
M m z 0 )
V z
NZO
0 Z m
) .
-
x z
M* a ^
7
l 1 `
$
4 (0 Z

V) z p
o ? D
-o
= o ne
No
m ° Z p p
L Dzz C) - C r7
mD z n m
0
a Z D D
Il
N 0 Z7
N o
O O V) 7
? _ ?` z
T
1 I

., . '.?. ? i ?, • I I:{,W'4r?11.L'r,t `f"lr. lu .
M 11 ??? i ?. f• , ?' I I ? I I , I'I,?II!Ijll'?• i!1 . V .%? II ,??
y ?• \ ? 11 ? I' ,'i 11i? i M 11, I 111{I! , ( '%
. • y l
?• ,?.. ?.i, ','? 411 1; ', \', .t ??`:; ??+ \?,` a Ni
,J\\/?\) •? II
AE1i?lld'I•' V4
/ ? ? . '{I?e I I,,' I I 1 1 t• ?I' I I ?, I f l I I •?•1? Y?/.?_ V V
?? Jf ,p r I f / ail ld I r cccITTT,^tlt. ?''i ?` ,I
I'o ll l l I III I l j l 1' I ., • , ?, j?jE+?Yfr' „?. \ V
p'' IYj J l tl?sl?,l ?It 'tl' j i'hlf I 11? t t ` i • RV '
?i1 ? ? 1 1 i Y
llrl rt .1+11tt+?l?,,t. 1? ? t 1 t?l?t .:
o Q
1 t Jr Z f l 1q" 41
flt? i t ?ilrit 1 © " i
_ ?? I ?1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 4? rf?>:
? 1 rN It.
a3° ? I ?11 J?
iY,'(j111 1 1}II, It Ir ' I 1• n
.1 s e Ir ,i1
. a% ,r t 1111 1 I, f I t `
•. tt 11,11 It
r I,.1?1 l• t 1 1 ? r Q
• s ??,il ,{,1,111 11111,E ? 1 11 q ?_
??s I r4?1ji T'rJ «' 1?114'It
44,
i ? ll?yy 1, i? I ljl ?ja11s 1 J
?G 1?, IYI t lIS , ? • Pl •?
r u _% r 1 1 `.#,11111+ 1 V t,
.01
o.?: s ?' 1,I?'t ? Itl rll?1¢IPI1j1?1? .. ...?
}???? ? 11? is ?,4 V• «• ?, 171 1? 1 ? I lr Id, ITS?,, Il r' mss. _ +
?o'?.? n ? ? # 111 ,y s l 1? 11+ 1 ??1 1+,'.1{Ili't ?1• ? \ •s?o d
•1,!` ? , •? ? _ 1 I. q1T Ill' t !#: { 1 t,7?: 1 i 4 1 ~ •' C 'L' O
tli?i?,t1?11;`I,?'If?,Irl. ?(G n o0
•. '' ? 1i 't I l I 1{d II Il'. c Z • .
}I 1' 1 1 I
?? 1 f g1111? 111 ?IJ:IL Il ??`?, :ssa ?,?,• u •
i,l11?1 ?' I?If?I ¢i1?¢?IItE t y
• ?, ?1 ?1 ? I? tl ? 1 ?t ? ? ? r. ? E"1 T. p
/ ??`o *?i t 1 ti ? 111 11• ?, 11f yIlly ?1' I?l ? , \ ° /t Q .-?i w
' ! ; •? 1 I1/t11 ftlP`i tl`111y1t , J. 2 a
51??1{o? ,.? 1?' E w V d
y ,? .
a d t? 1?1;lljt?t C1 • (ai?r
it mow. 1? I 1?
111#ii• JI "L Z fa
111 j '•' ?'' _
1 l
,?t.•? ? ? yt"y1y.,1?11@,.?If? 111j?
1'?11,'T '11 I. ? ~ r+ U a1
7 V
? o
92
O

~
Q
o
° 0
n
r ` a d
. O
I N Q'r IYi r_
h I~ z o o eh ,.?.,
v< c ?9#E z O Ar
-

r E
e aa a
>
>
T+

t
0
a o y,
ic

41

..,

,? U

. ,

o O

a
6 00

m a
1;a U
c
Z GHQ ?} ` IX
NEW

•
Ex i sTi,v C LAKE ?i 7?j ? a V AJ
_-+?-
-Ex4'.rriA-1 dF
Si ,u GL E •r7?'?t i p ?' 0 6 G M. i N E
- NEW R a AD CD l Kc'?
PeRn? r.0 .4?e ell
.? Svc,,, r D I K 6.
-N ed q oe- p,4-r tt WA Y
74
c5A-Z ' .3 0? ?7¢
GjVGLOfU R E /

oI

J
J
01
J
Nf
a.

0
oc
•u
lo;?
A
c
x
''off
0
H ? J%
oil
a
b ?v
o?
a
n??b
Q o?
a?sz
4
V

v v a
3 ? U
U ? 0 3?

it
e
o
v
?,
a?

l?r! \
+H
I?
I ?
a \
aC
b \

v
v
Z
b
v
a

_ 4-
v
v
NZ"-%
. _a
4) .5AIe-,5r
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
CESAW-C090-N-077-0114 December 23, 1991
ASSESSMENT, FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
AND STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
Applicant: Southern Products and Silica Company, Incorporated
Post Office Drawer 189
Hoffman, North Carolina 28347
This permit action is being taken under authority delegated to the
Wilmington District Engineer by the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of
Engineers by Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 325.8, pursuant to:
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
_X-Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act.
Section 4(e) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act of 1953.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Water Quality
Certification issued by the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management.
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management.
Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Consistency concurred and CAMA permit issued by North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management.
Conforms to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, (40 CPR 230, FR 24 DEC
80).
Conforms to the Ocean Dumping Criteria (40 CFR 220-229, FR 11 JAN
77).
Pro ect Description: Plans submitted with the application show the proposed
construction of approximately 2,150 linear feet of an 8-foot-wide, 2 1/2-foot-
„0b., high dike/service road to facilitate the surface mining of unweathered
quartzite material in approximately 130 (reduced from the original proposal of
208) acres of forested wetlands supporting the growth of swamp blackgum (Nvssa
svlvatica v. biflora), baldcypress (Taxodium distichum), red maple (Acer
rubrum), sweetgum (Liauidamber stvraciflua), Atlantic white-cedar
(Chamaecvparis thyoides), and loblolly pine ( nus taeda). Approximately 10
acres are planned to be mined each year for the next 10 years. The dike,
which is to provide access for mining equipment and impound lake water
resulting from mining operations, is to be aligned no closer than 300 feet to
Drowning Creek.
-2-
The applicant, who has been surface mining in adjacent areas for the last
eighteen years, states that the deposits, used primarily by the public sector
throughout the southern United States as filter materials for potable and
waste water treatment systems, are unique to wetland areas. They are unaware
of any other natural, alluvial deposits which provide the hard, rounded, iron-
free material of the quality required for filter operations.
The applicant proposes to reclaim as much as possible of the 130 acres to
be mined. After mining operations are completed and time is allowed for
suspended particles to settle, the dike is to be breached to allow the lake to
slowly drain. The material used to construct the dike is then to be placed
back into the lake area returning approximately 21 acres of the area to pre-
mining topography. This resulting exposed soil area is to be planted with
wetland species. As mitigation for the unavoidable and unreclaimable wetland
loss through flooding of the remaining area, the applicant proposes to
purchase and preserve 218 acres of high quality forested wetlands within the
Drowning Creek-Lumber River drainage basin. Contingent with issuance of a
Department of the Army permit, the applicant offers to transfer funds for the
acquisition of such property to the North Carolina Nature Conservancy.
Environmental Setting: The work site is situated between Hoffman and Southern
Pines, North Carolina, adjacent and north of U.S. Highway 1 in Richmond
County. The applicant has been mining in the area for a number of years and
the site now consists of physical features ranging from highly disturbed mined
acreage to pristine second growth bottomland hardwood timber. Most of the
timber has been cut in the past and some acreage has been cultivated. Two
dikes, probably used to extract logs from along the creek, extend into the
swamp. Habitat types present include gum-cypress swamp immediately along the
creek; maple-gum and gum-maple swamp comprise the most widely occurring plant
community; pine-maple-gum swamp as a successional stage of prior clearcut
logging or farming; pond pine pocosin representing what was probably the
dominant community prior to man induced disturbances; pine-white cedar-maple
swamp probably established on old clearcuts or burns; and mesic hardwood
forest on the outer edges of the floodplain.
Environmental Impacts: The National Marine Fisheries service responded to
the public notice for this proposal by advising that any adverse effects that
might occur on marine and anadromous fishery resource would be minimal. They
did not object to the issuance of a permit.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) commented that the project would
result in the direct loss of a significant amount of high quality broadleaved
deciduous needle-leaved evergreen, seasonally flooded or saturated, palustrine
forested wetlands. They consider habitat at the site as high in value to _
wildlife species. On this basis they concluded that the project would cause
an unacceptable loss of important public trust resources and that the work
-3-
would be contrary to EPA guidelines for the disposal of dredged or fill
material. They added that alternative upland sources of siliceous sand and
gravel material are available that would not require the discharge of fill in
wetlands. They recommended the permit not be issued for the project.
The above comments were sent to the applicant for rebuttal. They
responded by requesting an extended reply time until all input had been
received from other governmental or private parties interested in the
proposal.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) requested
the applicant address the water dependency and practicable alternative issues
of the project associated with the Federal 404(b)(1) guidelines. They asked
if mining the gravel and sand from upland areas would be a practicable
alternative. If these two issues are satisfied then mitigation for lost
wetland resources must be considered. A wetland vegetation map was requested
for this purpose.
The applicant submitted their rebuttal to the concerns of water dependency
of the proposal. They felt the project is water dependant based on the
physical and chemical characteristics that make the various products produced
from the riverine deposit uniquely suited for the water and chemical
filtration applications and sandblasting applications of their customers.
Cost factors of mining in lowlands have caused the company to explore
previously for upland sources of this product without success. Patterson
Exploration Services attested to the uniqueness of their deposit by commenting
that, after considerable effort, they found no known minable upland deposits
which would meet Southern's needs or be similar to the Drowning Creek deposit.
Efforts were made to search 23 known abandoned deposits within the State and
every mining operation permitted in North and South Carolina to find similar
deposits. No acceptable alternatives or suitable similar deposits were found.
Methods to process a similar product were explored but all failed to duplicate
the hardness requirement of the material. Since the existing product is
situated in wetlands, is unique, and cannot be satisfactorily duplicated by
.,.? processing, the applicant requested concurrence with their contention that the
proposed project is water dependant without upland alternatives.
The applicant's alternatives analysis supporting their contentions was
forwarded for comment to Federal and State agencies.
The USF&WS stated that the alternatives analysis appeared to be
inappropriate in that the applicant sought to document the fact that no upland
deposit exists which is identical to that presently being mined rather than
-4-
documenting any lack of upland deposits which are of sufficient quality for
the purposes required by the applicants' clients. The issue is not whether
the deposit presently being mined by the applicant is unique, but, rather,
whether upland deposits of similar materials are available. Information
provided to the Service by personnel of the N.C. Division of Land Resources
and N.C. Geological Survey indicated that similar deposits are being mined
from uplands in the vicinity of the proposed project. The applicants' Exhibit
B indicated that there are numerous presently inactive sites which could
supply material which, although they may not possess characteristics identical
to the deposit presently mined by the applicant, may be suitable for use by
the applicant's clients. The USF&WS continued to recommend that the permit
not be issued.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission reiterated and summarized
the comments of the USF&WS relative to the applicant's alternative analysis.
They recommended a permit not be issued for the project.
With regards to the alternatives analysis, the NCDEM requested the
following information: 1) A map locating the 23 alternative mining sites
investigated as alternative locations; 2) a letter from the N.C. Minerals
Research Lab testifying to the approximate cost and feasibility of benefaction
of other material to support their contention of the infeasibility of this
option; 3) quantitative chemical and physical data demonstrating the fact that
upland sands are not suitable for their needs; 4) documentation supporting
Patterson Exploration Services' contention that it would not be-economically
feasible to clean other resources to meet the product standards; 5)
information addressing the question of whether synthetic materials are
available or could be developed for their products and the relative costs
compared to existing materials.
Patterson Exploration Services responded to questions 3) and 4) in the
previous paragraph as follows: a) Item 3 - all upland deposits known to them
are "dirtier" than Southern's due to the environment in which it is found.
-Ohl Leaching and dissolution in a low pH aqueous environment dissolves iron oxides
and washes other impurities (clay and silt) from the deposit. Typical upland
deposits contain iron-stained sand and gravel, "sugar" gravel, and dirty fine-
grained sand unsuitable for their market. No one else in this part of the
country can produce as pure a product. This is reflected in the fact that
Southern's prices are ten times higher than the average prices of their
competitors. b) Item 4 - The cost to upgrade product purchased elsewhere would
involve constructing a costly chemical processing plant along with "hand
picking" each impurity from the materials. The economics of building such a
processing plant for cleaning and sizing someone else's product would put
Southern out of business. Even if such a plant were built, the processing -
procedure still would not remove internal impurities inside the gravel or
sand.
-5-
Mr. Edward R. Burt III, of the Geological Survey Section, North Carolina
Division of Land Resources, responded to Southern's alternatives analysis by
commenting on the transportation costs and location of deposit factors
involved with surface mining. Competition dictates that the producer of such
materials must be located near to the market relative to other producers. The
fact that the company ships product over such a wide area and still remains
competitive suggests the product must be superior or unique. Likewise,
certain gravel deposits are unique when considered for a specific end use. In
Mr. Burt's opinion the company has made a reasonable effort without success to
locate other deposits. He felt that if a similar deposit were to be found in
eastern NC it would also be in wetlands. He felt Southern had made its case
for no alternative, non-wetland sites.
Mr. Charles Hoffman, Senior Geologist, North Carolina Geological Survey,
visited the Drowning Creek mine site. He forwarded information comparing the
chemical composition of two upland and one Carolina Bay deposit sites. The
upland deposits were significantly more impure. The Bay deposit could yield a
high-silica product with mechanical washing but, like Southern's existing
deposit, it was in a wetland. Although Mr. Hoffman commented that Southern's
deposit was not necessarily unique, he felt that any similar deposit occurring
in this region would be found in essentially the same setting as the Drowning
Creek deposit (e.g. alluvial and derived from a particular composition of
source materials located in a low-lying, well-drained area such as a
floodplain). He knew of no other such deposits in NC that had been discovered
to date.
NCDEM held a meeting of all interested parties to discuss the practicable
alternatives question. They confirmed that information provided by the
applicant and discussed by Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Burt answered their questions
about benefaction, costs and synthetic substitutes. The map of alternative
locations was deemed useful. They requested more chemical data to support the
contention that the deposit is unique.
-?. The applicant submitted the requested data to NCDEM and it was circulated
to interested Federal and State agencies. Mr. Bill Hoffman, NC Geological
Survey Section, commented that the company's report on chemical composition
appeared to be consistent with what was previously provided by Southern
Products and when compared to reports from the Minerals Research Laboratory of
NC State University.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission commented that the
alternatives analysis was satisfactory and it appeared that the applicant had
demonstrated that there were no practical alternative to mining in wetlands
for the same quality of sand and gravel as previously mined. They cautioned
that this was not to imply that they concurred with issuing either mining or
Clean Water Act permits. They met with the company's representative and were
hopeful that an acceptable reclamation plan would be submitted which would
partially offset project impacts.
-6-
A meeting to discuss mitigation was held in Raleigh on August 30, 1990.
Water Quality Certification No. 2551 was issued January 7, 1991, by the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management.
On November 19, 1991, a copy was received of the warranty deed
transferring 218 acres of property adjacent the Lumber River in Robeson County
to the Nature Conservancy on behalf of Southern Products and Silica.
Alternatives: Based on the public review record, the alternatives analysis
and review support the applicant's contention that the proposed project is
water dependant and that no upland alternatives are available for a similar
sand and gravel resource.
Mitigation: The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission reviewed the
supplemental mitigation plan submitted by the applicant and responded that
certain issues warranted further comment. While agreeing that natural
regeneration of the mined site would return the area to a wetland system,
maximization of wildlife habitat would only result from planting higher
wildlife tree species at greater densities. Rather than allow natural
regeneration of sweetgum and red maple, species having low wildlife values in
general, the WRC recommended planting mast bearing species such as blackgum,
water oak, willow oak, laurel oak, etc. They objected to leaving the
reclamation plan to natural regeneration. They recommended planting
appropriate tree species in appropriate locations on the graded dike and fan
areas. This would be in conjunction with previously proposed measures of
offsite mitigation in the form of land acquisition and buffer easements around
the lake. They could not envision concurring with permit issuance until the
requested information had been received and an acceptable reclamation plan
developed.
A meeting was held in the District offices on January 25, 1991, to discuss
.,.? final mitigation and permit condition recommendations and the concerns of the
US Fish & Wildlife Service and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission with the proposal. The USF&WS commented that the applicant needed
to justify the quantity and compensatory mitigation being proposed. They
recommended a minimum replacement ratio of 3 acres protected for each acre of
bottomland hardwood or pocosin wetland area lost. For them to accept a
reduced ratio, a quantitative demonstration of full habitat value replacement
would need to be undertaken by the applicant. In their opinion, it was
unlikely that a one to one ratio to replace lost wetlands at Drowning Creek at
the Lumber River would be acceptable. In the event that this was the
situation, the Service anticipated that additional mitigation measures would
be needed. Increasing the size of the compensation area through obtaining
conservation easements onsite for the proposed buffer area; conservation
easements on wetlands adjacent to Drowning Creek or the existing mine site; or
increasing the size of the proposed acquisition were feasible alternatives.
Another alternative would be for the applicant to implement fish and wildlife
management plans on the mitigation sites to significantly improve their value
to fish and wildlife.
-7-
The Wildlife Resources Commission's representative did not attend this
meeting. They were requested by letter to concur with the USF&WS's
recommendations and/or to submit additional comments or recommendations.
Their concurrence was received by letter dated March 28, 1991, with a
recommendation that the applicant submit a summary plan consolidating all
aspects of reclamation and mitigation.
In compliance with the alternatives suggested by the USF&WS for acceptable
mitigation, Southern Products, with the concurrence and acceptance by the
Nature Conservancy, proposed to purchase 218 acres of bottomland hardwood
wetlands in Robeson County near the confluence of the Lumber River and Big
Swamp. The Nature Conservancy inspected the property and agreed to accept it
on its behalf or on behalf of the Lumber River Conservancy for preservation
purposes. They intended that the tract eventually would be included in the
State's effort to protect the Lumber River as a Natural and Scenic River.
This plan was submitted to the USF&WS for review and comment. They
responded by agreeing to this proposal in principal and requested submission
of a revised mitigation plan that would specify in one place what had been
agreed upon for mitigation purposes. They also urged the applicant to
consider the N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission's suggestion to create
waterfowl nesting islands in the ponds. During a telephone conversation
between the USF&WS and the Corps, it was agreed that acceptance of a revised
mitigation plan and legal transfer of the property to the Nature Conservancy
would occur before a permit would be issued.
A consolidated mitigation plan incorporating all agreed upon aspects of
reclamation and mitigation was submitted by the company to the USF&WS and the
NCWRC for their concurrence and approval in writing. Under cover of their
letter dated November 26, 1991, the USF&WS concurred with the revised
mitigation plan provided that all other recommendations would be included as
special conditions of the issued permit.
Summary: I have reviewed the application and plans furnished by the applicant
and the environmental assessment. I am aware that the project would directly
degrade or destroy approximately 130 acres of bottomland hardwood wetland.
However, the applicant has shown conclusively that the project is water
dependant and that upland alternatives and/or mechanical processing of similar
deposits would not give the company an economically marketable product that
would meet specification standards required by their customers.

-8-
In compliance with the Mitigation Memorandum of Agreement between the
US Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers the company has
or proposes to satisfy the requirements of this document in the following
manner:
a. Avoidance - Southern Products has satisfied that their proposal
crosses the thresholds of having no alternative upland mine locations for an
economically acceptable product and that the project is water dependant
because sand meeting their specification and quality requirements is only
found in alluvial deposits under riverine waters or wetlands.
b. Minimization - the scope of the requested mining activities has been
rTueS? reduced from the originally proposed 208 to 130 acres, a reduction of 37.5.
"Qptv(-) Q?. Adverse impacts will further be reduced by excluding all activities within 300
feet of Drowning Creek, a 52 acre area of wetlands. Mining, filling, or
clearing will not occur within this zone. This will prevent the mining from
directly impacting Drowning Creek, the area of highest flooding frequency and
water quality value will be minimally impacted, and a forested corridor will
be maintained between the mine and the creek.
According to the reclamation plan, approximately 26 acres of the 130 acre
tract can be returned to original elevation through redeposition of spoil and
debris. Given that almost 6 acres of this will be returned to the existing
Tyner Lake, the new mining activity will leave 109 acres of permanently
flooded pond.
The company has further agreed to adopt the mine site reclamation plan
suggested by the US Soil Conservation Service. This will involve prescribed
above and below pond slopes, plant seeding and fertilization, and planting
balcypress and Atlantic white-cedar (Chamaecvparis thvoides) seedlings in
prescribed densities and formulas.
C. Mitigation - unmitigatable lost wetland resources on-site will be
offset by purchasing 218 acres of high quality forested wetlands in the
11W, Drowning Creek-Lumber River drainage basin within Robeson County where public
ownership is absent. The site is located at the junction of the Lumber River
and Big Swamp, north of US Highway 74. It is forested with second growth
baldypress and water tupelo (Nvssa aauatica) and contains old sloughs and
canals. The tract was donated to the Nature Conservancy (or the Lumber River
Conservancy) and will eventually be included in the State's effort to protect
the Lumber River as a Natural and Scenic River.
The proposed project has had extensive review through our normal public notice
process. All substantive objections to the project as of the writing have
been resolved by Southern Products in satisfactorily addressing the no
alternatives and water dependancy conditions and by mitigating for lost
wetland resources.
I have reviewed the application and plans and the public interest record, and
I find that the proposed work, with mitigation, will not have a significant
effect on the quality of the human environment.
.0
-9-
I find that this application is not a major Federal action significantly
affecting the human environment; and hence, the preparation of a detailed
statement under Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environment Policy Act of
1969 is not required.
I have given full consideration to this application. After weighing favorable
and unfavorable aspects, I find that the issuance of a permit to Southern
Products and Silica Company, Incorporated will not be contrary to the general
public interest provided that it adheres to the conditions incorporated in the
permit.
roll- alter S. Tulloch
olonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer